<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I bet practically every 2400 has five or more APs up his/her sleeve .. it's not like a high SAT score precludes extraordinary academic performance elsewhere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
True, many people could achieve 2400 if they wanted to, but then it just comes down to motivation (by themselves or by their parents).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt it. Everyone 'peaks', and not everyone's peak is 2400, or 2300+, or 2200+.</p>
<p>One more point about many past leaders not caring about standardized tests. First of all, many of them were not academic geniuses and would not have scored well on the SAT.. well neither would they have done well on APs or practically any other knowledge based test. Second of all, the States are only becoming more competitive with regards to hte college scene in recent years. Back in the 70s and earlier, hardly anybody cared much about the SAT. It's possible that many people didn't try their best on the test. That doesn't mean that they would have scored low had they given it their all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's your prerogative. However, calling the SAT test flawed because top math students do not get 800 M is not correct. Phuriku COULD have gotten 800 M had they really wanted to.</p>
<p>And there's no solution to that problem. The SAT math is balls-easy for Phuriku, but all across the nation, average students are strugging to finish the problems in time. Making the test harder wouldn't do much, especially because there <em>are</em> already harder math tests for advanced math students (AIME, USAMO...) In my opinion, those who have already taken multivariable calculus and complex analysis should simply suck it up and do all the math on the SAT. If you're going to spend 4 hours in that room, I can't see why you wouldn't want to try your best, especially since those 4 hours can be of importance in college admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, calling the SAT test flawed because top math students do not get 800 M is not correct.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not exactly calling the test itself flawed as much as I'm saying the idea behind the test is flawed, and judging everyone by the SAT is silly. If someone does god-awful on the SAT but has perfect AP scores, then he should be looked favorably upon, and his SAT scores shouldn't matter.</p>
<p>The AP Calc BC test is a joke for some kids.... </p>
<p>Every test is a joke for some kids. It's just that some have an easier time shedding their pride than others, I guess. Is it that degrading and annoying to spend one hour of your life doing easy math seriously?</p>
<p>I didn't bother to read the whole thread, but I agree completely with the TC's first post.</p>
<p>The test really doesn't reflect your true ability at all. Neither does the ACT. I got a 25 first time around, and one month later, doing absolutely NOTHING to prepare, I got a 32. Now tell me, what kind of test is that? A flawed one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just FYI, Bill Gates received a 1590/1600 on his SAT, back when only 7 of one million test takers received a 1600.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>hahaha, u beat me to saying that. seriously the bill gates example has been incorrectly used too many times in this thread. now they just end up pwning themselves.</p>
<p>and yes, i agree with your conclusions about the sat. it doesn't test for intelligence, just how much you studied. (collegeboard would want it that way, or else who would buy the blue book!?)</p>
<p>So can anyone think of a better test? There was that "ACT is better than SAT" trend a little while ago, but the ACT just turned out to be a shallow little know-nothing. </p>
<p>Besides, how many people do you know have 2300+ (on the first try, or without studying) who aren't inherently smart? Some people work hard, study, get good grades in school, but just don't do well when it comes to things that require intrinsic intelligence. Some slackers do better than some A students on the SAT because they might be naturally smarter. But these slackers often have poor grades, and that isn't going to get them into a good college. That's why colleges look at both these things when they consider a student's academic capability. Is there any better, practical way to judge?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There was that "ACT is better than SAT" trend a little while ago, but the ACT just turned out to be a shallow little know-nothing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As far as I know, that trend is still going strong. More and more competitive kids from the Northeast are beginning to take the ACT in conjunction with or instead of the SAT. I don't think the ACT is a shallow or worthless test at all. I got equivalent scores on the two, but I prefer the ACT in terms of material.</p>
<p>Actually, my reference to Bill Gates is his dropout status at Harvard University. It was in the section where I explain that "academic success" does not at all warrant a successful career.</p>
<p>I think I love the way Brtish Education works more. They have only specific test AS and A Level of all subjects you take and then finish the exam in year 11 and year 12. If you do well you have chances to even go to Oxford.</p>
<p>I agree. The SAT only shows how much you studied for the SAT, not whether you are actually proficient at math, writing, reading.</p>
<p>The SAT subject tests are even worse, they only show how good you are at one subject. I know plenty of people who are failing high school but get great marks on the SAT subject tests because its their favorite subject/language.</p>
<p>I really don't see the point of saying that the fact that work can earn one a high SAT score is a downside.</p>
<p>It's also easy to get a high GPA by putting in a lot of work without any particular talent...the same could be said about proficiency at a sport. I got a 2400 and a 36, yet I have a crappy GPA. Maybe I just don't want to work on material I already know, just like Phuriku.</p>
<p>wow that's lame. then i shouldn't have got my SAT score considering that between my 3 sittings, my total studying time for the SATs in my whole life ever was less than 3 weeks.</p>
<p>there's no need to discredit those who naturally just "get" the SATs by saying that the score only shows how much they studied for it. Some have been hardworking their whole lives in rigorous curricula. some just "get" it. everybody's different, deal with it.</p>
<p>My GPA is 3.4ish and its because of laziness that crippled me much on G 9,10 (3.1,3.2 respectively) . However, my GPA improved by getting 3.7 in G11 and now as a senior I am getting around 3.8~.
Fortunately, my SAT score is high enough (1510/2070 -> school I'm applying to doesn't look at writing score). I think my SAT score as a redemption for my poor GPA.</p>