The SAT is a joke

<p>floydisgod, I love you to pieces.</p>

<p>The ACT math section is hardly "more challenging". If you can't answer what the question asks for, then that's a reading problem. </p>

<p>Yes, I agree that the SAT doesn't measure much of anything of a person. Imo, only impressive EC's (not necessarily a distinguished award) show what a student is capable of. However, on the national level, it doesn't get much better. If you read a lot of books, the vocab shouldn't be a problem. Do you think reading passages in college will be much more fun?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Yes, how much/well you are able to read is part of it. But I would think a smart (<em>snort</em>) person like yourself would've known that already, unless you completely disregarded the format of the test. Even if you did, if you're really smart you should not have to do anything to study for things like advanced vocabulary - you should know it already. I know I did.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>If you never write like that, you should easily be able to figure out what's wrong with the way it's written.</p>

<p>As for my last point which you take so long to rebut, it goes something like this: You say that the test disadvantages inner-city kids, which implies that you think it's too hard (although you are correct in that you say that more in reference to the writing and critical reading sections). Then you say that the math is too easy.</p>

<p>You know what that shows me?</p>

<p>You don't actually have any real opinion about who the test advantages or disadvantages, with one exception: you know which parts of the test advantage/disadvantage you. Every single point you've made about the test has been related to how well you did on it. You ***** about the essay because youn don't like having to argue a opint you haven't thought about before hand (which is an important skill). You ***** about having to correct sentences. Then you ***** that the math section is too easy.</p>

<p>Thus, I'll summarize your posts for you:</p>

<p>"This test should be changed so that I (obviously the most important test-taker in the world) like it. It must be tailored so that I personally am challenged on (but am still able to ace) each section of the test, without thinking any are stupid."</p>

<p>Reality check. You are a statistic to the CollegeBoard. Your opinion doesn't matter, especially since it's a self-centered critique based on what you do or don't like. No one cares.</p>

<p>Guess 1of42 loves the SAT. Defending the SAT? Now that's pathetic. Get a life.</p>

<p>floydisgod, I care. Might not agree, but I don't think you're "just a statistic".</p>

<p>

The writing multiple choice isn't even hard. It's just that especially in the paragraph correction thing, they expect to you know what the person is trying to say, which is sometimes quite hard to grasp and I don't think it should be made that way.</p>

<p>

Did I ever say anything was too hard? NO. I just said what is being tested in those sections isn't fair game for a "critical reasoning test" because it requires a lot of knowledge that inner city kids don't have.</p>

<p>I wish the critical reading section was true to it's name. That means that you read a passage and answer questions about it. Possibly, the analogies should be added again because in order to make good comparisons, you also need good logic. However, you do not need to know meanings of words never used in common English.</p>

<p>I wish the writing section did not exist because it iis the most ridiculous section of them all, maybe with the exception of the first part where you pick the best selection of words to complete the selection should be kept. In reality though, there is no great way to test one's writing skills outside of an essay. However, the problems involved essays on standardized tests outweigh their possible benefits. Most importantly, the grading is not thorough at all because the graders can only spend an average of 30 seconds reading each essay. I really can't see a way of having a good writing section and agree with the many colleges that disregard the current one. I would too.</p>

<p>The math section isn't structured to benefit the people with the highest abilities in math as much as it could be, which is why I don't like it all too much. I believe the math section should be mostly high difficulty questions that don't require a lot of knowledge of math (to help those with poor educations), but rather a good thinking process so those who are truly good in math will have the limits of their abilities tested. That will allow a curve to be used that doesn't completely kill one for making one or two stupid mistakes. Currently, me and countless other students don't have to think hard at all during any of the math section and are judged on how little our mind wanders.

You really need work on your "critical reasoning", sir. First of all, I believe all the writing multiple choice questions are very easy. I just don't think they are legitimate for the test. I also don't think the math section is too easy for my own personal benefits. I already got an 800 on it which is all that matters for me. I just cringe due to the fact that one or two stupid mistakes can pull one's grade down 50 points. The best mathemetician in the world may skip over the 2 and solve for X while a half decent math student is able to luckily come up with the correct answer for every question without having any time cushion. There is a large group of people capable of getting an 800 in the math section; it is just a matter of who makes less mindless mistakes, whether they involve miscopying, mistyping in the calculator, whatever. You somehow are illusioned to my true intentions. I want the SAT to be a test of integrity that shows who has the abilities to be a good student in college. That is a very self-centered opinion definitely.</p>

<p>I don't really know what this blue book is, but it is probably something the College Board is selling for extra money. Good idea, make a test that can be easily studied for and then sell the books to help the people study. They really aren't too dumb after all if they do sell the blue books. That is a great financial strategy and I commend them for that.</p>

<p>Why are you so attached to the SAT anyways? Maybe you studied for it and as a result did real well. Maybe you have more knowledge than intelligence and like it the way it is. Maybe you plain just did real well and your score inflates your ego. I don't really care, but to deny that there are any problems with it is assinine.</p>

<p>Anything more? No. That is all and I may or may not come back here, but I don't really feel like arguing about this any more.</p>

<p>Advantage ---> 1of42</p>

<p>One small point. The math question, where it asks for 2x? It seems fairly obvious to me, although I'm sure you will come up with some brilliant, simple reason why this is correct, that the 2 is there just to make sure you are paying attention. To me thats what the SAT is all about. Paying attention. You have a vocabulary, (or not) pay attention to what the question asks and you will get all the CR questions right. You take two/three years of math in high school, pay attention in class/on SAT, and you get all the math questions right. You pay attention to the clock in the essay section, you have plenty of time to get your point across. You pay attention to what you are supposed to correct of the 'retarded kids' essays, and you get all of the writing section correct. Do not whine. Do not blame your proctor. Do not blame CollegeBoard for disadvantaging kids. That's a waste of time. Suck it up, since you got your 2400 so your complaining for no personal reason on then to go on a powertrip.</p>

<p>Oh, wait. You didn't get a 2400? Oh,...my bad. Maybe you should get a BlueBook. And yes, CollegeBoard's purpose is definitely a financial gain with this study guide. I am sure they are an organization built on profiteering and doing their damndest to help people fail the most important universal qualifier applicants can show the colleges of their choice.</p>

<p>i agree mainly with one point. the proctors are clueless. taking my sat 2 recently, they said before they would announce how much time is left every 15 or so minutes. the lady never announced it once.</p>

<p>Winner: 1 of 42</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>For people who know how to read, knowing what the author means isn't hard.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Arguing that they shouldn't be tested on knowledge they don't have (they being inner-city kids) is an argument for policy makers, not you, a high school student with neither the analytical skills nor the knowledge of the effect of these socio-economic factors on test takers to be able to comment.</p>

<p>As for those words never being used in common English, they're used in the common English I speak, and that language is apparently the same as the one many others here speak. Is it so hard to accept that maybe you just aren't up to snuff in this particular aspect?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Agreed that the essay is not great, but the test is better with it than without. Unfortunately, writing under time constraints seems to be something many high school students are weak at - particularly in the U.S., where much emphasis is on multiple choice tests. In other curricula, where writing under time constraints is an important skill, this weakness is not as present. However, your criticism is the only valid thing you've said so far. However, having a non-profound essay is better than having none at all. Unfortunately, due to the massive scale of this test, it can't be as insightful an assessment tool as it could be.</p>

<p>On another note, each marker gets 2 minutes per essay, not 30 seconds.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>That is an absolutely terrible idea. Since you purport to know all kinds of things about the disadvantages students (particularly those terribly disadvantaged inner city students who this tests "discriminates" against), why don't you tell me what the average math abilities of most high school students is? You might be astounded if you didn't already know. Since everyone has to take the SAT, it's obvious that the math can't be too hard, or there would be so many abysmally low scores that even a curve wouldn't help. And in any case, why are you concerned that a stupid mistake or two loses you 20 or 30 points? It is a well known fact that schools like MIT acknowledge the curve and consider almost all scores above about 750 to be equivalent.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>First of all, I didn't study. I did it cold the first time, and got 2280 - I consider that subpar, and I think that my November session will show significant improvement. I generally have more intelligence than knowledge, but with an ample supply of both (which is what you need for this test) I had no difficulties.</p>

<p>I'm not attached to the SAT, I just find it aggravating in an intellectual sense when people purport to have valid criticisms, but either don't have any basis for them, or are using completely flawed logic - and you fail in both of these aspects. It's really quite "assinine" of you.</p>

<p>**
[quote]
Maybe what bothers me is the common misconception that the SAT measures intelligence.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The SAT is NOT an intelligence test, nor does it ever claim to be. It only predicts freshmen performance in college. </p>

<p>Poor people are ALWAYS disadvantaged in life. What do you do, have universal private education? Suck it up and deal with it. </p>

<p>This entire post seems like some immature whining about something you don't like. Your cynicism gets you no where.**</p>

<p>The message that the author tries to get across is not all that difficult. They do not ask you to identify a specific point in the essay where the author tells when in his/her life that they realized something. The questions about this are fairly straightforward unless you simply glaze over the passage in order to answer the questions. Any mature reader who reads the passages should be able to distinguish the /basic/ meanings of the passage.</p>

<p>this is hilarious. steaming pile of turd?</p>

<p>Here's a suggestion:</p>

<p>floydisgod - take the ACT instead.</p>

<p>SATs don't accurately predict freshman performance in college at all. Some people are just horrible test takers (like me, lol) but do well in actual school. And what if someone had a bad day? What if a family member died and they were really upset while taking the test? It all depends on the person's mood. I think the SAT is great for test takes, but bad for the average person.</p>

<p>a family member's death might bring out the best in a person during the test. I mean, it could be used to prove a point (in the essay perhaps).
I'm not saying that it's a good thing; I'm saying it could be helpful.
but yeah, it really depends on the test taker's mood.</p>

<p>BTW, Stuck-on-1700
for the Critical Reading if you have no clue what the words mean, you are going to either skip or guess.
There is no why to "critically reason" out the meaning without having a clue of what the meanings are.
When I took the PSAT, I studied from the Barrons 3500 list, other people didn't and after they took the exam and guessed on a huge chunk of the sentence completion questions - they worriedly asked me the answers to the questions and found out that they got most of them wrong!
Therefore, your idea of just plugging in words isn't valid.</p>

<p>I don't agree fully, but I have to say that the SAT now is no longer an aptitude test. It's a test that measure how much you pay for classes or how much time you spent into studying. Go ahead and defend the SAT; the bottom line is, if you study for it, or you pay money to take classes for it, you will do at least slightly better. That way, even the average kids measure up to those natural geniuses (who actually don't waste their time studying for the SAT). How is the SAT supposed to separate the good from the great if everyone just studies for it? It defeats the purpose of an APTITUDE test and just like everything in America, measures either how RICH you are, or how much time you have to devote to the SAT. </p>

<p>P.S. This is in no way reflecting my opinion of America, I'm just saying that because I feel a little bitter about how some US schools are not need-blind to international schools such as myself, thus not being rich is a HUGE disadvantage.</p>

<p>it's a test! Everyone knows that taking courses for a test will get you a higher score. It's common sense.</p>

<p>It's the Scholastic APTITUDE Test. APTITUDE. Unless it's aptitude for paying money or spending time, then it's not a very accurate descriptor.</p>

<p>they stopped calling it that. now SAT doesn't stand for anything btw.
People take courses to LEARN how to "think critically" for the passages. Once you know how to solve, it'll be a piece of cake for you to know what the author of a passage implies.</p>