<p>I realize that this thread will probably be controversial due to the sensitivity surrounding the implications of my argument, but nevertheless, this is an internet forum, not a political stage; we are here to share and refine ideas, not to scrutinize so-called "distasteful" thoughts.</p>
<p>I would think that, by now, it's accepted that virtually all colleges accept both the SAT and ACT and that the vast majority, including those schools most talked-about here on CC. Perhaps there is still no true way of verifying whether admissions officers treat them equally, as there are always uncontrollable variables, perhaps an intrinsic bias, but I really do think that by now there is a concerted effort to regard the tests equally.</p>
<p>And alas, that is not the focal point of this discussion. Rather, my opening question is whether admissions officers really should regard the two exams equally.</p>
<p>Let's not beat around the bush here; I believe that they shouldn't, at least not by the elite tier of schools. First of all, there is an obvious inconsistency in treating test scores as stone-cold numbers when those numbers, depending on the test, mean different things. And this is the greatest issue I have with the two tests being treated equally. A 36 on the ACT isn't really equal to a 2370 on the SAT; not because one score is more impressive than the other, but because they are simply scores in different realms measuring different abilities. And this is not a secret nor is it something either Collegeboard or ACT Inc. tries to conceal. </p>
<p>To generalize without getting too much in depth, the SAT measures logic and reasoning skills. The SAT itself originated as an intelligence test, and while it can no longer be said to be an effective intelligence test, the SAT does to a degree still gauge intelligence. That is not to say that the ACT does not gauge intelligence at all, but by essentially all accounts the ACT is more oriented towards a different skill set. Here is a quote I pulled from NPR's website:
[quote]
[Take the ACT if] You are more academic than "test savvy." The ACT seems to most people to be more curriculum-based and thus more straightforward. There is more advanced math content (logarithms, trigonometry, conic sections, etc.), but it seems more like a regular test you might encounter in school.
[/quote]
The ACT is, essentially, a test meant to determine how good of a student you are and how successful you will be at college work. The SAT is supposed to have the same goal, but multiple critics have pointed out the relatively weak correlations between SAT score and college GPA. They draw the conclusion that because the SAT does not accurately indicate college success, it is of little worth.</p>
<p>Not only do I disagree with the arguments but I disagree with Collegeboard's statement that this is what the SAT is meant to do - and ironically, because I disagree with the SAT's supposed purpose I support it. Because the most accurate indicator of college GPA is, far and away, high school GPA. And no standardized test, the SAT or the ACT, can ever replace that. But it does seem that the same proponents who criticize the SAT generally support the ACT because it is probably a closer indicator of college GPA than the SAT is. But here is where the center of my argument lies: doesn't this render the ACT arguably redundant and superfluous in its intent? If high school transcripts exist, why the need to further establish a student's ability in school? Of course, some will argue that not all high school transcripts were born the same, and I agree, but isn't that the purpose of the SAT subject tests (which are arguably the Collegeboard-equivalent to the ACT)? As I write up my argument, I have considered another possibility: perhaps the ACT is perfectly fine, but that an SAT reasoning test score should be accompanied with an ACT score, just like SAT subject test scores must be accompanied with an SAT reasoning test score.</p>
<p>Of course, now you may be wondering why I think the SAT reasoning takes precedent over other standardized tests. It boils down to this: I am not necessarily in support of the SAT but rather whatever can serve as the best gauge of intrinsic intelligence out there. And if that test for high-schoolers is the SAT, then I support the SAT. The ACT simply doesn't hold up in this regard. And arguably the SAT doesn't either: when was the last time you heard that the SAT score is manipulated by an array of factors outside of intelligence? Two seconds ago (:p)? And that is a perfectly fine point, but nevertheless irrelevant to the bulk of the discussion, which is whether the SAT and ACT should be held in equal regard. As much as the SAT score can be manipulated by outside factors, the ACT can be manipulated tenfold simply because it really was never meant to measure intelligence. The ACT is a required exam in multiple states in the US. It indicates classroom ability and whether the teachers are doing their jobs correctly or not. If the SAT were mandatory in a state, imagine how much flack (and I would argue deserved flack) such a policy would get.</p>
<p>Look, if another standardized test, one that measured intelligence virtually regardless of external factors, emerged and was being used by colleges, I would support that and not the SAT. Now, why do I think intelligence is an important measure for college applicants? If you've been closely reading my thread, you'll note that I made a point to say that perhaps the SAT should only be favored by the elite tier of schools. A state school would do perfectly fine admitting excellent students with ambition that, regardless of natural intelligence, will do very well in college and be very successful down the road. An Ivy League school can't always say the same. As I've noted above, I do believe that ambition is the overwhelming factor in determining success in life. But I recall reading an article of the origins of affirmative action: Ivy League schools wanted a diverse student body that would go on to lead diverse roles in life; they didn't want only doctors or lawyers or people that would do very successfully but lead relatively undistinguished lives. Rather, they wanted people who, thirty years down the road, would be Nobel laureates or tenured professors and researchers. They wanted entrepreneurs with innovation who would become far more valuable to a school's name than ten thousand lawyers could. </p>
<p>Hard work alone simply cannot add up to these things. And neither can intelligence alone; let's face it, for the most part, these remarkably successful people had a great deal of luck on their side. But to suggest that intelligence didn't have anything to do with their accomplishments (or more to do with their accomplishments than a successful but undistinguished person's accomplishments) would be a far too general and misguided opinion as well. Intelligence simply does have a place in determining the likelihood that a person eventually leads a truly distinguished life (and yes, on all levels intelligence still retains its place in determining success, however controversial such a claim may be), and if these elite schools are interested in unraveling more of these types (really, any school for that matter) then I cannot see why schools hold the two tests in equal regard. Or rather I do see why but I think it's unfortunate that a school either does not see more value in an SAT score than an ACT score or is too politically correct to acknowledge their differences.</p>
<p>I am finished with this long-winded post; may the discussion begin!</p>
Not really sure how I can prove how the tests are different, other than that their differences are widely accepted.