<p>Okay, to make it clear - I am asserting that there is , for at least some cases, no advantage likely to be gained in admissions to elite schools by scoring above a 750 on the SAT Subject Math 2 test when taken as a junior or senior in high school. Anyone disagree?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the face of no data specific to the consideration of SAT Subject Tests in college admissions, we must look at the data for the SAT Reasoning Test unless you can present a cogent argument for why colleges do or should consider them differently. As I indicated, we must also consider what should be the practice in order to determine what the practice is. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I have. The SAT Reasoning Test data are related to the SAT Subject Tests. </p>
<p>Essentially, you have indicated that certain kids who are very good at math do not demonstrate this on the SAT Subject Test in Math Level 2. I concede that point. You have not, however, cogently supported your belief that higher scores should not be considered more favorably than lower scores; in fact, you even admit that one’s scores on the Math 2 test positively correlate with mathematics ability (who wouldn’t, though?). Thus, you would have to present objective and clear data that, counter-intuitively, indicate that there is no admissions advantange in having better scores once one’s scores hit some arbitrary threshold. But you have not presented any data. The closest thing we have is SAT Reasoning Test data, and they indicate that you are incorrect unless you are somehow able to establish a negative correlation between the admissions considerations for the SAT Reasoning Test and those for the SAT Subject Tests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, your claim that “the SAT math 2 test already fails completely at the upper end” was certainly unequivocal. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no doubt. So what? It isn’t designed to, and admissions officers aren’t under the impression that it does. You seem to be suggesting that a test’s validity hinges on its being able to establish a ceiling commensurate with the highest abilities of its test-takers. Simple truth: higher scores certainly correlate with higher abilties. Therefore, higher scores should be considered more favorably than lower scores. Are they? The data sure point to yes.</p>
<p>If the tests were more available to students, I agree that the AMC (and eventually AIME and USAMO for qualifying students) would be a better tool for discriminating even more meaningfully among high-level applicants. But this does not reflect at all on how scores on the SAT Subject Tests should be considered at the moment for students who do not submit scores from those tests.</p>
<p>Silverturtle - why don’t you spell out exactly what your stance is on the question that started this thread? I would state that question as " When is retaking the SAT subject math 2 test justified in terms of gaining an improvement in admissions chances?" I’m not debating the fairly absurd strawman that ‘higher scores certainly correlate with higher abilities’.</p>
<p>re: posting 62
Yes - the SAT reasoning tests are loosely correlated with the SAT subject tests. </p>
<p>However, there are important statistical differences.
The averages for the SAT subject tests are all higher than the medians for the various sections of the SAT reasoning sections. (The subject averages vary from 589 to 763, with math 2 at 648. The reasoning sections, as we all know are slightly above 500.) The sds for the various subject tests vary considerably as well, although the sd for math 2 is a fairly reasonable 106.
The test group taking the SAT subject tests is a biased subset of the group taking the SAT reasoning tests as well which suggests strongly that the correlation is weak.
Given this, and given that I am arguing a technical point about a small section of SAT subject math 2 test, I would assert that broad claims about the SAT reasoning tests have little relevance. Yes - higher scores on the SAT reasoning tests are strongly related to admissions at the elite schools. Does that mean that there is an equally strong relation for one section of one test that is somewhat correlated to the SAT reasoning tests? No. Does that mean that there is no relation for that same section? No. It means that there is an insufficiently strong correlation for there to be any valid conclusion.</p>
<p>Quote:
Their scores on these tests and excellent grades in upper level university math courses demonstrate their ability far better than getting a few more simple questions right on the SAT 2 math level 2 subject test.
I absolutely agree. However, you have failed to counter any of my claims. By some very reasonable extension in accordance with the mentality you presented, a college should excuse a truly brilliant student’s poor grades because he or she is bored by taking tests (many, many more hours of tests than that required for the Subject Tests, mind you). Moreover, you’re debating my general claim about admissions practices with a very small and extraordinary group.</p>
<p>Again, I am not debating your general claim about admissions practices. I am speaking to the point of the thread - whether a small gain in the upper reaches of the math 2 test has a non-trivial affect on admissions. Your strawman extension has no relevance.</p>
<p>From posting 64
"If the tests were more available to students, I agree that the AMC (and eventually AIME and USAMO for qualifying students) would be a better tool for discriminating even more meaningfully among high-level applicants. But this does not reflect at all on how scores on the SAT Subject Tests should be considered at the moment for students who do not submit scores from those tests. "
Actually, the AMC/AIME/USAMO are quite moderate in cost and simple to acquire and administer. Given that a goodly few thousand of the best math students in any given year take them (at least 40,000) we can also reasonably assume that a notable percentage of applicants to the elite schools do have these scores. Thus , the point is far from moot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but there are many students who could do well who have never heard of the tests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you get that from the first post?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which extension are you referring to?</p>
<p>Re: post 69
Well, yes, there are certainly some unknown and possibly large number of students who could score well on the AMC/AIME/USAMO but do not take them. This is equally true of subject tests and AP tests, and even the PSATs. However, a large number of kids do take them. Of the roughly 40,000, it seems likely that many will apply to elite schools. Elite schools will therefore be familiar with these scores (and some, such as MIT are actually requesting these scores explicitly) and will use them in conjunction with other scores (SAT reasoning math, SAT subject math, AP math subjects) to evaluate the strength of math understanding and potential.</p>
<p>Re Post #70
Actually, I was positing the question from the first several posts. As is common here, a simple query often leads to a somewhat broader discussion.</p>
<p>RE: POST 70
The strawman argument you propose would be this:</p>
<p>"By some very reasonable extension in accordance with the mentality you presented, a college should excuse a truly brilliant student’s poor grades because he or she is bored by taking tests (many, many more hours of tests than that required for the Subject Tests, mind you). Moreover, you’re debating my general claim about admissions practices with a very small and extraordinary group. "</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I absolutely agree; it seemed as though you were disregarding this, however:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your source? That statement sounds wildly inaccurate: at my high school, I estimate that about 90% of students are aware of the PSAT, about 30% are aware of Subject Tests, and about 95% are aware of AP tests. AMC/AIME/USAMO awareness is certainly under one percent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you deem that to be a strawman argument, I must be misinterpreting one of your points. Why, if not a lack of motivation to try when taking the SAT Subject Test in Math Level 2, would USAMO students not score 800 on the test?</p>
<p>Re: posting 75
Note that I said “unknown and possibly large”. My point is not to compare the numbers for these various options. My point is that there are other tests that are not known to many high school students. At several high schools in my area, awareness of the AMC/AIME/USAMO is 100% (although, many still do not take these tests). At some disadvantaged high schools that I know of, the PSAT is rarely , if ever, mentioned, and only a very proactive student would be able to find information.
Again, my point is that there are quite a few tests that not all students know about - not merely the AMC/AIME/USAMO. And, it is clear, at least to me, that a considerable number of the students applying to elite schools are aware of these test.</p>
<p>RE: post 76
I said nothing about poor grades at all. I have no interest in entering into a debate on the subject of grades while on this thread. I am not ‘presenting a mentality’ about gifted students either. I , as I would have thought was clear, am asserting a position about a small and specific area of scoring on a single test. I am not currently generalizing to a considerably wider scoring range or other tests.
I cannot see into the minds of all the individuals I know who scored well on the AMC/AIME/USAMO and also failed to score a perfect 800 on the SAT subject test in math level 2. They are all quite dedicated students who certainly do not lack motivation in general.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Such a comparison would yield something far more useful than the obvious idea that some people don’t know about some tests.</p>
<p>RE: posting 74
I was broadening the question somewhat - from the case of one individual tester-taker to any test-taker who scored in the high end of the SAT subject math level 2 test. I was not broadening the question any further. I was not speaking of the SAT1s, either by section or collectively. I was not talking about larger gaps than about 50 points. I was not talking about gaps in other parts of the scale. (It does occur to me that probably there is a similar affect at the bottom - I can imagine that the difference between a 200 and 250 doesn’t matter.)</p>