<p>yeah, i mean, but theres so many factors that go into an SAT score.</p>
<p>the first is invariably your own innate intelligence, and i think this is by far the biggest factor in one's score. and rightly so, since you rarely see people who start off at around 1500's prepare enough to the point where they can get top notch scores. </p>
<p>the second is how much coaching one has had. for the most part, hysterically high scores are usually the result of a mixture of innate intelligence as well as adequate preparation. this is where the usage of the SAT as an aptitude test inevitably comes into question. at my school of attendance (which i dont go to for IB), i have a friend who prepared insane amounts for the SAT. she took it i believe in october of her sopho year (after years of practice by then already) and got a 2280. for the next 17 months, as she says to me, her mother made her take a practice test every saturday and then afterwards they went over every question she missed. ultimately on her retake in march of her junior year she got a 2290 (i know, right?), which is the score she stuck with. from a more normal perspective, a large number of my friends took SAT classes over the past summer. on diagnostic tests, almost all of my friends scored in the 1400-1500 range. after the class however, some of them were able to improve by a couple hundred points whereas some of them stayed at where they began. at the same time, i have a friend who got a 1420 his first time taking it. after methodically studying for a couple of months, he got a 21 something upon retaking. based on my illustrations, i deduce that coaching can impact one's score, but that one's score is still largely based off of other external factors as well.</p>
<p>the third is simply test day conditions. maybe one isnt feeling so well, maybe they develop a migraine during the test, or maybe the CR passages just happens to be on something they cant focus so well on. this is easily the thing that can affect one's scores the most.</p>
<p>so i think that overall, in very broad terms, the SAT can be defined as an aptitude test regardless of how much one studies. based on the third factor that i just mentioned, i would venture as far as to say that one's score can easily fluctuate 50 points per section. at the same, even for those who study hysterical amounts for the test, (from the perspective of an actually average student) one must still be competent enough to use the knowledge that they gain about the test on the actual test, which for many is very difficult, which i think separates my friends in one of my above-mentioned illustrations. </p>
<p>what i do not agree with is arguments that scores that are relatively close to each other can distinguish students in terms of intelligence. for example, i got a 2310. from my perspective, it would be unfair to say that someone with a 2400 is smarter than me or that someone with a 2200 is dumber than me. id say that to say that someone is smarter than someone else theyd really have to outscore that person by a good 150, 200 points. but even so, studying and test day conditions seriously skew this potential idea even as such. so, as i stated to poseur in another thread, i believe that once someone has scores 700+, they really shouldnt be considered that much in terms of the admission process. its unfathomable that anyone would really try to judge people based on score nuances of sometimes 100 or even less points.</p>
<p>i think that in an ideal world, itd be best to have everyone prepare at least slightly for the SAT. id say that beyond getting to know the format of the exam (which i retrospectively seriously wish i had done), studying intensely will only negligibly affect one's score. </p>
<p>and if i said something stupid its cuz its 2 in the morning -_- haha.</p>