<p>More and more I have begun to believe that the SAT I not only no longer functions for it's intended purpose (i.e. identifying the "diamonds in the rough" finding the best and brightest at non-magnet, non-elite school). And furthermore with the obsession on the whole college process those who can afford it will enroll their children Kaplan and their ilk such that they learn "test-taking strategies" to raise their scores... With the "artificial" rise in SAT scores for those in tutoring suddenly the brilliant kid in rural Montana doesn't look as good.</p>
<p>Furthermore, studies suggest that the out of SAT I, SAT IIs and GPA that the latter two are far better at indicating freshman performance than the SAT I (SAT II's being better than GPA)</p>
<p>This has annoyed my for the past few months... I post this to CC because I want to see if there are others out there who feel the way I do. As well as to see if there is an another purpose to the SAT I that I am missing.</p>
<p>Finally it should be noted that I am not against the SAT II subject tests.</p>
<p>^ Yes because a B at say Thomas Jefferson in VA is different to a B at your average suburban high school. SAT II’s put people on the same playing field in subjects that they are learning in school, similar to GCSE’s in the UK.</p>
<p>What you say about the SAT’s is true, but consider this: the cutthroat ambitious students that would prepare for months for the SAT’s, with test-taking strategies and such, are the same ones that are like to do well in Harvard and the real world, even if they’re not necessarily as smart as the genius in rural Montana. The person that doesn’t study and gets a 2250 would not fit the Ivy League criteria as well as the person that studies his hide off and gets a 2300. What I’m trying to say is, big schools would rather teach a future president than a megasavant.</p>
<p>I tend to disagree that the SAT is useless. I assume you feel the same about the ACT. I never took the SAT - ACT only, but before I took it I wasn’t considering private or out of state schools. My school is painfully average - we had one student go to Amherst last year. She applied to fourteen schools, and her parents really pushed her. That’s basically it for any selective schools. </p>
<p>After I took the ACT (33) I started getting letters from selective schools - Princeton was my first - and it really opened my eyes. I also received a letter from Questbridge, which I became a Finalist for. Now I’m attending Northwestern University, accepted ED. </p>
<p>I’m fairly average - no ‘diamond in the rough’ - but the point is that standardized tests can still help bring less priveleged students to the attention of better schools and programs.</p>
<p>No the point is not that the SAT no longer benefits lazy but brilliant students. My point is that there are people who because of their location are unable to have SAT tutors to teach them how to beat the exam. These are the people at an unfair advantage, they may be absolutely driven but they have to work a job on top of school to provide income. Lacking the time or the money for hardcore SAT prep, but not lacking in either the drive or the intelligence… Or in say rural Montana where stuff like SAT boot camps or tutors are not readily available.</p>
<p>In addition, I question the drive of students that study like mad for the SAT… One in general works to accomplish a goal, so if one works their hide off for the SAT then it seems as if their “passion” lies solely in getting into college. Also is the drive the students or the drive of overbearing parents? My experiences at boarding school tell me the kids with “drives” caused mostly by pushy parents completely unravel when they are away from their parents because they have no other source of motivation.</p>
<p>@QueenBee2015: That is what I thought the point of the SAT and ACT was… So it is good to hear that the system still works. Programs like Questbridge and POSSE are godsends…</p>
<p>From the lacking grammar in the thread’s title, I’ll have to disagree. (lol jk)</p>
<p>But on a serious note, I think the SAT/SAT II’s are important because they use a standardized scale. A score of 2100 on the SAT or a score of 750 on an SAT subject test is the same throughout the nation, whereas a GPA of 3.9 might be more difficult in some schools than others.</p>
<p>The SAT I is very useful to admissions committees because as more students apply to 10 or more colleges via the common app, colleges need some way of classifying and discarding applications. The SAT I can be gamed somewhat, but not entirely, especially the critical reading section; a student who has not spent a lifetime reading is unlikely to do well on CR no matter how much money is spent on prep. Math is slightly more affected by prep, but SAT tutoring companies cannot transform an average scorer into a top scorer. </p>
<p>SAT IIs are a reality check on high school grade inflation; even so, they measure a student’s willingness to prep for a specific subject test more than raw ability to do college work.</p>
<p>While you are at it, AP tests are even better predictors of college grades than Subject Test scores. So why not require two AP scores in college level classes to get into college. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>But, yes the University of California has data that shows that Subject Tests are better than SAT-1. So UC dropped Subject Tests as a college admissions requirement.</p>
<p>Yes that is what I meant. If you read Weekyl’s post you will see that he points out that a test to the SAT I is still valid as it tests hard work… Disadvantaged students might not be able to put in the hundreds hours prepping SAT for not because they are lazy but because they have to say work a job or take care of their family.</p>
<p>@NJSue
In my personal experience with the SAT that is not true. Mostly because for the vast majority of the longer comprehension questions in CR. I found that I could justify 2, sometimes even 3 answers if I was given a sentence to say why. The question is how much the board wants you to infer from the actual text in your answer… Writing I will agree with you for the grammar sections and such but the actual SAT essay was so vastly different to the types of essays (mainly in the fact that they are not discursive at all and that apparently fiction literature is a valid source of quotes) that I had been writing for high school that I had to “learn” how to write an SAT essay.</p>