<p>
</p>
<p>Then unless you are literally THE most amazing writer on the face of the earth, I doubt that your papers are THAT good. Sorry. Really good writing requires editing. I stand by that fact…</p>
<p>^ The latter, most definitely.
They are not that good, I can do stated above for a grade. I can bet when I start writing college essays I will be rewriting at least 10 times.</p>
<p>
Being standardized does not equate to being a measure of talent… I don’t have any grievances against the SAT so there’s no bias here.</p>
<p>^^^^</p>
<p>It is the best applicable option available. If you disagree, please give an example of a better indicator of talent adminsterable to millions of kids a year.</p>
<p>If you think the SAT is talent-based… Well, I can just say from experience that determination makes the difference.</p>
<p>Seriously, SAT talent? Then why is it that people “buy” their scores? It’s not even hard! It’s just practicing and studying. I mean, some don’t study and get high scores but that’s just them. Most kids study and it’s all it takes, no talent.</p>
<p>There really isn’t a good talent test, the IQ test isn’t worth crap, physical talents maybe.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Ok. Please what measures talent? If you deem all the Ph.D’s and other learning professionals’ tests to measure intelligence “crap,” please give a better method. </p>
<p>How would you separate the talented from the ordinary? </p>
<p>How do u plan to apply your test to 7 million kids a year?</p>
<p>SAT isn’t perfect. Some smart people will score poorly and some stupid people will score high by the virtue of highly unprobable chance. Nevertheless, SAT does a decent job of separating smart kids from the less smart. A 2300+ kid is almost GUARANTEED to be smarter than a 1800 kid. The 2300+ kid is also more likely to be WORTH MORE to society than the 1800 kid. Sure, some 1500 kids become A-Rod, banking 25 million a year. But Most do not. On the other hand, most 2300+ kids go to college and grad school, becoming doctors, engineers, lawyers, and other professionals. Few would argue that a store attendee or a receptionist is worth more to society than those previously mentioned professions.</p>
<p>The method is perfect and some will slip through the cracks but it is the best option available with the given technology. With revolutionary computers, the process may be more individually tailored to gauge all aspects talent. </p>
<p>It seems highly intriguing to me that people criticize tests devised by experts in the field. They know SAT isnt perfect but its the best society can do. Criticizing that is like claiming that cars are faulty. Sure cars are faulty: they pollute the environment and are highly inefficient. But try getting rid of cars for 1 day. Similarly, try getting rid of SAT/ACT for 1 year. Lets see what happens.</p>
<p>And I quote:</p>
<p>“The College Board states that the SAT measures literacy and writing skills that are needed for academic success in college. They state that the SAT assesses how well the test takers analyze and solve problems—skills they learned in school that they
will need in college.”</p>
<p>It is, by design, supposed to be a test of what you’ve learned. And of course a 2300 is more likely to become some sort of well-salaried professional, since most colleges dole out educational opportunities based on this test. And if anyone benefits from this, it’s me. I don’t disagree with the heavy emphasis on the SAT. I just don’t pretend that it’s talent that makes the biggest difference.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you have this compelling need to find some sort of quantitative measure to compare everybody’s level of talent. Talent is such a nebulous concept, we would be lucky to make quantitative measures of just its components.</p>
<p>And by the way, your car analogy doesn’t really hold up. Nobody here is questioning the general usefulness of the SAT, much as environmentalists don’t question the general usefulness of cars. We’re just saying the SAT doesn’t effectively measure raw talent like you say it does. So it’s more like we’re arguing eating carrots won’t give you x-ray vision. There are all kinds of other reasons for eating carrots that we won’t argue with and eating carrots may well have small benefits for your eyesight, but don’t be disappointed when you can’t see through walls.</p>
<p>you guys are going to be in for a rude awakening if you think talent is the most important thing. one post before summarized it quite nicely: if success were a pie chart, it would comprise of hard work, luck, and talent being the least important.</p>