<p>I do not recall ever encountering a question on which imagination or nuanced thinking would have been a disadvantage. Your points are attractive rationalizations for poor test performance by seemingly bright students, but they are simply not consistent with the content of the SAT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless I have forgotten an incident, I think my taking your posts too literally (with respect to intent) has been confined to the one instance in which your choice of 135, though apparently arbitrary in intention, had the incidental effect of meaningfully skewing the percentile concordances. If so, please remind me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your citing that is too analogous to things that would be indisputably offensive and unacceptable that I question your judgment (though not your motive) in doing so.</p>
<p>Odd that you would say that. I think that imagination or nuanced thinking would lead arguably different answers on a significant number of questions on the CR and writing sections, and a very small number of math questions. (There is at least one instance of a SAT math test needing to be rescored when a bright student contested the “answer” to an ambiguous math question – but generally with math there should be little ambiguity). </p>
<p>I’d argue that someone who cannot see the ambiguity in the CR/writing questions simply lacks imagination. I find some CR questions to be particularly galling, particularly those that ask for interpretation of passages of poetry or fiction.</p>
<p>You could perhaps make that argument for the writing section. It essentially tests rote memorization of grammar rules and the ability to write the SAT essay. If any comparisons to IQ are made, writing should be discarded.</p>
<p>Please offer some examples of questions for which imagination could lead to defensible answers that the College Board considers to be incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a difference between having imagination and being unable to discriminate among defensible and indefensible choices. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did you see a passage of poetry on the CR section?</p>
<p>I’m not going to dig up old posts. There were 3 or 4, and I also observed the same issue with your response to other posts, as well as some obvious gaps in understanding of statistics. (For example, you don’t seem to understand the distinction between correlation and causation). Some of this is stuff that I would expect college grads to know, but I wouldn’t expect a high school senior to necessarily understand – for example, I encouraged my kids to take statistics in college, which they did – but I certainly wouldn’t have expected them to know the concepts taught in the class prior to the time they took the course.</p>
<p>I really don’t see the SAT as a blunt tool. It seems like HYPS almost expects 2300+ from unhooked applicants. 2300+ isn’t achievable for most students and takes a decent mix of natural ability and preparation.</p>
<p>Also, a 2300+ SAT won’t get you admitted. Top schools look at GPA, EC’s, and participation in competitions.</p>
<p>Perhaps AMC/USNCO/etc. should be more widely publicized. There are plenty of metrics out there that are “sharper.”</p>
<p>I don’t see any situation where “imagination” leads to a problem on SAT math. Provide us with an example. The Collegeboard has made errors in the past, but these are almost always simple misprints.</p>
<p>The SAT reading section does not include poetry.</p>
<p>That’s certainly a compelling argument, but I’m going to have to maintain that a test of applied grammar skills does not test intelligence. And of course the essay is just pointless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had a teacher that frequently cited a study that said SAT scores go down the more years removed from basic classes. I’m not sure how true that is, but it certainly makes sense that people that are more than 3 years removed from Geometry would forget a few facts that they hadn’t used since taking the class.</p>
<p>I was also shocked at the spectacularly simplistic nature of a couple questions, but that is a separate issue.</p>
<p>I probably am thinking of the ACT with the poetry comment – or maybe I’m thinking of the SAT II Lit exam – but the SAT CR certainly does include works of fiction, susceptible of more than one interpretation. And I don’t remember what year it was that the math section had to be rescored because of ambiguity in one of the questions, but it did happen. It wasn’t a mistake in the sense of a wrong answer, it was wording of a question that was capable of being interpreted in more than one way.</p>
<p>I’m not going to play games with high schoolers. If you can’t see the ambiguity in the CR questions after reading passages – particularly fiction – that’s your problem, not mine. I’d suggest that you learn to think independently. Pull up an old exam, read a passage and the questions after it, and figure things out for yourself. In college courses in the arts, humanities, or social sciences – having all the “right” answers on an exam will earn you a C. Profs will want to see want to see the ability to weigh and compare multiple points of view, analysis, and they will be highly appreciative of originality of thought.</p>
That’s pretty much exactly what I meant by a “blunt tool.” If there was a score that set you so far apart from the crowd as to guarantee admission I would characterize it as a “sharp tool.” When getting a “near perfect” score merely puts you in the ballpark, I characterize that as a “blunt tool.” </p>
<p>One might reasonably argue a perfect 2400 is closer to a “sharp tool” for admissions. After all, you are one of around only 300 perfect scorers in the country. I put this in the same league as Siemens finalist or USAMO - it really propels your chances, maybe to 50%, maybe more. But as I have seen on here a couple times, even perfect scores with Siemens or similarly rare achievements doesn’t necessarily guarantee anything.</p>
<p>In reference to the entire question of correlation and causation.
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.
This is a basic tenet in science and , particularly statistical work.
Here’s a nice explanation.
[Correlation</a> and dependence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence]Correlation”>Correlation - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Some individuals here are using ‘correlation’ in a casual fashion , others in a more technical sense. That’s leading to a lot of problems. </p>
<p>And, of course, cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a classic flaw in logical discourse.</p>
<p>The main thrust here has been very high end SAT scores and admissions, so I’d like to avoid flogging the side issue of IQ/SATs, but I do feel that I should just point at silverturtle’s somewhat inconsistent assertions.
silverturtle , posting 152 (in response to my assertion that the SAT is not a valid IQ test)</p>
<p>“Yes, I agree. When did I argue that the SAT was a valid IQ test or that IQ scores do not change? I was merely attempting (though tellingly failed) to rationalize your seemingly arbitrary figure of 135. You brought up the IQ example.”</p>
<p>silverturtle, posting 200 (in response to my assertion that SATS are no longer linked strongly to IQ)</p>
<p>"I am sure that there is a strong link, though probably not as strong as it had once been (prior to 2005). The study I alluded to earlier demonstrated quite clearly that there was a strong link prior to 2005; because the test is not fundamentally radically different now, I assume the link remains "</p>
<p>In that SAT scores do fit a standard bell curve and IQ fits , at a coarse level , the same curve, and given that SATs are now taken by a fairly broad section of the high school population, we would expect at least some correlation. But there are important differences.
IQ tests cover the entire range of the population. SATs do not.
IQ tests above about 130 have a variety of problems and are known to be of limited precision.
SAT scores can be increased by study and tutoring. IQ cannot. (IQ scores can be, but only under circumstances that are difficult to achieve . Also , a very good professional tester can generally detect this. )
SAT scores do not measure several areas of intelligence at all.
SAT scores are also overweighted for verbal intelligence by comparison to IQ scores.</p>
<p>Here is an interesting piece on SAT scores. The piece is focused on much lower scores than those we are debating, but the author asserts that the CB asserts that scores must differ by at least 125 points to demonstrate an actual difference. </p>
<p>I think that silverturtle’s line":
"Your citing that is too analogous to things that would be indisputably offensive and unacceptable that I question your judgment (though not your motive) in doing so. "
means he thinks calmom is asserting that we old f*rts are just smarter than those young whipper-snappers.</p>
<p>I request that you do indeed dig up those old posts. Moreover, I would like you to quote an instance in which I demonstrated a lack of understanding of correlation and causation. </p>
<p>What’s game-like about demanding some support for your argument? If you feel as though some questions have multiple defensible answers, post the questions here or reference some from the Official SAT Study Guide. Also, I hope you are more prudent in your language from here on out; you continue to come across as condescending.</p>
<p>I would say that SAT alone is a blunt tool. I think that plus or minus 60 around 2200 makes it pretty blunt. But it’s still a pretty good tool. A 50 point difference composite score isn’t that big of a deal, but over that there’s likely a significant difference that, if all things else held equal, would certainly favor the applicant with the higher score.</p>