<p>I know that when colleges do admissions they consider the SATs, obviously. But when they look at them to they look at them at a national level, or what their school averages, or from the context you come from?
Thanks</p>
<p>Nationally of course. GPA's and class ranks are often times misleadings and can only tell an admissions officer so much. For example, let's say a certain student has straight A's in all of their math classes and their math teacher writes a rec letter saying that student is the smartest math kid in their entire teaching career. This same student only gets a 650 on the math part of the SAT. An admissions officer is forced to be skeptical at this point and doubt how bright the student is and how vigorous their school actually was. The kid with an alright rec letter and a mix of b's and a's in math will be looked upon more favorably if he/she has a perfect 800 on math than the first kid I mentioned. SAT's are an effective way for ad coms to compare students from different schools, regions and backgrounds. That's not to say SAT's are absolute, but it certainly is something an admissions officer looks for</p>
<p>I have heard an admissions officer say that higher SAT scores are expected from kids who had every advantage (good schools, money, extensive test prep opportunities), and that students without those advantages were understood to have SAT scores that reflect their more limited academic backgrounds. I think SAT scores are looked at in context, with some colleges using them as a dependable and important standard, and others less so.</p>
<p>But some people just aren't good test takers. </p>
<p>I'm also confused why they don't allow enough time for kids to complete the test. A friend of mine skipped almost 20 questions solely based on the fact that there just wasn't enough time. </p>
<p>What's the rush?? Who decided speedy test taking defines academic aptitude? </p>
<p>IMO, the SAT and ACT should be deleted in all college considerations. It forces schools to teach towards the SAT, and binds students who don't necessarily excel in test situations. </p>
<p>Bleh.</p>
<p>although the SAT is not perfect, it needs to be used and modified because it helps standardize all those 4.0 gpas. also, the excuse that people are bad test takers is not viable. how do you find out if someone has what it takes, you test them. the time limit is fine. if you are not a good test taker, it is quite unlikely that you will succeed in college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But some people just aren't good test takers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's why it's not the only consideration. It's one tool (a flawed one, but so are all the other tools) used by admissions officers to evaluate applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's the rush?? Who decided speedy test taking defines academic aptitude?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In college, most of your grade in many classes - all of it in some - will be determined by time-limited tests. It's not my ideal either, but it is true.</p>
<p>To get back to the OP's question, they'll look at your national standing, but at many schools, they will take your context into account.</p>
<p>And then you have the case of an impossible math department where most top 10% AP/honors kids only achieve B's....yet, on SAT/ ACT math are in 99%....Go figure.. Who knows which is better? Can't imagine that admissions people know about that situation either....Probably think the kids are slackers in school or got lucky on the tests......Better balance is preferable IMO, but you "can't always get what you want".....</p>
<p>i totally agree HSis Overrated. My son has to struggle in class (AP calculus) because of time constraints. When given plenty of time, he ALWAYS aces the quizzes or tests. I dont know why time is the most important. Speed is NOT an indicator of ability, getting the answer right should be. We live in a jeopardy world!!!
Luckily he got an 800 on Math SAT!!</p>
<p>I beg to differ. The point is, in real-life, we don't have the luxury of unlimited time. This is true in the working world too, not just in college. You don't turn in your work in time? Then you are fired. </p>
<p>Yes, given unlimited time, of course most people can do an excellent job. Let's say A and B are applying for a job. Both can produce excellent results but A does it in 1 week while B in 2 weeks. Given all other things equal, I would obviously hire A over B. Speed is indeed an indicator of ability to a certain extent. It measures how fast can someone absorb and synthesize a given information. I do agree that it's not everything, especially in terms of measuring one's ability to be successful in college. However, you cannot simply downplay its importance.</p>
<p>I have to differ, in turn. At my job, meeting timelines is essential, but so is accuracy. Some people can do both in 40 hours in a week, while others require 50 or 60 hours, and spend evenings and weekends. I know that those who spend the additional time have made a tough choice in life. But promotions and pay are awarded to success, and both groups succeed. In that light, a timed one-hour test is not realistic.</p>