SAT 2300+ Is Teh n00b

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>I just had my SAT experience. The first time I took the test i got around 2000. </p>

<p>Second time I got around 2200 after my parents forced me to try my hardest on it (I actually did try). </p>

<p>Third time, I honestly didn't even care anymore. I was in depression from my daily affairs. To make things worse, I was on this drug that had me completely messed up/almost dazed. </p>

<p>I ended up getting a 2320. ***? Besides being depressed and nearly high during the entire thing, I also was thinking of other things besides the test. </p>

<p>The SAT is one of the worst benchmarks in the entire college application process. 80% of it is determined by luck. Furthermore, it shows absolutely nothing about a person's future career potential. NOTHING. (Besides how well someone can memorize specific test-taking strategies and do trivial problems that will be applied nowhere in the future, unless he/she wants to join collegeboard)</p>

<p>Look at people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. These two people didn't do extremely well in school, and they ended up pwning many people that got 2400's. </p>

<p>I think the SAT should be shut down in the future and completely disregarded as a factor. The amount of luck that is involved, the amount of potential parental pressure than it can generate, and the fact that it is just simply irrelevant to true core human abilities constitutes a kick/ban. </p>

<p>It's like showing how well someone can knife others in CS. Although it takes some skill......guns>grenades>knives (in the game, not in real life).</p>

2

<p>Lots of things to say/ask. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>How can colleges tell the differences between two B+ students academically wise(putting extra-curricular activites aside). Even with a similar class rank, what if the school is flawed? Colleges need some sort of standard test so tehy can tell who is better in the same situation rather than one kid having some really hard math teacher and the other having a teacher that grades very easily/leniently. </p></li>
<li><p>Just curious, what did you do to prepare? What books?</p></li>
<li><p>I noticed your username, do you have COD 4 on Xbox 360 or PS3? If on 360, can I send you a friend request? </p></li>
<li><p>In my opinion, colleges know that it's about who can memorize or study the most, but that's the point. People who aren't smart(even if it's A+ student in a easy class) won't be able to know all the math and find good ways to get around vocab. It really is a very difficult thing to do and only those who are good enough can manage it. Those who can't are those that colleges don't want because they couldn't reach that type of elite level that colleges want. </p></li>
<li><p>You know that IQ is proportional to the SAT? I can't remember the exact #s but they were talking about how a 2.3 difference in IQ can make a 10 point difference or something like that. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>*Am I saying that it's not luck at all? No, it is luck somewhat because you want to hope that you get easy questions or a good essay topic, but how you react to difficult scenarios can really make someone stand out. *</p>

3

<p>wasn't bill gates at harvard before he dropped out or something like that?</p>

4

<p>yeah, he dropped out of harvard.</p>

5

<p>Well Bill Gates also got lucky and so did every other billionare, but they all had something that set them apart from everyone else who wanted to get rich. Colleges understand the luck part but know that it can be overcomed with studying.</p>

6

<p>No, my stance is that the test itself is inherently flawed. People who get 2200+ on the SAT are very commonly less bright and have less potential than some people who don't achieve that score. In fact, I'll go as far to say that around 90% of students that achieve the score are ones that study a SIGNIFICANT amount, in specific, for the exam. </p>

<p>Although this shows academic motivation, it does NOT perform the "benchmark" function that it is supposed to. There are many students that could achieve 2400's if they are forced to, but they simply find the SAT to be a stupid test that they do not want to study for. </p>

<p>People that are past Calculus and Linear Algebra will commonly NOT get 800's on the math section (although they may come very close). Likewise, people that can read and write at the college/post-graduate level will commonly NOT get 800's on the reading and writing sections. In fact, I am willing to bet that most people that get 800's in sections are not people that are extremely proficient at the subject. They simply took a @(#&$(*#$&)@ amount practice tests. People who are already experts at specific fields of study do not see the point in studying intensively for a test that holds no true academic value.</p>

<p>What should colleges use to evaluate students then? AP tests are, in my opinion, are alternatives that bring academic evaluation and value far beyond what the SAT can offer. </p>

<p>I think I can speak for many people on this board that do not achieve full scores in specific parts of the SAT. They can be math experts, reading whizzes, or writing geniuses, etc, and still not get scores as high as someone who spends the entire day studying. Getting an 800 in the math portion isn't going to do %*(# for your future mathematics. The same concept applies to the reading and writing sections. At least the AP tests are more in-depth, content-specific, and offer a deeper level of academic variety.</p>

<p>Do colleges really want people who spend 1000 hours studying for a single test, or a person that can bring true academic prowess and intuition into their gates? Think back historically. It is PROVEN through history that most prominent leaders and achievers were not ones that were willing to sit at a desk studying for tests all day. From Napoleon to Einstein, from Bill Gates to Steve Jobs, and from Abraham Lincoln to Hitler himself (not that I condone his actions), all of them were not ones that would sit for a standardized test. In fact, most of them didn't do a great job in school. However, these people all had true imaginations and intellectual curiosity. People like Newton, the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, and others have pioneered the modern lifestyle. Did they do FANTASTIC in school?</p>

<p>Now, I am in no way saying that this should apply to everyone. There still should be a standard. The standard just shouldn't be the SAT. It COMMONLY, COMMONLY, COMMONLY places people that in fact have less academic knowledge and potential "above" others that are exponentially better. These "others" also have a *(@#$(##@ more potential for success than people that just mechanically study for a standardized test. I would rather have a person that has five 5's on different AP tests than a person that has a 2400 on a test that holds three bland, diluted, and distorted subjects.</p>

<p>As for my 2320, I may just have gotten lucky. If I did, is that fair to everyone else? </p>

<p>Or it might be because of my numerous hours of FORCED study from my parents. After taking it, I feel that it shows absolutely nothing about my academic abilities and shows nothing about what I can really do in the future. My stats, extracurriculars, AP tests, and even my personal essay show that numerous times better than the SAT does.</p>

<p>Oh btw, I have CoD 4 for PC. :) Mouse/keyboard=win</p>

7

<p>^hmm.... you brought up a good point, ap tests certainly would be a good way to evaluate potential and knowledge. but the only problem is that not all schools have ap programs.</p>

8

<p>Again, the SAT (and the ACT) is not the be-all and end-all of college admissions. They are read together with your grade transcripts and ECs, which would provide the AOs with a more complete picture of yourself. </p>

<p>I agree with you that people beyond Calc BC and Linear Algebra may not score 800s on the test (carelessness, etc...) but they should at least get >700 for the Math SAT section, and that is all that matters. Remember, college admissions is not a case whereby a 2300 and you are in, and a 2290 and you are out situation. It is never so clear cut. If they see that you have taken a very rigorous curriculum or good ECs, a lower SAT score would not hurt you very much. Conversely, a 2400 is not going to help you a lot, if you have no ECs or weak curricula and just study every day. =p</p>

<p>True, many people could achieve 2400 if they wanted to, but then it just comes down to motivation (by themselves or by their parents). If you are motivated enough to sit down, crunch through the vocab list, and do innumerable exercises (and yet have excellent grades and/or ECs, if not they won't accept you anyway), then I think by all means the AOs should view that as a plus point, showing that you are hardworking too. </p>

<p>Also, it is quite impossible to design a standard college admissions test taken by 1.4 million students around the world per year such that it is impossible to prepare for.</p>

<p>Finally, as RahoulVA said, colleges know the flaws in the SAT and they look at it mainly as an equating factor especially around the middle ranges (~1500/2400 and an average GPA). At the highest end, it shouldn't matter whether your SAT is 2100 or 2400 if your ECs are good and your curriculum is rigorous. Remember, a 2400 on the SAT (or a 4800 if you have 2400 SAT I and 2400 SAT II) is not an automatic shoo-in, nor is a 2100 an automatic reject.</p>

9

<p>Oh COD4, I think there is currently an investigation to compare the result between SAT and AP. It is said that the correlation (r, a term in Statistics) of SAT is 0.2 over 1 (1 is the maximum value) whereas the AP so far (has not completed yet) already overcomes 0.75. I think this shall prove something.</p>

<p>One of my friends who is absolutely bright in Math, Physics and Metaphysics only get 680 in Math section. Perhaps this could be an extreme example.</p>

<p>But life is really short and brutish, it does not need to consult the ideas of its pathetic beings. It is always there, present at hand. Its silence suffocates people. Yet they are still immersed in it, attached to it and make fun with it. So, enjoy.
I really love this from Albert Camus: "Do your job as it should be done"</p>

10

<p>You know what else really makes the SAT frustrating and lucky? Carelessness, as in the makers of the SAT fit in that one word that people don't notice at the end. So they use good logic and do the correct way and they get it wrong just because they missed one word. So is the person that happened to see that word or phrase better for college? It's just one word, it's a test that you're timed on so you're going to be going fast!</p>

<p>I was doing some practice problems and it was an average problem with temperature. I didn't see the 13 degrees below 0, just 13, and it was towards the end of the medium section so I double checked(thinking that my answer my be a trap) and it sort of was. They had the trap answer(of not seeing below zero) and the real answer. I have this image in my mind of these writers just laughing themselves off about people thinking they get the right answer after a lot of hard work but missed one thing. Obviously this doesn't happen but these traps of missing one word doesn't prove anything like dedication or things that you see from extra curricular activies.</p>

11

<p>That's why the SAT is often the least important factor in college admissions =p.</p>

12

<p>Hey, most of the time that kills me off.
In CR, the same issue.
Nearly 3/4 questions I get wrong are those one out of two that I work assiduously to eliminate.</p>

13

<p>I think the SAT II's should actually have more pull in the admissions process. The tests are designed to test ones knowledge in a subject which could eventually applied in the future. Moreover, the SAT II's I atleast have done are not the sort of "Get a 800 by memorizing and practicing the %$# out of it in practice tests". The biology and AP US history exams were very comprehensive, something which tested your fundamental knowledge and ability to use your logic to apply it, it wasn't straight forward. You would have to have done well in a class, or made a strong effort to self study the masterial to do well.</p>

<p>The SAT is to some extent a good indicator of ones aptitude/ "IQ", but really after a certain point the line becomes blurry (I.E is there really a difference between someone with a 700 vs 750 vs. 800?)</p>

14

<p>So, how do you get in UChicago, phuriku?</p>

15

<p>I support pretty much everything CallofDuty4 has said.</p>

<p>In high school, I took up through multivariable calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra. Upon matriculating into UChicago, I was one of only 10 out of 1300 entering students to be invited to take Honors Analysis after a rigorous placement examination (that involved interesting problems such as the proof of the "Axiom" of Archimedes). My SAT math score was 670, and if I took it again, I think I'd get about the same score. It's not that I don't know the material; it's just that I don't care to take a test on material I learned 5 years ago. If you gave me a test on integer addition, I probably wouldn't score a perfect...</p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree with you that people beyond Calc BC and Linear Algebra may not score 800s on the test (carelessness, etc...) but they should at least get >700 for the Math SAT section, and that is all that matters.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wish that were true, but it's not. Especially in the two other colleges I applied to: MIT and Caltech. I was rejected at both, and especially with the latter, it was due to this score that wasn't perfect enough for entrance.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, how do you get in UChicago, phuriku?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>UChicago is one of the very few elite colleges that are really pretty apathetic about SAT scores, and rely more on students' transcripts and essays, and their letters of recommendation. (3.95 UW, 4.5 W GPA with the courses I had taken plus a letter of recommendation from a PhD from NYU saying I'm the best student he's ever taught is quite difficult to dismiss unless some other factor which is held in extremely high regard is used against the applicant. In this case, it was SAT scores. Fortunately, Chicago doesn't care too much about them.)</p>

<p>The problem I see with AP testing is the same issue I see with SATs. The first thing I was told upon coming here was that "Calculus BC is Mickey Mouse mathematics", which is pretty much true once you see upper-level math. I can see how someone could be apathetic enough to get a 3 or a 4... especially with the amount of calculation required on the AP test. Most geniuses are "proof" types, not "calculation" types, anyway.</p>

<p>I think different groups of people have their intelligence measured more accurately by different tests. People in Calculus BC are more likely to have their intelligence more accurately measured by the AP than by the SAT, whereas for people in lower-level classes, it's the opposite. But what do you do with someone who is way beyond AP? In modern times, it seems that the only possible solution is math contests -- which is terrible, since real math is hardly equivalent to contest math.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think the SAT II's should actually have more pull in the admissions process. The tests are designed to test ones knowledge in a subject which could eventually applied in the future. Moreover, the SAT II's I atleast have done are not the sort of "Get a 800 by memorizing and practicing the %$# out of it in practice tests".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with you here that SAT IIs are better predictors of intelligence than the SAT is. I often see 2250 SATs coupled with 600-650 SAT IIs, and, conversely, 2100 SATs coupled with 750-800 SAT IIs. In particular, I know someone who got a 2100 SAT and took 5 SAT IIs, getting 800s on all of them. I usually find the people who score better on the SAT IIs more intelligent whereas the people who scored higher on their SATs than their SAT IIs are rather unintelligent... although this certainly doesn't work in all cases. And of course, I'd argue that the SAT IIs are inaccurate in the same way I've already argued that the AP tests can be inaccurate.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
My SAT math score was 670, and if I took it again, I think I'd get about the same score. It's not that I don't know the material; it's just that I don't care.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Might that mindset (of "just that I don't care") be a negative factor in college admissions to Caltech and MIT? If you are already at that level for math, I believe just 5 hours of practice and familiarization with the test materials and tricks would get you >750 easily. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I was rejected at both, and especially with the latter, it was due to this score that wasn't perfect enough for them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>With so many people (with curriculum as rigorous as yours, maybe) applying to these universities, the SAT scores might be used as a tie-breaker between 2 applicants which are fairly evenly-matched. You won't really know the true reason why MIT and Caltech did not accept you anyway.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
I think different groups of people have their intelligence measured more accurately by different tests. People in Calculus BC are more likely to have their intelligence more accurately measured by the AP than by the SAT, whereas for people in lower-level classes, it's the opposite. But what do you do with someone who is way beyond AP? In modern times, it seems that the only possible solution is math contests -- which is terrible, since real math is hardly equivalent to contest math.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I suppose one way out is if you take courses at local universities or community colleges at a level above AP (say on Analysis), and get the course instructor to write a supplemental recommendation for you, it would be one way out. Another would be to team up with a researcher and publish some papers.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
Might that mindset (of "just that I don't care") be a negative factor in college admissions to Caltech and MIT? If you are already at that level for math, I believe just 5 hours of practice and familiarization with the test materials and tricks would get you >750 easily.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're right. It would. The problem is that I thought my 5s on BC, Phys Cs, and Stats would be enough to convince the admissions staff that I knew the content of the SAT pretty well. But even if I didn't have the APs to back me up, I don't think I would've cared. I'm not going to waste my time, and I don't know why any college would value a student that would spend 5 hours studying for content that is going to be of no benefit in the future just to get a higher test score.</p>

<p>And I wouldn't think that serious institutions would judge people based upon their apathy toward the SAT. It wasn't that I didn't care about learning (my AP scores and courses should've showed that I cared about learning), it was that I didn't want to waste my time on an elementary math test. I think that's a pretty good quality in a student (but I'm biased :p)</p>

<p>Anyhow, we've gotten sidetracked...</p>

19

<p>Phuriku, I have a feeling I am the most forlorn man in this forum. My SAT is just terrible. For all my life I have strifed for Math but it seems that I already get to the last barrier of insanity. I had much more inclination upon Social Sciences. The first time I came to high school in US, I attended European History. You know just 3 days latter we have a test about Napoleon and I ventured to take the test thought it is not compulsory. Yet I have 95, surpised everyone, even the instructor.</p>

<p>By the same token I also do extremely well on AP English Literature, I have 99% and answer adequately all homeworks. I'm even take a Philosophy online course since I love Descartes and Hume. My best Math is Transcendental Logic and Modal Logic, which I guess very little students know how to do. Yet my Statistics class bogs down. Yesterday I am nearly insane to see I only get 68% of the test. Too angry I throw my Stat book against the wall 3 times and did think of suicide.</p>

<p>I guess I just cannot bear another worse SAT waiting ahead of me. 10 more days count down. Really nervious! Really obnoxious! Really dreadful. It is like you know 10 days latter you have a death penalty waiting for you.</p>

<p>I am attempting to go to University of Texas at Dallas since they have very good course on Economics, Business and Brain Science. But I really have a strong emotion that everything gradually slips away from me. I already determine that if after this year I cannot get to Texas or Rochester, I shall suicide. Life no longer has any meaning, really.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
People that are past Calculus and Linear Algebra will commonly NOT get 800's on the math section (although they may come very close). Likewise, people that can read and write at the college/post-graduate level will commonly NOT get 800's on the reading and writing sections.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a ridiculous statement. I can attest to the fact that practically every post-Calculus and post-Lin. Algebra kid I know of many got an 800 math. There is absolutely no reason for advanced math students not to ace SAT math. And those of my friends with 800 CR ARE the best writers and readers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Do colleges really want people who spend 1000 hours studying for a single test, or a person that can bring true academic prowess and intuition into their gates?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not everyone CAN get a 2400 even with 1000 hours of studying. And many who score highly on the test do not really spend that much time studying.</p>

<p>Using Bill Gates etc. as examples is unreasonable. Most successful people probably can do well on standardized tests. There's a reason why Bill is the richest man in the world: he's different from the other successes. Colleges are not trying to admit 100 Bills, because they are extremely rare. For the typical extraordinary student, test scores are one indicator of intelligence.</p>