<p>it certainly is his choice. but it certainly is my choice to say that taking the SAT 4 times is too much. Freedom of speech.</p>
<p>You playing devil's advocate is not my idea of fun.Your sitting here playing around with my emotions and getting a kick out of it. I'm sorry, but I just dont see the humor. I retract my last post, however.</p>
<p>Ah. Such civil debate.</p>
<p>And it was for that matter a good debate till jeffl came and ... me off, and then I took it out on you. I'm sorry.</p>
<p>I really want to hear other people's opinions on this topic.</p>
<p>I don't think I'm playing with your emotions. I'm just giving the arguement if they want to retake tests, let them retake tests.</p>
<p>Not my fault if you get emotional about it.</p>
<p>Sure, you may say it's absolutely stupid, but many people think (some rightly so) that their futures are riding on an absolutely stupid test.</p>
<p>To them, 4 times may not be too much.</p>
<p>Oh, and nice talking to you. I'm gonna go and eat though.</p>
<p>"You know, for a site of such academicly gifted kids, most of these board dwellers are suprisingly close-minded in that they believe both that the SAT is a measure of actual intelligence and that anyone who 'underperforms' on it is "academically inadequate". Nevere mind that most of the high scorers only do so because their daddies have the resources to pay for test prep books and SAT tutors. The ONLY reason why people underachieve on the SAT is because they don't 'read enough'."</p>
<p>It's true that the SAT is not necessarily a measure of intelligence or of academic ability. It's not an IQ test: there is no direct correlation between intelligence and high scores. However, that doesn't mean that intelligence doesn't HELP you to score well. There are a number of factors that help people score well on the SATamong them, intelligence, amount of reading done, number of math courses taken, specific preparation for the SAT, general test-taking skills, reading speed... the list goes on. It's just as illogical to say that SAT high-scorers ONLY score well because of expensive prep as it is to say that they score well only because of intelligence: in both cases, you're taking one of these many aspects and giving it more prominence than it deserves.
So while I agree with you that the SAT isn't only about intelligence, I think you're guilty of the same faulty reasoning when you say it's only about receiving expensive preparation. It's a combination of so many things that we can't possibly pin it down to one.</p>
<p>Isn't it true that U of Cal does not look at these scores anymore.</p>
<p>You know, Rbase, it's funny how you yelled at Northstarmom for making unfounded assumptions, then turned around and claimed that all high scorers on the SAT get the scores they do because "their daddies pay for tutors."</p>
<p>lol i think its okay if you want to retake the test if you have a 1370 and know you could have easily got 50 more points in the math section. But the people who have a 1450 here need to calm down and shut up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't it true that U of Cal does not look at these scores anymore.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>cama, I believe Cal is one of the schools that weighs SAT the heaviest....</p>