<p>ClaySoul:
I dont mean this in any arrogant way, but I have not had a second of tutoring and my family makes sub-30K(actually used a fee waiver) and I managed to do very very well on the SAT</p>
<p>We all are disadvantaged in life in different ways...cest la vie...make the best of what youve got...hard work and ability can overcome any handicap</p>
<p>Can we say, a 1600 w/o extensive prep is more impressive and a better indicator of "success" than a 1300 w/o extensive prep, but by having tutors etc available, people are fixing the extremely fixable system.</p>
<p>Rabo: No. Like I said in a previous post, SAT's have been shown to be a poor indicator of college success because of 1) it tests 1 type of intelligence, 2) There are many factors beyond being able to solve tricky little math problems that determine success in college.</p>
<p>Claysoul:
Yes, that has been established; we agree with you.
All im saying is that if someone has a 1600, they are pretty invariably exceptional, be it in intelligence, study skills, or both.
Not everyone gets a 1600 and im sick of people saying scores like that mean nothing. YOU CAN STILL BE EXCEPTIONAL AND NOT HAVE A 1600; I AGREE. BUT, a 1600 is an accomplishment and often indicative of talent, so don't belittle it!</p>
<p>No one is "belittling" a 1600. We (or at least I) am saying it recieves far more credit than it deserves</p>
<p>I am not belittling a fairly earned 1600. I think that for a kid who can't afford extensive prep and doesn't have the time to take the test multiple times, a 1600 is a very good score. Of course, there is often some luck involved; I feel like on the verbal exam, at least, there is often some very subjective answers that could go either way. Maybe I'm bitter because I scored worse on verbal, but. I just don't think it is impressive for a kid to take 5 prep classes and then score a 1600 on her first try. I'd take a disadvantaged, hard working and intelligent 1300 kid before a privileged rich kid whose life revolves so much around one test that her family spends $5,000 on prepping her for it any day. </p>
<p>That said, I would NOT accept myself to college if I were an admissions officer reading this. Most incoherent sentence ever, gosh.</p>
<p>I totally agree with you fids. One thing I was wondering: if some kid takes it and gets like a 1250, then retakes and is suddenly at like 1450, wouldn't that make it pretty obvious that money was shelled out on prep? I would assume that, but makybe admissions officers try not to be so presumptuous</p>
<p>I suppose that people could just be having a bad day. I know some people who, due to illness or whatever other reason, scored badly and then jumped 200 points a month later. I think that one bad score is excusable; three isn't.</p>
<p>I realized that my last post was filled with grammatical errors. Please excuse them. I meant "and then scores a 1600 on her FOURTH try" and I messed up with making a plural verb singular and stuff. Bah, I'm a wreck before 8 AM.</p>
<p>Sometimes people improve their scores without expensive prep. I took an extensive prep course and managed to raise my score 10 points (though in a practice test I raised it by almost 200 ..<em>cough arbitraryness of test *cough</em>) </p>
<p>I took the SAT 5 times and it wasn't until that 5th time that I broke a 1300. I don't attribute it to my SAT prep course -- I attribute it to my AP english class, which didn't cost a dime. But that's just me. And I think I am the exception to the rule.</p>
<p><em>but the bottom line is that I am no smarter now that I have a 1370 than when I had a 1270</em> Not a bit. I only get treated as if I am. Sound fair to you? I have a decent SAT score. I'm not complaining about it by any means. but regardless, i think the system is bunk, and i would feel that way even if i had a 1500</p>
<p>but you dont have a 1500 so you cant say that...and you prove that no matter what, with a person's given intelligence, one cannot raise his or her score beyond a 200ish point bracket (with some exceptions)</p>
<p>i have a 1490 will you please accept me into your little bubble of 1500 greatness and prestige?</p>
<p>I have no bubble of greatness and prestige; the SAT is a gradient that reflects the gradient of aptitude in those students who take it. There is no clear beginning mark for greatness and prestige.</p>
<p>measure of general aptitude is to SAT's as measure of athletic ability is to curling.</p>
<p>i love analogies</p>
<p>i wouldnt go that far; the SAT does the best it can to measure a certain area of intellectual ability, just like an AP test, an IB test, or any test you have in school. They all have their limitations and are biased towards and against certain people. If a spanish speaking hispanic takes spanish, for instance, he or she has an inherent advantage. The SAT is not unique in this limitation.</p>
<p>Another way to think about the SAT is to also think about how unfair high school grades are and all the advantages some people get with school, so that the SAT is unfair but so are grades. I've gotten an easy A in an 11th grade honors precalc class and a very tough B+in honors geo in 9th grade. It was all because of the teacher. If I had that teacher (who happened to have been excellent, just really tough) in 11th grade again (some people did), I highly doubt I would have gotten an A. If that difference in grading exists in the same school, imagine how unfair it is to compare grades across different schools.</p>
<p>thank you bjrwth...people try to single out the SAT because it is not perfectly accurate and unbiased, but no evaluation on the face of the earth can be such. It does the best it can, and yes it is unbalanced in some ways, but NEWSFLASH,what isn't? This is life: a succession of biased situations in which you have to make the best of what youve got. We all are born with different inherent advantages and disadvantages. A perfectly unbiased test would thus have to be custom tailored to each individual. This is not to say that bias is totally acceptable, but some degree of it is inherent in virtually every aspect of life.</p>
<p>i'd say you should get at least a 900... below that, if you don't have a hook, you probably don't have a great shot. although you never know.</p>