<p>"The SAT is an aptitude test. There is not an effective way to test science without testing achievement too much. "</p>
<p>Although I agree that adding a science component would be problematic, the SAT is , strictly speaking, no longer deemed to be an aptitude test. </p>
<p>The CB puts it this way:
"The SAT tests the subject matter learned by students in high school and how well they apply that knowledge—the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed in college. "
and asserts elsewhere:
“The SAT tests what students know and how well they can apply that knowledge. SAT questions are based on
the same subjects that are taught every day in high school classrooms, such as geometry, grammar, algebra,
and critical reading.”</p>
<p>It is really a mixed bag - to do very well, a student needs a combination of raw talent, knowledge and skill. Coaching and study also improve scores which should not be the case for a perfectly pure aptitude test. Removing the analogies to make room for the essay tilted the SAT 1 more toward knowledge of standard English and away from abstract logic - something that the SAT 1 no longer addresses directly.</p>
<p>Perhaps the College Board does not deem it to be an aptitude test (likely for PC), but it is one more than it is an achievement test (and the reverse is true for the ACT). Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner calls it “a thinly disguised intelligence test.”</p>
<p>Gardner made that comment in 1999, before the analogies and quantitative comparisons were removed. As an IQ test, it stinks. It doesn’t test several areas of reasoning, is coachable, and is available to the public.</p>
<p>Ah. 1973, the year I bombed my SAT test. Of course I went in cold in an unfamiliar place, no prior PSAT, no prep courses, no study guides. No nuttin’. I don’t even know if those aids were available back in the day of hot pants and typewriters but certainly my school friends and I were unsophisticated and didn’t even know to ask. Even at our ‘better’ public high school there were no AP or honors classes, no ACT, no SAT subject tests, and I don’t recall anyone volunteering. An EC was a sport or band/orchestra.</p>
<p>There is so much more information available now for high school students and the expectations are correspondingly higher. Students are pressed to get a competitive edge…I think the standardized tests are not an accurate gauge of ability. Thankfully, some colleges see it that way.</p>
<p>Well my thought is that standardized tests are an indicator of ability but some intelligent students just do not seem to perform well on them. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great to be able to zing out those answers and nail the tests but it’s just not everyone’s strength.</p>
<p>^ So what metric should be used instead? Your comment that you are thankful that some colleges have started to not use standardized testing suggests that you feel another metric is more valuable for college admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While this is certainly true for a very small minority of intelligent students, I have yet to encounter someone who I feel fits in this category; a little preparation for familiarizing oneself with the test seems to do the trick for all smart students. We should not dismiss a metric merely because of a few anomalous cases in which students “aren’t good test-takers.”</p>
<p>Clearly one can “study” for these tests (SAT or ACT) to improve scores. To me, that is the biggest difference between 2010 and 1973 (the year I took the SAT). In 1973, in general, we took it cold and about all anyone told me was to familiarize myself with the meanings of obscure words. I’ve never quite “bought into” the I’m a bad test taker choir. Certainly there are a minimal number of people that might “test freeze” but if that were the case they would “test freeze” in any testing situation. I did fine although I don’t remember my scores, and I’m certain that if I had taken a few runs at it, I would have done better. I do still remember that even in 1973 it was an exhausting test compared to the ACT. I do think it does tests one’s ability to “produce” quickly and in a pressureful situation and clearly some people are better at that than others. Does it predict future success would depend on whether the person lands in situations where they are required to produce quick, correct answers in a pressureful situation. You could certainly be “intelligent” but not decisive and productive under those circumstances. People that ponder, question their decisions, etc. would theoretically have a more difficult time but might be highly intelligent.</p>
<p>All the tools in the admissions toolbox are blunted to some degree. The distribution of GPAs, availability of highly rigorous academic programs like AP and IB, and the number of ECs on college applications have all changed over the last few decades.</p>
<p>^^Yes I agree with Slithey’s comment. It is difficult to “compare” our education, our test scores, our GPAs etc. with our children’s as the entire arena of K-12 education has changed dramatically over the past three to four decades. I had some tremendous opportunities for a little public high school in the midwest because the school was progressive but I was scared and amazed at the caliber of my fellow college freshman who had come from private schools and large urban publics. Yes, to a certain extent all the tools are “blunted” to some extent but I think maybe in different ways attributable to GPA inflation, test prep, community service requirements and things that are applied toward “packaging” students specifically for college as well as more parents wishing to send their children to college.</p>
<p>No one is arguing that; many are arguing, however, that higher scores are not better than lower scores if the scores pass some arbitrary threshold.</p>
<p>My gut feeling: admissions staff note a 2400 as better than a 2300+ when it is: a) a student’s first and only SAT score, (b) also accompanied with a 36 ACT (also first and only), and (c)also accompanied with a 230+ PSAT score. </p>
<p>Multiple attempts to get that 2400 SAT or also have lower ACT and PSAT scores? Not as impressed.</p>
<p>Why would an adcom care? It is in the College’s own best interest to accept kids with the highest scores, regardless of the number times a kid takes a test (assuming that they superscore).</p>
<p>No, its in the college’s best interest to accept students with a demonstrated record of achievement. Test scores can easily be manipulated through prep and retakes. Wide differences in scores might make a difference (i.e., comparing a score of 1700 to 2350) – but narrow differences (2200 vs. 2350) are not particularly meaningful – there is absolutely no way for a college to distinguish between innate ability and test-prep in that situation.</p>
<p>It may be that many applicants offer both a demonstrated record of achievement and high test scores to the colleges, and in those cases if a college is concerned about ranking… the higher scoring applicant might have an advantage. But in reality, the college is concerned about many things - so if the higher scoring applicant comes from Maryland and the lower scoring applicant comes from Arkansas, then the college’s interest in geographic diversity might become the deciding factor. At MIT, the female with a 760 on the math SAT might be selected over males with 800 because gender balance might be seen as more important. Again… there’s only marginal difference between a 760 and 800, the student with the 760 clearly has the basic math foundation needed. </p>
<p>I think that’s the point of the thread title reference to SATs as a “blunt” instrument.</p>
<ol>
<li>Yeah, a 2400 is better than a 2300+ regardless, it’s a higher score.</li>
<li>Doesn’t need to be sent.</li>
<li>As silverturtle said, colleges never see raw PSAT scores. They might see if you made NMSF though.</li>
</ol>
I would say it’s actually meaningful. A 50 point difference? No. But I know a person who scored a 2350, and compared to me (2230), there is a noticeable difference. I could have easily gotten 50 points more that day.But I doubt I could’ve gotten 2350 that day. I make this comparison because we both had similar levels of prep (read: 2-3 practice tests), and we both took it on the same day. I’m not arguing that narrow differences are meaningless, just that a 150 point gap is not narrow.</p>
<p>But in the eyes of the top colleges, pretty much anything over 1850-1900 is pretty much good enough to make the first cut, and they probably don’t focus particularly on scores after that. They do look at the scores “in context” of where the students are coming from – but that’s part of the whole package of looking at issues such as type of high school, GPA, class rank, etc. They’d probably be more prone to accept a valedictorian from a well-regarded high school with a score of 1980 than a kid ranked below the top 10% with a 2350, unless the lower ranked kid had some other type of hook. SAT scores never are a “hook” at the top schools. (They might be a hook at less selective schools, if the ad com believes that the student will attend – that’s why you see many good but lesser ranked universities offering guaranteed scholarship money based on particular scores.)</p>