<p>The thing is, testing on individual subjects would put students like myself, who go to crappy public schools, at a significant disadvantage--I don't learn as much from the classes I take, I'll admit it. Of the 100 kids taking AP Bio this past year, only 2 took the test. Why? Because the teacher actually discouraged us from taking it, assuring us we'd fail. And we probably would have. </p>
<p>As imperfect as the SAT is, it is a <em>relatively</em> equal playing field, because it does mostly test basic skills and aptitude. Or at least it's as equal as it could possibly be at this point in time.</p>
<p>"I agree, for instance, on the PSAT, if you miss 2, you have like a 73. I missed 2 questions last year for writing and got a 73. I missed 7 for reading and got a 66. Missed none for math and got an 80."</p>
<p>On the PSAT, each section is out of 80. This is so that you can multiply your scores by 10 and [to some extent] predict your SAT scores, for which each section is out of 800. So that argument is no longer valid ;]</p>
<p>I think that yes, the SAT is definitely flawed in some aspects. BUT it's probably not the best indicator of future college grades. In college, you can study the material and do well, even if it takes a LOT more studying than you'd like. But on the SAT, it seems to show people's true intelligence [more often than not]. This is not taking into account the "intelligence" which can be acquired by studying your butt off of course - - I know people who do extremely well in school, but have to work extremely hard for their grades, who got somewhat lower scores on the SAT. And some people, who get mediocre grades in school, but who never try at all and don't even put forth the bare minimum, got higher SAT scores than expected.</p>
<p>I think for what it is the SAT is a pretty decent indicator. It has been around for decades and there is a reason for that; because contrary to popular belief it does work pretty well. There will never be a perfect test that is completely 100% accurate and 100% completely fair but colleges need a way to distinguish top students from one another and the SAT is one part of that. There are much less really high SAT students out there than high GPA students and since all schools are different in grading style the SAT is the equalizer (or 'an' equalizer in the admissions process) in a sense.</p>
<p>The recent CB studies shows the SAT works pretty well for predicting GPA in college (I believe it was a .53 correlation?) while High School GPA was basically the same at .54(?). Some people <em>cough</em>fairtest<em>cough</em> are looking for some perfect correlation but lets face it: some students spent tons of hours studying to get good grades and college may be overwhelming as material gets harder and memorizing turns to applying, some of those "lazy geniuses" who had mediocre grades and high SATs will continue to be lazy. The correlation between high school gpa AND sats was over .6 which seems to indicate they are a pretty solid combo.</p>
<p>Also if you aren't a fan of the emphasis colleges place on the SAT, don't apply to law school, the LSAT will either by your best friend or worst enemy</p>
<p>If you actually studied for the test instead of making pointless topics about it on here, you might not have to whine about its stupidity.
It's there.
You have to take it.
Suck it up.</p>
<p>I think that anyone who can go from a 1700 to a 2200 is very intelligent. They were probably always able to get that score anyways they just weren't familiar with the test. The SAT requires you to have basic reading skills that are extremely hard to learn. Its kinda just about going with instinct. Whereas the ACT you can actually study for. I think that SAT is more or an indicator than the ACT. But at the same time it isn't really an indicator. Because once you are scoring above 2000 any dumb little mistake will really throw your score down. SO it really does just come down to how familiar you are with the test, how you pace yourself, your vocab, and LUCK</p>
<p>jmanco49, my decision had nothing to do with what my classmates were doing. It had to do with the fact that we had spent 80% of classtime inputting things like "cell" and "mitochondria" on Google and writing down what came up (as an assignment, mind you).</p>
<p>The main value of the SAT (and ACT) is that they are standardized tests. Adcoms understand their limitations, and know how demographics affect the results. None of the individual student measurements reliably predict success in college and beyond, but taken all together, the various components help adcoms do quite a good job of it.</p>
<p>When I said anyone can get an AP score of 5, while hardly anyone can get a 2400, I was not saying so because it is, statistically, much more difficult to achieve the latter.</p>
<p>I was implying that almost anyone can study for content-driven tests and absorb the information; but, not anyone can study for "reasoning" tests and achieve just any score. As flawed as the SAT is, it reveals (to some extent) an inherent reasoning ability. What AP exams DO test, but the SAT does NOT test, is how many hours a student is willing to study. Any motivated student can do well on an AP exam. Not just any motivated student (typically) can do well on the SAT.</p>
<p>I do think the SAT measures intelligence to a certain degree. That said, some preparation is necessary if you want to do your best. Soph year I took the PSAT with absolutely no prep whatsoever and made a 61 CR, 70 M, 54 W (185 total). The following summer before junior year I went to a prep class that, more than anything, made me very familiar with the test and types of questions on it. I came to develop my personal opinion that the math and writing are the sections that can be studied for very easily and the CR is more luck based (at least for me). Whether I happen to know the vocab words, whether I pick the correct answer from the two choices I've narrowed a question down to, whether I really grasp the passages all seem to be a matter of chance. I know there are people who can consistently get 800 in CR, but I'm not that guy, lol.</p>
<p>So after preparing, I took the PSAT again junior year and got a 224 (71 CR, 80 M, 73 W). Took the SAT in May and got a 2280 (680 CR, 800 M, 800 W). Interestingly on the W I got a 9 on my essay and a perfect score on the MC. I think I'm gonna take it again for the heck of it to see if I can bring up the CR; I was disappointed when I found out I somehow missed nine. :< Should be able to do better.</p>
<p>I guess what I've learned is that my 185 Soph year with no prep/virtually no knowledge of even what the test covered signified that I did indeed possess the aforementioned "inherent ability" (whatever it is) that the SAT tests and it was just a matter of a little prep to do really well. I know some people who have prepared 5x as much as I have and can't even reach the ~1850 level I was at as a sophomore. I suppose that's just the nature of the test though...</p>
<p>I agree with stbs in that SAT does measure intelligence. In fact, I think SAT is more of an indicator of your IQ than how well you'll do in college.
i.e.
I've seen many intelligent but lazy people get 2200+. However, I have yet to see any non-smart person get a 2200+ (who may be very driven, but simply wasnt born as intelligent). By non-smart I mean the type of people who have to bottle up the info before they can comprehend (while the smarter people understand the conceps and can apply them elsewhere).
/just my 2cents</p>