<p>It's a monopoly, it doesn't show your full potential, some people are just bad testers, rich people have an advantage (though this IS backed up by studies), yada yada. I'm sure you've heard all about how unfair the SAT is. I personally get good grades but don't score so well on the SAT, and yet I'm in favor of it because it's standardized and school curricula are not so it puts everyone on an equal stage. </p>
<p>I feel like people just want something to lament about but really, the SAT is the best option for determining how someone compares to another someone in math, reading, and writing. Do you think the SAT is a good thing, or a bad thing?</p>
<p>Good and bad. Good because it is significantly harder than the ACT and thus much more respectable. Problematic in that you merely have to be a good reader and a decent writer. The math section, unfortunately, doesn’t mean much anymore. The ACT is more comprehensive in that it realizes the vitality of science in addition to math, English, and reading. It’s more balanced but almost too easy. Both have their flaws. What really blows is that the new CB president wants to change the SAT by 2015 (I believe). If you read about what he’s talking about doing, it’s disgusting. An absolute abomination. A disgrace and insult to the intelligent. It’s going to become too common; doing well on the SAT is soon to mean little to nothing (well, a whole lot less, let’s be realistic and avoid melodrama). The only thing about the upcoming change that is worthwhile and noteworthy is the speculated and implied essay “revisions.” I’m a die-hard SAT fan, or used to be, but CB needs to make it a more comprehensive and less “literature” based test.</p>
<p>I think it is bad, but for a different reason than the ones already mentioned. How do we know that all the SAT tests given throughout the year are all equal in difficulty? How can you possibly compare someone that took a test in October to someone that took a completely different test in November? </p>
<p>I think that you should only be able to take it one time, and that it should not be worth so much weight on your application. Every high school Junior (or senior; I do not know which would be better) should take it on one Saturday with no preparation. There is a huge issue with the scores because colleges do not know how much each person studied for it. Obviously, colleges would rather take someone with a 2200 that had no prep than someone with a 2400 that had tons of prep. The problem is, there is no way for them to tell the difference.</p>
<p>The other issue is the SAT curve. I guess that has to do with the different testing dates. If they want to call the SAT a standardized test, then the grading of it should be standard as well.</p>
<p>I wish it was less studiable. Right now upper class can buy experience. Take out the stupid esoteric vocab words. Make the math more difficult and make it so getting a 2400 is extremely rare, just like before 1995. My dream SAT would be the one before 1995.</p>
<p>^ Yep, too many people have learned how to game the SAT. The fault of which lies with the College Board who has been too slow to implement change.</p>
<p>College Board does not want to implement change, though. It is making tons of money with kids doing well. It pushes that the reason those kids did well was because of the college board prep books. Those books make them tons of money!</p>
<p>SAT is hardly a monopoly. The ACT had more testers that the SAT for the first time last year. (and there are a growing number of schools that are test optional.) We are seeing the end of an era. The new leadership of the SAT is going to change it to make it more like the ACT. Monopoly NOT!</p>
<p>I took the SAT in 1980. It was supposed to be hard, but I don’t remember it being hard. No one studied. You couldn’t study. The results were meaningful, though. It separated out the kids who were really bright from the kids who just studied hard. There were also things called achievements, kind of equivalent to SAT II’s today. Again, you couldn’t study, and no one tried. </p>
<p>The problem back then as now is that kids who were socio-economically disadvantaged didn’t do as well, not because of test prep (again, no one did that), just because of their exposure to language and and so on – the early advantages that nurture intellect. That has always been a problem and always will be while we rely on these tests as indicators of aptitude.</p>
<p>jlee, what is the president trying to do? It sounds like he wants to make it so they grade essays for accuracy, get rid of the stupid vocab words that you don’t hear in real life and college, and put more emphasis on math concepts like “proportional reasoning, linear equations and linear functions.” That all sounds good to me, except functions because I screw those up haha. They make it sound like the vocab will not only be more useful, but easier, so I guess that’s not too good. </p>
<p>I agree with latin4life that it should be taken once without preparation, theoretically that would remove the advantage that rich kids have with their prep courses. I feel like people would find a way though.</p>
<p>I honestly hate that you can study for the SAT, it almost defeats the purpose. Like you said, colleges can’t see who’s studied for it and not. Plus when you study for the SAT you’re “wasting your time” studying for a one time thing. I found it irritating to study constantly for a test that would “show colleges how smart I am.” </p>
<p>I may take the ACT also. It sounds like they’re more progressive and well-rounded. I feel a little jaded after the SAT with all the studying I had to do. Plus, does it seem like they nickel and dime you? The test is already like $50, which ok, they have to pay proctors, send scores, get essays graded, etc. There’s a lot of cost involved. But why is it $11.25 to send an online score report?!? All of my colleges had the collegeboard send it through email, which is telling me it’s automated. I was a little irritated by that.</p>
<p>Oh and glido, I guess you’re right about it not being a monopoly. It feels that way though, where I’m from, because EVERYONE takes just the SAT. And taking either one is essentially the only way to get into most colleges, and they aren’t shy to tell you that. IT’S LIKE THESE BUSINESSES ARE CONTROLLING MY FUTURE!!! Just kidding, but I’m feeling salty.</p>
<p>The SAT is a flawed instrument and a scam that favors the wealthy who have private tutors who drill the kids into the 2400 score. Why not just use IQ tests? No prep, no drills, just take once.</p>
<p>Many people pose the argument that these standardized test should not be IQ tests, because colleges really don’t care how intelligent you are, just how hard you work. In some respect that is true. Does it really matter if you got a grade through hard work or intelligence, all the employer sees are just numbers. </p>
<p>The standardized test should be an intelligence measure, while your GPA is the hard work. measure.(If you got an accredited good school).</p>
<p>The ACT and SAT don’t claim to be intelligence measures, their number one claim is that it predicts how well you will do in college, which, I think they both do well.</p>
<p>A prime laziness of the College Board is the recycling of questions. For the amount of money it makes it should have a constant inventory of fresh questions. Running into old questions either by design or accident will give a student a huge advantage.</p>
<p>I really struggle with SAT math more than I ever did with the math courses I took in high school, so yeah I don’t think it demonstrates what I can do. I guess it does demonstrate that I make many, many stupid mistakes when rushed, though.</p>
<p>The people who claim that they’re the bad test takers and can’t do well probably aren’t very bright. The SAT is a good thing and if it’s standardized that’s the only way you can compare two people of equal qualification for admissions.</p>
<p>^ The first part of your statement is not true. Many people at the top of my class (and our high school is well ranked) cannot get scores that equate to their GPAs. That does not mean they do poorly on the test; it just means that they do not do as well on the SAT as they do in courses. </p>
<p>But I guess it is better to have a higher GPA than SAT score rather than the other way around, since the other way around just looks like you studied really hard for the SAT. And that is why, I suppose, so many schools have resorted to holistic admissions.</p>
<p>“The people who claim that they’re the bad test takers and can’t do well probably aren’t very bright.”</p>
<p>That’s a pretty broad statement. Some people may struggle with the concepts specific to the SAT, or work slowly but accurately. However I agree that it’s good that it’s standardized; people should know what to expect and study for.</p>
<p>That’s as broad of a generalization as saying, “Those who don’t do well in school probably aren’t too smart.” </p>
<p>To assume that standardized tests are completely unbiased and all about content is pretty dumb, considering that there are already so many loopholes in the SAT it’s not even funny.</p>