SAT scores, are they necessary?

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>I found several interesting articles about SAT's and the bogusness of them. I am doing a journalistic paper on the effectiveness of SAT's and their use on University admissions in America. It'd be great, awesome if we could start a healthy discussion on this as I'll be needing some opinions for my paper. What are you opinions about the SAT? Was it a good way of determining your college performance?</p>

<p>thank you!</p>

<p>Here's the article:</p>

<p>the link is here if you would like to read on...</p>

<p>Abolish the SAT — The American, A Magazine of Ideas</p>

<p>Abolish the SAT</p>

<p>By Charles Murray From the July/August 2007 Issue</p>

<p>Filed under: Big Ideas, Public Square
The SAT got him into Harvard from a small Iowa town. But now, CHARLES MURRAY wants to abolish the test. It’s unnecessary and, worse, a negative force in American life.</p>

<p>SAT1Welcome, Arts & Letters Daily readers! This story is from our July/August issue. You can subscribe online at a special rate. We also publish new material every day on this web site, and offer a daily email.</p>

<p>For most high school students who want to attend an elite college, the SAT is more than a test. It is one of life’s landmarks. Waiting for the scores—one for verbal, one for math, and now one for writing, with a possible 800 on each—is painfully suspenseful. The exact scores are commonly remembered forever after.</p>

<p>So it has been for half a century. But events of recent years have challenged the SAT’s position. In 2001, Richard Atkinson, president of the University of California, proposed dropping the SAT as a requirement for admission. More and more prestigious small colleges, such as Middlebury and Bennington, are making the SAT optional. The charge that the SAT is slanted in favor of privileged children—“a wealth test,” as Harvard law professor Lani Guinier calls it—has been ubiquitous. I have watched the attacks on the SAT with dismay. Back in 1961, the test helped get me into Harvard from a small Iowa town by giving me a way to show that I could compete with applicants from Exeter and Andover. Ever since, I have seen the SAT as the friend of the little guy, just as James Bryant Conant, president of Harvard, said it would be when he urged the SAT upon the nation in the 1940s.</p>

<p>I considered the SAT to be the friend of the little guy, just as James Bryant Conant, president of Harvard, said it would when he urged the SAT upon the nation in the 1940s.</p>

2

<p>yes it is. It’s the only standardized way to measure competence and readiness for college. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best thing we have.</p>

3

<p>I believe they are necessary for the above stated reasons. but a growing number of good colleges are starting to disagree.</p>

<p>The assertion that SATs are simply a measure of wealth has recently (to some extent) been debunked, as it has been revealed that there is very little benefit gained from taking expensive SAT prep classes.</p>

<p>and if you intend to do an objective evaluation, I suggest that you collect your mass of information and derive trends and results before reaching conclusions instead of seeking out to prove the SAT bogus. The scientific method is the best way to go.</p>

4

<p>I love the statement that the SAT is more than just a test, it’s a landmark, because it’s so true. You can relate to your parents who may have taken it, and to your peers. It’s also the only way that colleges put applicants on a level field, even though it’s actual value may be disputed. I think the SAT should continue because it is mostly beneficial. I think that colleges should worry more about their own admission factors than about the existence of a standardized test that, despite having a large number of detractors, continues to be used by nearly every institution of higher learning in the US. If they don’t agree with it, they should take it out of the admissions equation for their school.</p>

5

<p>i think we should nationalise collegeboard. </p>

<p>it’s essentially a monopoly. it’s a non-profit corporation. it doesn’t have the same argument that a lot of other corporations do.</p>

<p>that, and if we nationalised it, stuff would be a whole lot cheaper.</p>

<p>you wouldn’t have to pay $8 for an email to a college or $50 to hold up an answer sheet to a transparency to recheck the scores.</p>

6

<p>Keep the SAT, nationalize it, make it cheaper. Almost everything in life is in favor of the wealthy, singling out the SAT for this argument is pointless. Until the universities of America band together for the creation of another test (Which would cost millions, if not billions) stick with the SAT. The ACT is also a solid alternative for those who don’t do well on the SAT.</p>

7

<p>Let’s just go communist, so we don’t have to worry about things like this.</p>

8

<p>Many of you are over-analyzing the question.</p>

<p>Are they necessary?</p>

<p>Essentially no, in the era of AP and IB the SAT is not necessary. Many schools such as NYU are going test optional. AP Exams can test a students college readiness, albeit not intelligence, and are an indicator of various other elements.</p>

<p>Are they preferable in some circumstances?</p>

<p>Yes. Schools such as Harvard need multiple ways to evaluate students. However, I believe all factors should be utilized in college admissions and scores that put minimum thresholds for admittance based on SAT scores should be ashamed.</p>

<p>Necessary implies need. There is no criterion that implies all colleges need the SAT for admissions.</p>

<p>BTW The Government cannot nationalize an enterprise in the private sector just because of cost to the consumer. That logic is the basis of socialism and is completely unsubstantiated in regard to economic sense.</p>