<p>Charles Murray wrote a fasconating artice about this topic several years ago in the American magazine. I’d link to it, but I’m not sure how to do that (I’m a real neophyte when it comes to this internet doohickey)</p>
<p>people who say the SAT is BS are usually the people who do badly on the SAT…
i did well (enough) on the SAT and i agree its BS, uniform academic exams would be better</p>
<p>ideally, academic exams would be more effective and certainly better predictors of academic success, but curricula in different schools focus on different aspects. Thus, even when taking the SAT II’s, schools will not teach you material in the same way, or will be cetnered around different ideas/concepts in general</p>
<p>I wouldn’t want the entire purpose of my secondary education to be to teach me how to take a test. The test culture has gotten bad enough already without taking it that extra step.</p>
<p>SAT is easy; getting a good score doesn’t show intelligence. Getting a low score shows poor test taking skills.</p>
<p>That’s it.</p>
<p>Found the article: [Abolish</a> the SAT](<a href=“http://american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat]Abolish”>http://american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=murray]
The substitution of achievement tests for the SAT will put a spotlight on the quality of the local high school’s curriculum. If achievement test scores are getting all of the parents’ attention in the college admissions process, the courses that prepare for those achievement tests will get more of their attention as well, and the pressure for those courses to improve will increase.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that won’t further disenfranchise those from less-advantaged schools, will it Charles<em>? For the record, this is the worst idea I’ve ever heard. The courses that prepare students for these achievement tests were freaking atrocious in my (bad) school. Half my class failed the achievement test for math on their first try. Half! One little SAT prep course is nothing compared to the advantages the rich kids have in their core class pedagogy</em>*. I boosted my SAT score 200 points by spending $20 on the Princeton Review book and doing a few practice tests. I didn’t need to take a fancy prep course, it was all in the book.</p>
<p>And since when does the math SAT presuppose hard work in algebra class? Pythagorean theorem and common sense is all I remember using. </p>
<p>Utter tripe. I could go on and on, especially if I actually read the whole article. It’s about as well-written as one of my posts.</p>
<p>*sarcasm</p>
<p>**fancy word for “teaching” used by pseudo-intellectuals and intellectuals alike</p>
<p>I think math is well engineered in the SAT. (aptitude rather than achievement)</p>
<p>Everything else is complete crap, esp. vocab and essay.</p>
<p>(Coming from someone who has a pretty high score not relative to typical CC standards)</p>
<p>My oldest was a bad test taker if it was over 2 hours…just faded out, but did much better on practice tests where they did one section at a time. </p>
<p>I think its scary the amount of students in high school and college that take drugs to get through the tests. If they get adderal “for the day” as I hear some parents tell me, is that fair? I’m not talking about the child that needs it, but many are getting it for temporary use. Some physicians give it out, some are getting it from friends at school. Even at college, I hear stories from my children about rampant drug sharing for exams and all-nighters.
This might show something, but intelligence?
NYTimes had an article last year about Columbia and the high incidence of stimulent drugs to get through exams. Quite a few students, said said without the help of pills they could never keep up their A’s. They thought the use was much more than anyone would suspect. I have a feeling it will get worse before it gets better.</p>
<p>I scored in the 99+ percentile on the SAT, but I still think it’s BS. I don’t know as there’s a “perfect” solution for the SAT’s flaws, though.</p>
<p>There’s no perfect solution. The SAT will always stay because it is the only consistent measure of ability across the board; GPA varies by school and classes, as we all know. NOTHING is perfect. Essays aren’t perfect because they’re totally subjective- what if you just get readers that don’t like your ideas or writing style? It’s way less reliable than SAT I think… ECs as well can be manufactured and the same EC means wayy different things in different places. I think the SAT actually has the least variability.</p>
<p>^^^ good point…</p>
<p>I don’t think the SAT accurately reflects a student’s “smartness” a lot of times.</p>
<p>@imaginationpower: it doesn’t, really. i do awesome on SATs, better than my much more intelligent and capable friends. they’re in BC Calc, i’m in AB Calc, and yet i score higher on the math portions. so you know something’s wrong there. SATs are good for pulling out large differences, i.e. someone who gets a 1400 vs. 1800 vs. 2200. i mean, are you really smart if you don’t know basic reading comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, and math? </p>
<p>we NEED something to be standardized. gpa varies and sometimes depends on luck (teachers, type of school), and like other people have said, everything else is basically subjective. overall i think the SAT is very useful.</p>
<p>“we NEED something to be standardized.”</p>
<p>I didn’t say we didn’t. I’m just saying that I don’t think it’s accurate.</p>
<p>It’s as accurate as any measuring tool can be. And I really don’t see what you mean by accurate- if you mean it gets the critical reading, math, and writing skills of students exactly right, there can be no such thing. Quantifying abilities is always so subjective, but it has to be done and the best way is through a standardized test, unfortunately.</p>
<p>I think that standarized tests are unfair in the sense that some people are just better prepped for them through school courses. For example, the ACT scores at our school are consistently within the low 20s, whereas prep school averages are most likely around the 30s.</p>
<p>I’ve heard of schools consistently using classes to prepare for these tests, whereas our school takes two hours a day before the test to prepare us. It’s rather obvious why this discrepancy exists. In the ideal world, everyone would be equally prepared, but the truth is some schools are more dedicated to preparation for these tests.</p>
<p>without the SAT schools wouldn’t be able to fairly compare applicants from different schools
some schools weight GPAs, and others do not
different schools had different grading scales (mine is super easy, while a local Catholic school’s grading scale is much harder)
And some teachers and schools just have different expectations for the students to uphold
so that is why the SAT is vital and very important</p>
<p>um, they’re both BS. and corrupted. not that i’m not good at both. but i definitely agree with that statement.</p>