<p>SAT is pretty important, but you can “I grew up disadvantaged” it away and still get into a highly selective school.</p>
<p>@emberjed
That is an interesting viewpoint. That could be used by just about anyone to “wipe out” a facet of their application that is not up to par.</p>
<p>Not really, it truly applies to only test scores. Many people with top scores take expensive prep classes and/or have SAT/ACT tutors. They can also afford to take the tests more times. Low income students cannot afford prep or to take the exams as many times as they want.</p>
<p>@ArtsyGirl13
The testing agencies also offer waivers for the needy. So that doesn’t fly. Anyone regardless of income can study for the test (and school work). I just disagree with someone playing the disadvantaged card in an attempt to cover up a deficiency.</p>
<p>Speaking as somebody who is low-income that is not so accurate. I personally do not qualify for fee waivers because I have a very small family (a family with like two more people and the same income would qualify for waivers), the testing agencies are the only ones who do not recognize that I am low income (I will be receiving application fee waivers, would get a full ride due to 100 percent of demonstrated need met at some schools and was selected for CPS through Questbridge). I have had to pay the full cost for all of my tests which has been a financial strain and led me to taking tests the bare minimum number of times necessary (I only took enough subject tests to meet requirements for the schools I am applying to and will not be taking tests in the fall unlike my peers). As for studying, yes you can do your own prep, but there is a certain advantage you get from overpriced classes and tutors. I do not think it is a coincidence that my peers have seen scores jump following classes costing $1000+ while mine somewhat improved following self-studying. Sorry this is sort of me ranting, but I hate when people think we truly are all in the same situation.</p>
<p>I agree with ArtsyGirl on this one.A family might not be considered low-income enough to qualify for fee waivers, but that doesn’t mean they can afford the same as a high income family. I too, am a low-income student. I’m international, so I wouldn’t have qualified for fee waivers anyway, but do you have any idea how much harder it is to study when you can hardly afford prep books and can only take each test once? Or practice tests, how would you improve much without them?</p>
<p>Do you really think it’s unfair that universities are willing to accept slightly lower scores from those students? It’s a lot more likely that a student who paid 1k for prep courses and books and took the test 3 times will score higher than the student who could only afford 1-2 books and 1 test. </p>
<p>But back on topic, I think GPA’s more important, as long as there isn’t a huge difference between them. Red flags will be raised by a high GPA and low SAT scores, but they will be raised for a low GPA and high SAT as well (for different reasons). But the reason I think GPA’s more important is that it shows how well you did over 4 years, not 1 morning, and admissions officers know that. As for grade inflation, admissions officers look at your GPA in the context of your school. Obviously, a 4.0 won’t be impressive if half the class has got it.</p>
<p>You guys are not reading what I say and making judgments to fit what you want. So be it. </p>
<p>The testing agencies do not offer the fee waivers, at least the ACT. That is up to your high school. [Frequently</a> Asked Questions | Am I eligible for a fee waiver? | ACT Student](<a href=“http://www.actstudent.org/faq/feewaiver.html]Frequently”>http://www.actstudent.org/faq/feewaiver.html) </p>
<p>So if you didn’t get one then you didn’t ask, didn’t know who to ask or don’t qualify according to the high school. So obviously there others more needed. Maybe you should check again and see if you can get one.</p>
<p>I have checked with my high school, I don’t qualify because of my family size, as I stated above. You can easily not qualify for a fee wavier (with my school your income has to be <15,000 for a family of two) and still be unable to afford what it takes to reach the absurdly high scores associated with top schools. Everything has to be viewed in context and it is absurd to think that a kid who can afford extensive prep and unlimited testing is in the exact same situation as a kid who can afford nothing more then a prep book and a very limited number of tests.</p>
<p>If you have a good SAT score, I think you can make up for slight weakness in the GPA with good AP and SAT Subject Test scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was actually the case some decades ago: in the 1970’s we had no idea of what was going to be on the test, how the questions were structured, and how hard they might be. You had one shot and basically needed to invent an efficient way of quickly finding correct solutions on the fly. This is akin to many IQ tests where completion time is an important component.</p>
<p>But then SAT prep became a business: first expensive seminars for the wealthy, then test prep books came on the market. Students started getting into the habit of retaking bad scores. If you’ve taken the SAT anytime in the last decade and walked in not knowing what to expect, you are the rare exception.</p>
<p>Mensa used to accept SAT and ACT composite scores as an IQ equivalent for membership, up until around 1980. Since then, test prep strategies have been too widely available. The same would happen to any IQ test – its validity would be lost if you could prep for it. Thus the questions and answers are closely guarded.</p>
<p>uhh actually Lorem… IQ and SAT scores have a positive correlation, meaning they have a relationship with each other. You won’t see a person with 50 IQ scoring 2400s, a person with an IQ higher, and had the same environment as the other person, would obviously score higher than them despite the prep books or w/e.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course they have a positive correlation, especially at the extremes. My two sons have tested IQs over 150. The younger one got a 36.0 ACT score twice (second time required for the school junior year) and a 240 PSAT. The older one got a 35 ACT but did so at age 13 because he graduated high school at 14. Neither one studied more than a few hours for the test; they really didn’t need to – looking through the test-prep guides, they laughed at the 7-step explanations given and invented their own 2-step solutions on the fly. That is native raw ability and that is what an IQ test supposedly measures.</p>
<p>But positive correlation is not the same as an IQ equivalent test. Because old tests and test prep services are readily available, a student can substitute planning and hard work for natural ability to a significant extent. Both planning and hard work are valuable skills and are often worth more than native raw ability in a classroom setting – but those elements are not measured in traditional IQ tests.</p>
<p>However, they are decisive factors
I got rejected because of that
Everything else is okay
Since i graduated 5 years ago, the school waived that, but ^_^</p>
<p>@LoremIpsum, nice story, but i’ve heard enough from parents like you. I don’t know if you’re trying to discourage me from anything by telling me your “sons” are getting constantly near to perfect standardized test scores. I’ve heard from, let’s see, you’re probably like the 100th person i encountered with similar stories like that. </p>
<p>I can also safely assure the community that no one in the history of man kind scores a 35 on ACT at the age of 13 (8th grade). This is impossible unless you’re the next einstein for CR, math, and writing. </p>
<p>I’m just really tired of hearing parent’s anecdotes… makes me wanna feel like blowing up…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, he was a high school junior at 13. And he’s not even close to being noteworthy on a national level. There have been dozens of kids with college degrees by that age. If I’m “like the 100th person i encountered with similar stories like that” then perhaps there might be some truth in the matter? No, of course not – because you have in your short life already seen everything there is to see and anything beyond that is a lie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The SAT Verbal (now Critical Reading) was, back in the 1980s, a test of one’s English vocabulary, while the SAT Math covered basic algebra and geometry. Like anything else purported to be an IQ or aptitude test, it had some dependency on previous education (or self-education), whether it was education in typical stuff learned in school, or specific preparation for the test.</p>
<p>from LoremIpsum’s previous post (#32 in this thread):
+1 on this comment.
I’ll expand on the point that, in the real world in the vast majority of cases, planning, hard work, and luck are critical to success. Raw ability simply is not enough.</p>
<p>from MathTeamExtraPro’s previous post (#34 in this thread):
</p>
<p>@MathTeamExtraPro: There are a lot of smart kids out there. In recent years, I’ve encountered a number of students in the 7th and 8th grades who have posted scores in the 35-36 range on the ACT or 2300+ on the SAT…and I really don’t go out looking for them. All were just naturally good at taking standardized tests. Some had taken a test prep class; others hadn’t. <em>shrug</em></p>
<p>yeah… well they are. but you won’t see many of them like that in highschools</p>