<p>Today I read this article saying that "more than 300 colleges" are having SATs optional and emphasizing AP's, SAT subject tests, and IB's instead. (LA times: Admissions</a> officers say SAT exams should be optional - Los Angeles Times) Does it really mean that I have to throw away my SAT books, stop going to my SAT prep class, and study SAT2's and AP's?</p>
<p>I'm confused. Does the "more than 300 colleges" mean like,, really "goable" and selective colleges?</p>
<p>lol thats BS in my opinion~~`</p>
<p>LA times columnist BSing doesn't sound realistic, though.</p>
<p>10 dollars says she was high when she wrote that article.</p>
<p>300 colleges. 300 community colleges. Doesn't make any difference.</p>
<p>Its funny how she states "If you can get a 200 you better get in line for community college" , when only 8% of the nation scores above 2000. Where did the other 92% go? Surely not community colleges, thats preposterous. Imo, the SAT does best when it comes to differentiating between the academically smart and the ... well, smart. I know plenty of kids who have ridiculously high GPAS, but they can't manage to score above 1600. Am i saying that whoever can't score past 200 is an idiot? no, its just another factor of the admissions process that help colleges determine who their best candidate is. GPA's won't tell you crap, and EC's in msot cases won't either. Kids in my school join dozens of clubs just for the sake of bulking up their EC list to look good. That doesn't demonstrate crap. There has to be a real standard somewhere. The SAT creates stress? so what, if the SAT didn't exist kids would be less stressed? People always find **** to complain about. From the looks it, she probably didn't do too well on her SATs.</p>
<p>The person she was interviewing said that thing about getting above a 2000, not the writer.</p>
<p>I agree with most of what you said, Zenbadabing. But to say GPA's tell you "crap." I think that's a little extreme....</p>
<p>It at least tells you one thing that the SAT does not- work ethic. You could be a really smart kid with a perfect score on the SAT, but what good does it do if you're lazy and you do nothing with the Ivy league education you get? That's why colleges look at GPA's, I think. Not because it's an indicator of absolute intelligence, but it at least shows how hard a kid will work. </p>
<p>Which is more useful to a college?
Candidate A: Naturally extremely smart, 2400 SAT, goes to a great school, but does nothing in life because he's not motivated.</p>
<p>Candidate B: Pretty smart, ok SAT score, great GPA, and gets to a top position at a company because that person was motivated enough to get that far. </p>
<p>That's the use of GPA. Assuming you're class load isn't filled with basket weaving and P.E., it can show how hard a student will work and is a better indicator of how well a student will do in life. IMO</p>
<p>great theory AT9, however the point is it is EASY to get straight As at most public schools; whereas at top private schools it is nearly impossible. At many schools, you can be pretty lazy and not very intelligent and still pull a 4.0 (probably the case with a lot of 4.0/weak SAT students). Also remember, the SAT doesn't test natural "intelligence" precisely, and doesnt claim to. Most students who receive high SATs do so because they studied and worked hard to develope their reasoning and intellect.</p>
<p>I know that Middlebury doesn't require SAT's. You can substitute 3 SAT IIs instead and they are ranked pretty high</p>
<p>JJJJ1234, you're probably right in that it's easy to get A's at most public schools. So college's should take that into consideration as well. For instance, I know some kids at a local Christian school where the academics are really easy that have high grades, whereas I have taken over 20 college classes now with a total of 17 A's, 2 B+'s, and 1 B. So it's not quite fair. I'm just saying that for students who take a lot of hard classes and do well (like I have done) it shows motivation and determination.</p>