<p>Yes, but the SAT can, alternatively, be a disadvantage to others in certain situations, as stated in previous posts (socioeconomic position, poor quality schools, etc.) There really isn't a level playing field for GPA's (as you emphasized) nor is there one for SAT's for that matter.</p>
<p>The SAT is useful...but only when looked at properly, as a single useful piece of information among many. I think that a combination of GPA, SAT I, and the SAT IIs, for instance, is more useful than any of those factors alone. There are huge problems with using the SAT as the primary factor in admissions, or relying on it as a measure of intelligence. My solution to these problems would be not to eliminate the SAT, but to give it a more reasonable level of emphasis. "It has its place."</p>
<p>IMO the SAT is never seen to measure intelligence (IQ tests do that)but rather they tend to measure how prepared you are for the test. It also measures roughly how well you are in both math and english. Is the SAT unfair to those who haven't gotten a very good educaton? Yes of course it is as would any other test. However you must remember the main reason people take the SAT is because universities require them and universities want them in order to see how educated the students are- not to measure the students 'ability to learn'</p>
<p>jessiehl's post sums up my opinion.</p>
<p>I would like to point out that the SAT also has its place in assisting admissions officers in comparing students from the same high school, who theoretically have had similar educational opportunities. There has been much talk on CC about how val's play the GPA system, how grade grubbers will plan their course schedules based on which teachers and classes are easiest, how taking arts classes and other electives or classes outside the HS can ruin a GPA, and so on. With the SAT, everyone gets a normed, statistically evaluated test. I believe it is as close to being fair as is possible. (Btw, the comments about gender and ethnic bias in the test are outdated. ETS responded to those criticisms years ago and has made adjustments. Is it biased toward poorly educated students? Of course, but there's no test in the world which can compensate for growing up in the ghetto.)</p>
<p>I was personally grateful for the National Merit program (though being a finalist didn't mean my son got any scholarship money from the program, argh!!) because the commended students received recognition locally for their academic efforts. For all but the truly brilliant (and in most case for them too, since no one is born already knowing geometric theorems and vocab words, after all), a high SAT score represents years of hard work and effort in school. I don't know about other high schools, but ours gave quite a few awards based on unweighted GPA's, which meant kids who had never taken an honors or AP course in their lives were getting scholarships, being named Scholar Athletes, and the like. It was a slap in the face for the kids who worked their butts off for a B in Calculus BC or second year AP Physics. Similarly, for this reason I also really appreciate the SAT II's and AP tests. You could have two students who both received an "A" in the same Spanish or history class who even had the same teacher, but their levels of knowledge might be drastically different. But a "5" on the AP test or a 790 on the SAT II, will distinguish the truly accomplished student from the teacher's pet or the student who did the minimum to get the grade.</p>
<p>PS: Let's remember that IQ tests also assess accumulated knowledge and mental training. When I was a child, I was administered an IQ test in school. I remember the examiner asking me "How many feet are in a mile?" Not having a head for facts, I couldn't remember. So I asked him, "Isn't that more a test of knowledge and memory than IQ?" The psychologist responded, "Perhaps, but intelligent people tend to pick up information." </p>
<p>And surely the IQ tests are more about math puzzles than the SAT is! Someone who enjoys those brain teasers and has practiced doing them will do better than someone who hasn't. IMO, trying to use an IQ test for college admissions would be a disaster.</p>
<p>My last post was just of a nice link, which I still suggest you look at to see the full range of opinions.</p>
<p>Now I'd like to add a more personal note. There are two things that worry me about the use of the SAT. Neither are really the fault of the test itself but how it is understood (or should I say misunderstood):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The College Board discourages students from trying to improve their SAT by preparation. Yet there is good evidence that a good intensive coaching class can raise a student's SAT by an amount that would arguably significantly change an applicant's chances of admission at a competitive college. The usual claimed amount is 100 points (this is per each subtest, so it means that much on the verbal and math separately). I've personally seen many people go up by 200 points on each part. To make things worse, the best courses cost about $1000, which is alot of money and increases the advantages of those who already have alot of money (adding to the existing evidence of a strong correlation between higher income and higher scores). Studies of those using less expensive means, like the various study guides or software, see a significantly smaller change. This "coaching factor" probably hits poor nonminorities the worst, though it is good to remember that URM students of poor background (versus middle class or higher) may also be hurt by this.</p></li>
<li><p>The test scores are not used by colleges as they should be. The College Board says that scores on each test should only be read in a "band" of 30-40 points (for each subtest). Taking the 40 point spread, if you got a 700 on your SAT V, your band would be between 660 and 740. That means your true score could be anywhere between those. The College Board urges us to use that band rather than the exact score. But how often do you think adcoms look at 660 and 740 as the same thing, despite this clear advice from the test makers? It's not the tests fault but the fault of those interpreting the score. I don't see the College Board worrying about this, and I wonder why. . .</p></li>
</ol>
<p>These are my main criticisms. I won't even mention the fact that the SAT has only a modest predictive value (it explains less than 20% of the variance in first year college grades, meaning 80% is accounted for by other factors). I'll let that go because an argument could be made that this does not have to be a problem if the test were interpreted correctly by the admission committee.</p>
<p>I would most welcome anyone reading this thread who serves on an admission committee or as an alumni interviewer to address these concerns of mine. I don't mean to dishearten any students on the list and I'd love to be wrong.</p>
<p>Socio economic conditions and poor schools are often made as a main scapegoat for kids not scoring high.</p>
<p>Come one folks if that was the case everyone at top expensive elite high schools in the country would score a perfect 1600. If I recall correctly out of a million kids who take SAT each year there are only 800 or so kids who score a perfect 1600. </p>
<p>High scores in SAT depend on kids motivation, practice, luck and the innate ability to reason/comprehend/compute. Not every one can afford to take SAT prep classes or have tutors. But every one can go to their school library check out the books or for little money go to local Book store and buy those books.</p>
<p>PSAT, SAT 1, SAT IIs or the AP tests are as close to a level playing field as one can get. Those are the only measures that will equalize the grading systems between schools and distinguish one kid from another from the same school.</p>
<p>Most people very easily accept that their kid or they are no Tiger Woods or Jordans. They can very easily accept that in real life there is always going to be a pyramid - few on the top and bulk at the base. However, when it comes to any measures that tests their mental abilities they whine.</p>
<p>Does it mean that low scorers are destined to fail? Not at all. Every one is unique and every one can play on their strength. Not everyone has to be a doctor, lawyer, CFO or engineer, and not every one has to go to top 10 schools in the country.</p>
<p>Also wouldn't IQ tests be seen as a sort of discrimination? I mean yes you can improve your IQ if you try but a lot of it comes from the time you were born. I know this guy who really might be one of the hardest workers I've ever known and yet he just isn't very smart. There really isn't much more than he can do and so therefore even a SAT test would be fairer to such a person than an IQ test.
In another matter even though collegeboard does give out your grades within a band imagine your an admission officer who has to choose between candidates and one person got 2100 in his SAT (700 in every part) and another got 2220 (740 in every part) trust me when I say many people who apply to elite universities have such close grades, absolutely glowing recommendations and great EC's that admission officers have no other way to choose between them and therefore are forced to pick using the SAT and take the guy with the higher SAT</p>
<p>Simba, just because not every wealthy student gets a 1600 does not mean there is not a strong correlation. A correlation means that, say, 2 out of 3, wealthy students may do significantly better than a poor student ON AVERAGE. That does add up even though it does not guarantee perfect scores etc. And while less fortunate students can try to prepare for the SAT on their own to avoid the cost of coaching (and other factors that give wealthy students advantages on the SAT), those expensive coaching classes really are much better for most students in terms of sverage outcome.</p>
<p>Superwizard, what you say about the simplistic use of scores (for convenience of adcoms) is exactly my point of concern. The College Board warns against using the exact score as a true score. I would think they should be alarmed by adcoms doing what you are describing. It is literally a misuse of the test. Tests are not meant to be understood as exact measurements, they have what is called a "standard error of measurement". There are actually scientific and ethical issues at stake in this, though oddly enough I don't see the College Board making any efforts to change this situation!</p>
<p>Ivyalumni: That is hogwosh. ON AVERAGE if any one spends time, they can improve their score. Spending time does not mean they have to take classes (actually I have seen the scores don't improve much) or have tutoring. If poor students have the MOTIVATION there are ample free or nearly free resources available. In my son's high school (very high # of low income), they offer free SAT classes. How many sign up? less than a dozen.</p>
<p>The problem is not low income, but low income combined with laziness.</p>
<p>My kid has no time to prepare for SAT and she did not even take any classes. How could you spend money for SAT classes. Buy Real 10 SAT, it is more than enough to score well if you read enough books oustide the call assigned courses. Read newspaper it is a best strategy. Our english is not that great but we have learned enough to survive.</p>
<p>I agree with Simba that it is motivation than any other thing.</p>
<p>Yes I agree with you ivyalumini but what I was trying to point out is that it really isn't mainly the adcom's fault or the collegeboard's. Eliminating the SAT in fact would actually make the process harder and even more unfair. I just have to ask how can the admission process be improved? By eleminating the SAT? I don't think so; when you are talking about the elite universities there really is a very small difference between candidates and everything in the application has its flaws. GPA has inflation; class rank differ significantly between certain schools; essays are not always done by the students and finally the SAT really isn't that accurate of a measurement. What can be done? I don't know and I doubt anything will be done in the near future.</p>
<p>newparent: Thank you. We soon will be marginalized by a posting that 'we are asians'......I see that coming. :)</p>
<p>Can't people see that we already have gone plenty far to reach a "compromise" situation re importance of SAT's? They predict college success as well as grades do, and committeess look at both grades and test scores. HYPS require SAT II's and look at all sorts of EC's and rec's, so one or two 580's won't automatically kill you. If we further devalue standardized tests, we get less objective, and more people will CORRECTLY conclude that they didn't get a fair shake. Is that what we want to do?</p>
<p>I heartily agree with Dowling when he proposes reading your way though the public library as a means of self education and eventual success on the SATV. People marvel at my "naturally smart" kids but I know they have spent more time reading and less time watching TV or playing computer games than most of their peers.</p>
<p>And history is filled with stories of great leaders-- writers, doctors, and educators who came from extremely limited backgrounds but educated themselves by almost literally reading their way through the local public library.</p>
<p>The answer is not to eliminate the SAT but to get more books in the hands of more kids, and make their parents see the importance of education.</p>
<p>i got a 1210 on my sat's. yet i maintain a B+/A- at USC's Marshall School, where the avg SAT was 1350+ when i was admitted. dont believe that there is any real correlation between SAT's and success.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i got a 1210 on my sat's. yet i maintain a B+/A- at USC's Marshall School, where the avg SAT was 1350+ when i was admitted. dont believe that there is any real correlation between SAT's and success.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A correlation doesn't require a correlation coefficient of 1, you know.</p>
<p>Superwizard and Filler,</p>
<p>If you read what I said, all I am asking is that colleges use the tests as the College Board itself advises. The range of scores is the only accurate way to read a score. An exact score is never "exact" but an estimate where the true score is actually best understood as a range. </p>
<p>We certainly don't (and shouldn't) have to get rid of the SAT to do this. And I still find it strange that anyone (like me) has to even argue about this when I am merely repeating what the College Board says (and has to say for accuracy and ethical reasons). Again think of the concrete example. You have a score of 680 and another candidate has a score of 730. According to the College Board anyone who says you scored lower than the other candidate is making a fundamental and serious error in interpreting the test. Your "true" score could have been 720 and the other candidates true score could have been 690. (True meaning that if the test had perfect reliability and validity and no error of estimate/measure).</p>
<p>When college admission officers treat scores differently than the College Board advises, they are making a fundamental error of confusing average differences with specific scores. It's true that when considering two groups of 500 applicants a difference of 40 points between the two GROUP AVERAGES does matter. Yet as the College Board clearly states it is equally true that for a SINGLE applicant a difference of 40 points does not matter at all. I know this may seem a complex point, and that's perhaps why there is the confusion and misuse. But it doesn't mean people should not understand it and follow it. I understand it may be convenient to use tests in terms of their broad predictive uses. Still, it is also imperative not to misuse tests to to simplify the admission process. When we decide to choose or reject someone, the proper logic should be by treating every case as an individual one not as a part of some aggregate statistic, especially when we are dealing with measures that have the limitations of the SAT (effects of coaching, relatively low correlation with success). </p>
<p>THAT IS WHY THE COLLEGE BOARD MAKES THIS POINT ABOUT READING SCORES AS A RANGE SO CLEARLY TO CANDIDATES. IT ALSO PROVIDES THIS WARNING TO EVERY COLLEGE WITH EVERY SATI AND SATII REPORT.</p>
<p>So are we to assume that 400=440=480=520=...=800? A forty point difference means the scores are close, but they are not exactly the same.</p>
<p>EDIT: ivyalumni, are you talking about differences among applicants, or differences among different sections of the test for a single applicant?</p>
<p>Durt,</p>
<p>The way to avoid the 400=440=480=520 problem. Okay, an individual's "exact" score of 400 means an estimated true score of 360-440. An individual's "exact" score of 520 means an estimated true score of 480-560. The College Board says you can say the second person in all likelihood does have a true higher score.</p>
<p>The college board says the 30-40 point range applies to each subpart of the SAT, e.g., SATI V SAT I M etc. And to each of the SAT II (which are single tests).</p>