<p>And im not talking about "fairly ok" scores or 1400s; im talking about the elite scores that everyone knows they wish they had, which are obtainable only by the best. Many can break 1400 via tutoring, but tutoring can rarely push one into the 1550+ stratum, unless they were pretty darn smart already.</p>
<p>And bullmoose, I don't know what you mean by "fairly ok", but my point is that people complain when the SAT has rendered them ...well...not the best. Im just being frank. Im willing to bet that a majority of the people dismissing the SAT did not score 1550+...</p>
<p>I think that through extensive tutoring most people can obtain 1500+ scores. The stuff measured by the SAT is all pretty basic. I mean, the test is tricky, but there are no extremely tough questions. I think that if you have all the strategies down and have prepared intensively, it isn't hard to get a fabulous score. I honestly know a lot of kids who aren't very bright at all who have all scored 1500+. The SAT, really, is a great marker of family income and test taking ability and a few other things, but scoring highly really isn't that impressive if the kid has taken 5 of those fancy thousand dollar prep classes.</p>
<p>Some people have tutoring and raise their scores by a lot; others don't raise their scores at all. I have heard of people from both camps. If what you say, fids, is true, then there would be A LOT more people with 1500+ scores. </p>
<p>I ended up with a 1500 but am still very bitter about the whole SAT thing. I got a 800 verbal, but before prep, I was scoring in the mid 600s-low 700s. The thing was that I didn't like the multiple choice questions and was finding it to be very difficult to choose between multiple answers that seemed correct. My tutoring taught me to stop seeing complexities and just go for the "right" answer, but I still felt that the right answers were often wrong. Multiple choice forces you to shut off the part of your brain that says "what if?" Some people don't do well on SATs because they aren't particularly smart, and others don't do well because they are very smart- perhaps too smart for the test. </p>
<p>High SATs won't get you in, but low SATs can make it harder for you to get in. If you are Brown, and you have two similar, highly-qualified applicants, and one has a 1500 and one has a 1200, which would you choose? The one with a 1500, unless the one with a 1200 is particularly unique. But no one should ever give up hope- 1200s and 1300s get in all the time.</p>
<p>Fids:
If a kid is "not very bright" as you say and they tutor up to a 1550+, then they have illustrated sufficient work ethic to accomplish a difficult task, and this proves potential to succeed in life. C'mon tutoring up to a 1550 is not something people do every day.<br>
Yah, brilliance of mind is one way to score 1550+ and to succeed in life, but it is not the only way. Strong work ethic and stamina is another route to 1550+, and an indicator of collegiate and career success.
Money can buy mediocre rich kids tutoring, but to tutor up to a 1550+, there has got to be some major perserverence and work ethic involved. So, a 1550+ on the SAT is an indicator of:
A) Intellectual Talent
or B) Formidable Work Ethic
or C) some combination of the two
People who score this high probably have the intelligence and or work ethic to achieve a comparably impressive high school record, so in this way, true, the 1550+ is just gravy. My point is just that a 1600 indicates higher probability of collegiate success than say, a 1300. (Mind you probablity leaves room for anomalies.)
So, in conclusion, I reiterate my thesis frankly:
STOP HATING ON 1600s! THEY ARE RARE AND YALL ALL WISH YOU HAD ONE!</p>
<p>1600s are rare and generally pretty impressive. I know a girl who scored a 1600, though, after spending over $5,000 on SAT prep and taking the test 4 times. Personally, I think my prepless first-time 1510 is more impressive, but I'm biased.</p>
<p>im the type that would rather have a 99 then a 100 on a test. so i wouldnt want it. second... just because u have a 1600 in no waymeans u will succeed in life, or in college. it just means u stuied really hard for a dum test and you didvery good.</p>
<p>u beat me by 2 min, but i was typing my response anyway... and yes, that 1510 is more impressive then the 1600. i think there ismore to life then that darn test, and all these people are taught they have to do well in order to succeed. its stupid. find something else in life</p>
<p>it has certainly become corrupted by money like so many things...like $20 to even get your test booklet? gahhhh...biggie had i right: "mo money mo problems" tis the root of all evil</p>
<p>Seems to me that people who take the test 5+ times or pay thousands of dollars for tutoring are just in denial of their own inability to get a good score. They see that 1100 the first time they take it, though they've obsessed about going to an Ivy their whole lives, so they get pathetic about it.</p>
<p>fee waivers are avialable, but not for everything. i mean once or twice is cool. but then people take once or twice, officially, andthey prolly went through 2 or 3 of the "10 real SAT" book. my god.</p>
<p>Bjrwrh:
Look guys. I am an <em>extremely</em> talented potter, one of the best 50 rugby players in the country and a champion wrestler who went to nationals, and who broke boundaries to be the only girl on the boys wrestling and football teams. I also almost started a girls football team in my town. I have an extensive science research background (scoring an internship as a sophomore in which only 20 % of applicants get accepted - 5% of that 20% being sophomores) who teaches science camps, teachers ceramics, coaches rugby (the list goes on) and has glowing reccomendations. My SAT's are okay. </p>
<p>If that's not "unique" please tell me what is. The problem is that there are a lot of unique people out there. And they also have 1500's.</p>
<p>Oh, wait, i guess that there are a ton of wrestlers and rugby and football players out there with incredible artistic talent and extensive science research experience out there!! You're right...I'm not unique. run of the mill. </p>
<p>supertara: you have just proven my point, and the point of many others. Few have the rescources to get tutoring and express that work ethic and potential to recieve high scores. </p>
<p>Of course everyone wants a 1600...simply because of how important SATS can be. That in no way deligitimizes an argument against the objectivity of SATs</p>
<p>" My point is just that a 1600 indicates higher probability of collegiate success than say, a 1300. "</p>
<p>I don't think this statement could be more in error. SAT's test one kind of intelligence -- intuitive thinking. It has been statistically proven that white males do the best on SAT's. Are they thus the best qualified for college? </p>
<p>Furthermore, as I stated in my last post, many do not have the rescources to take the test 5 times and have private tutors to get those great scores. Half of the test is knowing how to take the test. </p>
<p>But it goes on. This test says nothing about work eithic, creativity, a desire to learn, an ability to get along with your teachers -- all things it takes to do well in school. </p>
<p>There is ZERO difference in the ability of a person with a 1600 and a 1300 to succeed in college. Once you reach past 1200 -- it's all the same in ability to succeed in school because success depends on so many things.</p>
<p>But the fact that they had that 1500 -- and the fact that I didn't -- is what got them in. </p>
<p>Regardless, I would wager that that 1500 was unique, but far less unique than I. Which is exactly my point. You need to be unique. But you also need those great scores. Those 1200's who get into Harvard are very rare. Sure, it happens. But it is rare.</p>
<p>supertara:
i scored a 1490, with about 60 points below what i normally scored in math (look 1550!) but becuase i am not a whore, i decided not to retake the test becuase it doesnt matter.</p>
<p>and yes i think that unless youre going for merit scholarships, you're probably a whore to retake a 1450+</p>