thought-provoking article: Why America needs the SAT

Parents Forum
81

<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>My reader (he reads probably 100 or so books a year) got an 800 on the CR section without studying, so yes, I think there is a bit of a correlation there. But is he an avid reader because he's smart? I'm afraid so. He taught himself to read before he was 3 and hasn't stopped since. For most kids reading isn't nearly as easy or as enjoyable an experience.</p>

82

<p>but what im trying to say from this is for the people out there who have a low sat score in a situation similar than mine not to take it so seriously as a direct sign of college admission or feel inferior and think they have a lesser chance. i just wish colleges wouldnt put so much emphazis in it.</p>

83

<p>Hey serge look on the bright side both you and I got into our dream colleges in spite of this hindrance :)</p>

84

<p>Serge congrats on your acceptance. In your case, the system, with its imperfect SAT reliance, WORKED. SAT is only one of several key factors. But if we downgrade SAT even further, we get away from objective- and into subjective-land, and the system will be MORE UNFAIR. Now we have a lot of great options in this country, but why would we want to go into it with our eyes open and deliberately make the application process more unfair??!!</p>

85

<p>serge: explain to me how SAT discriminated you? From what I have read the college did give you an allowance for hispanic non native nackground. They admitted you, gave money and I think you also got in to Rice/Baylor. So how has SAT V was unfair to you? do you think it is unfair to expect students who want to study here should be judged against same standards?</p>

86

<p>exactly what i expected somebody to answer and i addressed this kind of response in my initial paragraph. if you dont see what im saying then my argument is not addressed to you.</p>

87

<p>


</p>

<p>Fixed for true meaning.</p>

88

<p>The more I think about it, the more I think that the standardized tests should be the DOMINANT admissions factor.</p>

<p>Of course they shouldn't be the only factor. But the combination of the SAT, three SAT subject tests, and APs if they are taken is a great indicator of a student's potential. The SAT tests mostly natural ability. The SAT subject tests show something about work ethic because those you can actually prepare for. The APs are a great indicator of potential to succeed in college because, well, they are supposed to be the equivalent of taking a college course.</p>

<p>Obviously, GPA should be considered because it does represent four years of work. However, standardized tests provide a fair way to judge everybody - the numbers don't lie.</p>

<p>Extracurriculars are also important. If somebody does absolutely nothing for four years, that really is pretty bad. However, the chief factor in admissions should be academic excellence, and extracurriculars should be a secondary factor.</p>

<p>Overall, the SAT is a very good test. For all of the collegeboard-bashing that people do, it is a good exam.</p>

89

<p>Regarding the discussion about native language on the SAT and English maybe being a problem...</p>

<p>That is pretty ridiculous. If you are in America and plan to go to an American college, you are in the same pool of potential applicants as everybody else, and should therefore take the same test in exactly the same language as everybody else. If English is not your native language then I can see how that would be a problem - but it would also be a problem in college. So if the SAT is a college entrance exam, then not knowing English as well as others should result in a lower score.</p>

90

<p>"The SAT tests mostly natural ability. The SAT subject tests show something about work ethic because those you can actually prepare for."</p>

<p>"Natural ability", assuming noone has been exposed to the test beforehand. You don't seem to understand "fairness". Work ethic, translates to the ability to test-prep, which equals money spent on books, courses, tutors, etc.</p>

<p>The SAT is not valid as an intelligence test, nor is it an effective predictor of first year college grades, even though its purpose of existence is just that . High school grades and the SAT II are a far better predictor of grades.</p>

<p>Therefore, we are left with 2 options:</p>

<p>Change the current SATI into a curriculum based test</p>

<p>or</p>

<p>Disregard the test altogether in favor of GPA/SATII's/AP's or any combination of these</p>

91

<p>I disagree.</p>

<p>Based on my own experience, and what I have seen of others, all the tutors and prep courses did not help.</p>

<p>The people that got the highest scores on the SAT that I know were in fact the people who I think are truly the smartest. Most of the "overachiever" types who had 3 tutors and took prep courses did not do nearly as well.</p>

<p>The highest SAT scores in my high school this year were for people who did not do any prep courses or have any tutors.</p>

<p>I did not take any prep courses and did not have a tutor -- I got a 2360 on the SAT in April. Three friends who got 2300+ did not either.</p>

<p>I had several review books - the blue book and a few others. If somebody wants to buy some review books, then he can come up with $20. It's not a matter of money.</p>

92

<p>I agree, however, that the SAT alone is not a good predictor of college success. Somebody could have natural ability and do well on the SAT, but be lazy and not work very hard in class.</p>

93

<p>For arguments sake, let's assume you are correct regarding those statements. But since the correlation between first year grades and SAT scores (which, like i mentioned previously, is the point of the test in the first place) is lower than GPA/SATII's, my solutions are still valid.</p>

94

<p>As I said above, I agree that SAT alone cannot predict college success.</p>

95

<p>I agree with everything RCMan13 is saying.</p>

<p>If you can't speak/write English, I don't think you should be given extra points to make up for it. Either you know English or you don't, and should be put in the same boat as those who have lived in America all their lives. </p>

<p>It isn't a matter of money. All you need is one prep book (mostly the Blue Book), and you're set, which has like a large number of tests. The tutors can help on the tips, but they're pretty common tips. It is you that needs to make the effort.</p>

96

<p>But why support them in the first place, if it's well established that other factors are far better at predicting first year grades? Fairness becomes a moot point.</p>

<p>Glucose, you seem to be missing my point as well.</p>

97

<p>.................................................Good times.</p>

98

<p>"..if it's well established that other factors are far better at predicting first year grades?"</p>

<p>who are those people who have established that? can you site references?</p>

99

<p>I read some of your earlier posts simba, and one point you seem to be missing is that the environment one grows up in is EVERYTHING. Such as the case is with socioeconomic conditions. People in lower socioeconomic situations don't have the same nurturing environments for learning as those who are well off. My god, some of these folks have to worry about things like not getting shot while coming home or constantly dealing with thugs at school. This is just one example simba, please try to open up your mind to other possibilities. Use your imagination. </p>

<p>And by the way, I'm one of those Asians who you so eloquently stated, might be marginalized from all this. Word of advice, when you start playing the race card for yourself in a forum such as this, you quickly start losing credibility.</p>

100

<p>About the correlation between socioeconomic status and SAT scores: Intelligent people are more likely to be successful in life. They are also likely to pass on both their genes (and intelligence is highly hereditable) and their reading habits to their children. Hence, the children of the successful are more likely to be smarter. Is this connection absolute? Of course not. There are millions of brilliant poor and idiot rich. But the fact that better-off kids do better, on the whole, on standardized tests should not come as a huge shock. Dowling says:</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
</p>

<pre><code>At the highest level of performance, demographics can do no more than suggest
</code></pre>

<p>the conditions under which talent or ability is likely to emerge, which in the cases we've been</p>

<p>considering would include the degree to which a family or a culture emphasizes reading, music, or</p>

<p>sports. This is the point, for instance, of the example of the National Basketball Association</p>

<p>sometimes invoked in this connection. Though millions of young American males aspire to the</p>

<p>celebrity and wealth that comes with making the NBA -- the average salary of an NBA player last</p>

<p>year was $1.2 million -- African Americans as a group are tremendously overrepresented while</p>

<p>other groups (Jews, Hispanics) are underrepresented to the point of invisibility. Still, no one</p>

<p>would waste a moment trying to argue that NBA selection is somehow biased in favor of African</p>

<p>Americans and against Jews and Hispanics, if only because the need of professional teams to win</p>

<p>guarantees that slots will be awarded to the best players. Yet a similar demographic disproportion</p>

<p>at the higher levels of SATV performance is the entire basis of FairTest's argument that the test is</p>

<p>culturally biased.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>On the subject of tutoring, kindly READ THE ARTICLE! Tutoring can give people in the average range a big boost, but it's almost impossible to get an 800 verbal without being a true lifelong reader:</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

Here the lines have been clearly drawn, with people like Princeton Review's Katzman</p>

<p>claiming substantial score increases from coaching, ETS maintaining that the gains are, on</p>

<p>average, inconsiderable. What almost never gets mentioned is Hernandez's [Michelle Hernandez, a former Dartmouth admissions officer] point that gains on the</p>

<p>SATV, whatever their size, come mostly in the middle range: "It is not uncommon . . . to raise a</p>

<p>verbal score from 450 to 600 or from 570 to 680. What is almost impossible is to jump into the</p>

<p>720 to 800 range, even if you are starting in the high 600s. With a few exceptions, the students</p>

<p>who score over 740 or so are simply voracious readers, students who have been reading seriously</p>

<p>since they were very young and have continued to do so all their lives."

[/QUOTE]
</p>