<p>"Speaking of which, have you ever noticed that the ONLY people who speak against the SAT are the ones who perform the worst?"</p>
<p>ok i guess ill be the first person to break this, I got a 1470...a score that I consider amazingly good considering my 3.5 gpa...but I hate the SATs they are incredibly culturally biased and don't test anything that you need to succeed (analogies, you've got to be kidding)</p>
<p>of course i agree that the colleges need something more than a gpa to go on but this test is simply ridiculous</p>
<p>I think the SATs are just a parameter for the colleges to see where you stand compared to others on a standardised test, as some high school courses may be more rigourous than others. I do not think that the SATs measure your capabilities for college, since i know many people, myself included, who did not do very well on the SATs and excel in their high school courses (rigourous ones too, be it IB or AP).</p>
<p>You can learn 80% of what you need for the SAT from prep courses and books....that what the test measures....it proves you can prepare for a test...the fact that the college board SELLS prep books shows that...</p>
<p>^Absolutely. That's why the Collegeboard changed the name from "Scholastic Aptitude Test" to "Scholastic Acheivement Test" because the SAT does not measure innate or inborn intelligence, and your score susceptible to coaching. Otherwise, how come I raised my score from a 990 to a 1350? If it was a true intelligence test, you could just go into the test center without ever having prepared for the test at all.</p>
<p>They were once closer to an IQ test, but because of all the whining from middle class white parents who kids were turning out to be pretty average, ETS eliminated the antonyms and most recently analogies from the Verbal section. Sadly, these were the sections that truly gifted URMs did disproportionately well on. Unfortunately, the affirmative action lobby, ever fearful that true merit would be rewarded, even among it's own members, went along for the ride. So now we have the New SAT.</p>
<p>^True mensa160, but that is only a part of the reason. UC President, Richard Atkinson railed against the old format of the SAT, particularly claiming that the analogies (I also liked those questions) from the verbal section led to meaningless, rote memorization of words. He also threatened CB that if they didn't change the SAT I and add an essay, he would make them optional for admissions to UC. Since UC is the largest public university system in the country, CB would lose a huge chunk of customers. So, the claim that the New SAT more accurately reflects a high school curriculum is bullsh!t, CB's motivation for giving the SAT a face lift was mostly monetary.</p>
<p>id personally like some evidence of mensa160's last statement. where's the "white parents" whining? and wheres the evidence of the "truly gifted URMs did disproportionately well on" sections.</p>
<p>"the claim that the New SAT more accurately reflects a high school curriculum is bullsh!t"
The motivation does not prove or disprove that claim. Whether "the New SAT more accurately reflects a high school curriculum" more than the old is debatable. </p>
<p>CB can BOTH satisfy the UCs AND change the SAT to reflect high school curriculum. The former does not inhibit the latter.</p>
<p>i think what mensa said might be true becuase im a URM and i only missed one analogy on the january SAT, and id probably do better if there were antonyms on the test</p>
<p>Since when do they have analogies in college though? I've never heard of a "geometry" class in college either. Also, where does this put the poor souls who end up in pathetic schools and learn next to nothing as a result? And whose parents cannot afford to homeschool or send them to a private school where they can actually learn in an environment without that silly discipline crap that teachers have to waste their time with in public school? Don't they kick kids out of private school if they cannot behave themselves?
(No, I am talking about myself, I'm just asking since those probably exist.)</p>
<p>Elberth, that's great (your raise in score)! Maybe I should have actually studied for that stupid crap. But it doesn't matter now, so <em>shrugs shoulders</em></p>
<p>IQ tests are crap, and don't measure anything tangible- intelligence can't be measured.
I'm saying this because I know that these tests are not only biased (culturally and otherwise), but are bad because people place too much importance on them.
Some dumbasses get great IQs while some really bright kids get low IQs.
True intelligence is something beyond anything we can imagine, and can never be measured, no matter how hard we try, or what new scales or tests we come up with.</p>
<p>And no I'm not saying this because I got a low score on my IQ test.</p>
<p>edit: (not talking about SATs here, talking about IQ tests like mensa, which I took and found crap.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
True intelligence is something beyond anything we can imagine, and can never be measured, no matter how hard we try, or what new scales or tests we come up with.
[/quote]
Maybe you just can't measure it precisely to a single number. But it can be measured in a sensible way.</p>
<p>Nah. I know a friend who got like 110, but the guy's a bloody genius. I took it twice, first time 168, second time 158... But I don't believe that measures anything. If I had anything near that ability (which is supposed to be "gifted" or "genius") I wouldn't be worried about colleges right now...
Although I guess laziness is a big factor as well.
Still, a tangible measure of intelligence is impossible. We don't even know how most of the brain works, so how can we even know what intelligence Is?</p>
<p>Edit: also know someone else... The guy's good at school, gets great grades, but frankly he shows no sign of intelligence outside of his (seemingly high) academic ability. One fact in support of this is that he is a Republican.</p>
<p>-i think what mensa said might be true becuase im a URM and i only missed one analogy on the january SAT, and id probably do better if there were antonyms on the test</p>
<p>Sorry evad, that doesn't mean all URMs are good at analogies. Im also good at analogies, but that doesn't mean all whites are either.</p>
<ul>
<li>never heard of a "geometry" class in college either.</li>
</ul>
<p>From above: "They were once closer to an IQ test, but because of all the whining from middle class white parents who kids were turning out to be pretty average, ETS eliminated the antonyms and most recently analogies from the Verbal section."</p>
<p>I guess I can ask from where that information comes. The changes in the SAT have their genesis in college administrators (not parents) complaining, particularly the UC's. A few years back, the UC's, which generate a significant amount of the SAT's business, threatened to cease using the SAT and were considering requiring the ACT or just SAT II's. Other college administrators complained about the lack of a true writing skills test. The College Board's response to that potential huge loss of revenue is the new SAT. The elimination of antonyms and analogies and adding some advanced algebra and trig are designed to actually bring it closer to the ACT.</p>
<p>You are correct somewhat that the SAT was designed to be similar to IQ tests, that is the original IQ tests from the early 1900's. Those became the model for the military's test during WWI that was used to identify potential officer candidates. One of the persons involved in that test was Carl Brigham, a Princeton professor. He saw that upper scale white anglo-saxon males generally scored significantly higher on those tests. This gave him the idea to develop the first SAT -- tested at some places beginning in 1926 and then adopted as the entry exam by Harvard and soon thereafter Princeton and Cooper Union in the early 1930's. That original test had many of the same elements of the SAT that existed until now such as analogies and antonyms and other sections. Brigham's purpose for creating the test -- he was an avid member of the American Eugenics Society and firmly believed that white anglo saxon males were superior to all others. He wanted colleges to adopt his test for admission to assure that all the low-lifes, meaning blacks, asians, jews, and immigrants who were not white anglo-saxon, would not be admitted to college so they would not mix with the superior white males and ruin the superior blood-line that America had to preserve to survive. Later, Brigham changed his views (brought about as a result of the dying popularity in the US of the concept of superior race with the rise of Hitler). He also concluded that which those of any real inteligence already knew -- those original IQ tests and his test were biased towards the educational background and culture of upper crust white males. He tried to get the then young College Board to cease using it but did not succeed before he died. What happened over the years to make it appear less bias was not significant changes in the test but simply the rise in education of those supposed low-lifes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i think what mensa said might be true becuase im a URM and i only missed one analogy on the january SAT,
[/quote]
There's some research to support this on the college board web site. Use google to oick it up. ETS disputes it, but you would expect that. Also, you don't here about this because the education lobby has a vested interest in supressing it. Like they are afraid to admit that many URMs are in fact brilliant, despite all the probelms thet face.</p>
<p>intelligence tests measure what our society deems to be intelligence. what our society deems to be intelligence is what (usually) provides the foundation to be a successful person in said society.</p>
<p>don't say intelligence tests are crap unless you are saying what society values is crap. (and, please, don't venture into the dark abyss of social commentary when blasting me for this one :))</p>
<p>PS - i don't have an exceptionally high IQ (160) like some of you, so please don't claim bias.</p>
<p>"PS - i don't have an exceptionally high IQ (160) like some of you, so please don't claim bias."</p>
<p>Your IQ is 160? That's amazing and it is exceptionally high. And I would delve into the dark abyss of social commentary but I have to get some sleep. Otherwise this wouldn't be like a three line post but a whole goddamn speech..
Actually I could sum it up in a few words:</p>
<p>current society and values = crap, misplaced and dont value whats important. if we embrace what society teaches us today we will all die very unhappy.</p>
<p>boooo to the SATs. i have a small vocab so i didnt do so well on it! why do they test you on 8th grade math and check to see if you know words that you have to look for in the dictionary to know? they need to beef up the sat math section even more, i personally think the 2c is still way too easy, it should have a curve of 2 wrong= 780 instead of 8wrong= 800. but whatever, im done with that. i think the sat tests a combination of things, speed, carefullness, knowledge and the ability to prepare for it. i lacked in a lot of knowledge....boooo down with vocab!!! yay for critical reading though.</p>
<p>"If it was a true intelligence test, you could just go into the test center without ever having prepared for the test at all."</p>