<p>SAT</a> I: A Faulty Instrument For Predicting College Success | FairTest</p>
<p>only .47/.48 correlation with college freshman grades? why do colleges even look at them still? and even though GPA has a better correlation, .54, that is still a bad predictor. I don't know they should do something about this like make a new test or something but this is pretty stupid.</p>
<p>it's a way of distinguishing which high schools are more or less competitive than each other. a standardized test by which all students are judged so that someone who has a 4.0 at a, say, california public school, is held to the same standard as someone who has a 3.8 at a competitive boarding school</p>
<p>and although studies like this one argue with the results, looking at SAT ranges you can see an almost perfect correlation with quality of undergraduate institution, right from harvard all the way down to umass</p>
<p>Actually, FairTest is phonier by far than the SAT.</p>
<p>The SATs aren't the best at judging your actual intellgience, yes...but I think it's a good way of ranking students. Not by their actual intelligence, but just think: the people who get 800s are usually smart or worked their butt off to get it.</p>
<p>Most people, not all of course, who do well on the SAT's have:</p>
<ol>
<li>Locked themselves in their room for three months straight, depriving themselves of an actual life</li>
</ol>
<p>AND/OR</p>
<ol>
<li> Go to a high school where SAT prep is part of the curriculum</li>
</ol>
<p>AND/OR</p>
<ol>
<li>Handed hundereds of dollars over to companies that teach students exactly what's on the SAT</li>
</ol>
<p>It's a silly indicator of how well you will do in college. I think interviews, recs, GPA, rank, etc. are much better at indicating future successes in an individuals academic career. But hey, that's just me.</p>
<ol>
<li>They are smart and/or go to competitive high schools that teach material far above SAT level, so have little trouble breaking 2200 on the SAT with a reasonable, insignificant amount of prep.</li>
</ol>
<p>I don't see how this study means anything. For example, a kid with a perfect SAT score is probably going to go to a good college where it is understandably more difficult to get higher grades. The kid with lower SAT scores will likely go to a less competitive college and understandably receive higher grades. I didn't get a great SAT score myself, but, from anecdotal experience, it is obvious to me that students who get good SAT scores are pretty bright. I have yet to see a stupid or even average student break the 1900 barrier, and, vice versa, yet to see a genuinely smart kid get lower than that.</p>
<p>eriniggy- so what if they've spent money to get test prep?</p>
<p>I know lots of kids who've spent thousands of dollars to hope to get around a 1700 (which, by cc standards is ridiculously low). It's not just the high scorers that do this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most people, not all of course, who do well on the SAT's have:</p>
<ol>
<li>Locked themselves in their room for three months straight, depriving themselves of an actual life</li>
</ol>
<p>AND/OR</p>
<ol>
<li>Go to a high school where SAT prep is part of the curriculum</li>
</ol>
<p>AND/OR</p>
<ol>
<li>Handed hundereds of dollars over to companies that teach students exactly what's on the SAT
[/quote]
I seriously doubt most people who do well on the SAT do that. On CC, maybe, but in the rest of the world? Probably MOST of the high-scorers don't do anything special at all.</li>
</ol>
<p>I think it's ridiculous how LITTLE sat's are considered. It's an absolute examination for Christ's sake. One test varies little from the other, and if it does, the score is scaled accordingly. Yet, if you go to one of the top high schools in the country and graduate with an unweighted 3.7, some kid from arkansas with a weighted 4.8 and a 1200 on his sat's will get accepted over you.</p>
<p>"Most people, not all of course, who do well on the SAT's have:</p>
<ol>
<li>Locked themselves in their room for three months straight, depriving themselves of an actual life</li>
</ol>
<p>AND/OR</p>
<ol>
<li>Go to a high school where SAT prep is part of the curriculum</li>
</ol>
<p>AND/OR</p>
<ol>
<li>Handed hundereds of dollars over to companies that teach students exactly what's on the SAT"</li>
</ol>
<p>What the hell are you talking about, man. SAT math can be done by a kid still taking algebra, it's all about concentration during the actual exam. If you occaisonally read books or have intelligent conversation once in a while, you will also "do well on the SAT" verbal section. These are the kids that get 800's. And the writing section is simply about quick writing, maybe involving its fair share of practice, but if you can write your stuff down quickly you will do well. Plus, everybody who did well (e.g., 1550-1600) on their sat's that I know did not do any of the things you listed.</p>
<p>^^^ I pretty much agree.</p>
<p>See </p>
<p>Most people appear to overestimate how effective test-prep courses are. Most young people with high SAT scores say they like to read and think about math and writing and they spend their time with friends and doing challenging school work.</p>