<p>Yes, the SAT does have its problems, but its the most level playing field available.</p>
<p>As for the whole wealth-SAT correlation thing, don't wealthier kids tend to do better in school and other admission factors as well? Why not disregard GPA, EC's, and awards, too?</p>
<p>I did well on both the SAT and GRE.</p>
<p>I never could understand how they related to my academic potential. What I did to prepare (the Princeton Review books, the <em>Up Your Score</em> book, and the sample exams) had NOTHING to do with my studies and didn't do a thing to prepare me for future success. I only studied for these dumb tests because they were required and it was a VERY efficient way to earn brownie points.</p>
<p>The proponents of the SAT and GRE imply that my academic potential would have been far less had I not used Joe Bloggs, working backwards, the Create-Your-Own-Ruler trick, vocabulary, practice exams, etc. or that the act of preparing for the exams in this manner was cheating.</p>
<p>The SAT IIs and the AP tests represent MUCH better ways to compare students across all high schools. These tests are based on high school work and introductory college classes.</p>
<p>I was surprised by the claims in the article that wealth had no impact on SAT scores because of the fact that reading itself (regardless of socioeconomic status) ought to lead to better scores. I cannot say for sure, but I would assume that people who are wealthier tend to appreciate knowledge more, and would create an environment where children would enjoy reading. In a poor neighborhood, reading is probably lower on the list of priorities, and parents of poor children probably aren't going to be pushing their children to read and learn like the richer parents are. Hence, money is indirectly a factor on the SATV.</p>
<p>In addition, some of the words from the SAT test used in the article might not be so apparent to someone not from a wealthy or specialized environment. For example, 'interlude' is a word commonly seen in musicals and operas, things that usually take money to appreciate, and I'm guessing inner-city poor people don't see it too often. Other words like Statute seem to be too specialized to be in a test that support all around reading. </p>
<p>Also, has anyone seen Good Will Hunting? Just because you're a genius doesn't mean that you have a desire to attend a top university. And of course, even though that is a movie, the scenario could definitely exist.</p>
<p>"I know some kids who actually DIDN'T know you were allowed to prep for the SAT"</p>
<p>Ignorance is not an excuse.</p>
<p>I encouraged my D not to prepare. It should be a reflection of ability. Studying and memorizing skews the results. My D had enough school work to contend with; getting the highest SAT possible seemed an artificial goal.</p>
<p>The founder of The Princeton Review, which helps students ace the SAT, ironically, thinks the SAT is a sham. He ackowledges that basically, the test really all about preparation and tailors the Princeton Review around that premise. </p>
<p>Mensa used to use the SAT as a standard for intelligence and later abolished it because they concluded that it was not a legitimate measure of intelligence. </p>
<p>There are way too many factors, some mentioned above, that contribute to an SAT score that evaluating it as if it was some kind of standard is ludicrous.</p>
<p>^ read ariesa's quote, "No one can deny that there is some correlation between people we consider to be "smart" and those who do well on the SAT. It isn't random, folks."</p>
<p>Regarding the preparation argument:</p>
<p>If someone wishes to prepare, it suggests that he or she is hard working, aspirant, and/or ambitious. These are qualities colleges appreciate. So if they prepared for something and did well, who are we to blame them?</p>
<p>i'm tired of everyone saying ... if you have great grades and bad SAT's then you are a fraud who goes to a school with extreme grade inflation. A GPA is 10 times harder to get than an SAT score. And thats why colleges weight it accordingly</p>
<p>What the heck does that have to do with what I mentioned about what the founder of the Princeton Review and Mensa (ever heard of it?) thinks of the SAT?? You need to do a better job of responding simba.</p>
<p>Bobert,</p>
<p>The issue here is not about hard work, ambition and preparation as quality attributes for college student's, it's about the SAT as a legitimate measure of intelligence.</p>
<p>I got a kick out of reading this:
[quote]
Here is Larry Stedman, a respected researcher on tests and educational</p>
<p>policy: "The SAT is a speed endurance test, made up of 200 problems in 3 hours, or more than</p>
<p>one problem per minute. And much of it is made up of what can, at best, be charitably called</p>
<p>verbal conundrums and math puzzles."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mainly because I myself have said: (quoting myself here)
[quote]
I was always under the impression that the SAT 1 tested the ability to select correct answers under time pressure, including the ability to efficiently fill in little circles with a number 2 pencil. Is there something else going on?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"A GPA is 10 times harder to get than an SAT score"</p>
<p>Not true....it is one of the easiest to manipulate - game.</p>
<p>The SAT is not a measure of intelligence (as in reasoning ability). Rather, it is a test of basic reading and arithmetic skills.</p>
<p>"I was always under the impression that the SAT 1 tested the ability to select correct answers under time pressure..."</p>
<p>That is very true. Ability to work under pressure, quickly eliminating/guessing incorrect possibilities are some of the desirable attributes when seeking a job. If there was no time limit more than half will score 800 on math. Let us face it, most kids take SAT in 11th grade. The math portion goes only up to Geometry (old SAT) - a ninth grade subject.</p>
<p>durt,</p>
<p>it is a test of ANALYZING reading, and the reading is NOT basic. it is NOT arithmetic, but ALGEBRA and GEOMETRY and STATISTICS. it is also writing great essays and improving essays</p>
<p>You're right durt, the SAT is not a measure of intelligence. That's supposedly what the IQ test is for. But it has repeatedly been referred to in that way on this thread.</p>
<p>I know I am getting into this discussion late, but I'd like to provide a link that is quite relevant to the OPs original post and much of the subsequent discussion on this thread. It provides a nice journey through various views about the SAT and its merits/limitations:
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html</a></p>
<p>I totally think the SAT is a proper level field. I go to a medical magnet school, and in short, in my situation, the work is A LOT harder than it would be if I went to my home high school. I don't think it's far to compare my GPA between other high achieving people, but instead use the SAT to demonstrate my reasoning abilities to the rest of the nation.</p>
<p>I think it's a good thing, definitely.</p>
<p>imo, SAT Is simply hurt students. some parents have pointed out that SAT Is help create desirable traits in work jobs such as quickly eliminating answers, but I have one question: Wouldn't that skill be easily forgotten after four years of higher education? instead, these "desirable" traits could be learned during training. Another parent pointed out SAT Is sure test on basic skills, but, in some cases, it is not the kids fault for scoring low. these kids usually do not have the proper education in elementary and middle school, so they never learned. so wouldn't it be better to put lower scorers in additional classes to reestablish these basic skills? as for an indicator of academic success, we already have a test that establishes this: SAT IIs.</p>