<p>I'm leaning more towards the SAT. Grade inflation at schools can definitely bloat up your GPA, which wouldn't mean anything. Preparation for the SAT, however, does take a lot of work, so even if you aren't the smartest kid in the world, if you work hard in your SAT preps and stuff, it'll pay off. If you're just really smart, then the SAT will also reflect that. GPAs can't always reflect either.</p>
<p>SATs can also be seen as disadvantageous to lower-income students, for those kids are less likely to have the $ to pay for crazy amounts of SAT prep, at least not as much as some wealthy kids get. So everything is flawed, which is obvious.
Simply pointing out that, just like some schools inflate/deflate GPA, which can make it unreliable, SATs can be unreliable sometimes too, cause lower-income students sort of get the short end of the stick.</p>
<p>From personal experience, SAT prep classes do not help. That may be because I did not take one of those outrageously priced ones, but I believe that my score increase came from merely doing the practice tests in the blue book. If a student can afford the blue book (~$25?) then he or she is no worse off than someone who took a $100+ prep class.</p>
<p>If you still disagree, then what about tutoring for classes? Tutoring is arguably more expensive than prep classes, and I would guess that it has more of an influence on GPA than prep classes do on SAT scores. The fact is, I don't believe that either tutoring or prep classes are going to make a student top-caliber. It has to come from inside, regardless of wealth. Now, I'll agree that children of wealthy families are more encouraged to do well, but that has nothing to do with prep classes...</p>
<p>What drives me nuts is that nobody on CC talks about the transcript, which is the most important part of the admissions process at selective colleges. Colleges look at the grades you have recieved within the context of the difficulty and variety of the courses you have taken. They look to see how well you compare to the other students in your high school who have had similar educational opportunities. Performing well in difficult courses is more important than a good SAT score, though a good score is obviously helpful. Other than at large state schools, they don't just punch numbers into a formula. CC overemphasizes the SAT to a ridiculous degree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SATs can be unreliable sometimes too, cause lower-income students sort of get the short end of the stick.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That isn't necessarily true. I don't think SAT prep CLASSES helped much. They probably aren't any more or less helpful than just self-studying out of a book. Depends on how you use your resources. THere are a lot of places to get help for the SATs, these forums included. Best of all, a lot of it can be free. It all depends on how much and how diligently you're going to utilize these resources. The people who work hard with what they have will most likely do very well on the SATs, regardless of their income.</p>
<p>SAT = Collegeboard's way to make money</p>
<p>You must be a fool if u truly think their reason was to only base it as a national comparison among students.</p>
<p>2 million students take the SAT every year, about 1.5 million (AT LEAST) will pay for it. </p>
<p>1.5mil x 41.95 = $62,925,000</p>
<p>I dont know exact numbers so I used estimates. Anyway, also add in the cost of additional score reports, AP grades, CSS PROFILE costs, their books and SAT prep offerings and all that nonsense.</p>
<p>wow. I have dolled out over $250 to CollegeBoard! Yay!</p>
<p>Get back at them by stealing all their complimentary pencils. It costs them money to make those pencils too.</p>
<p>...At least, that's what one of my proctors told me XD My friend took, like, 10.</p>
<p>I really dont like it when people say that they didn't do well on the SAT's because they are a "bad test taker" or "suck at standardized testing"</p>
<p>Thats a load of crap, those are just excuses for not being intelligent and being embarassed about it.</p>
<p>SAT should be more important, because any idiot can go to a high school and do the homework, get C's on the tests and end up with a B in an AP class</p>
<p>in conclusion... SAT measures intelligence, GPA measures effort</p>
<p>I agree that it is about how one utilizes the available resources. I feel that people forget that individuals from families that are not (as) wealthy (as some others) often times are not informed or aware of the many resources there are available to them. To me, this is the main problem- everyone does not know about the same resources.</p>
<p>And actually...this has nothing to do with how wealthy your family is.</p>
<p>TO pmcharkins: I agree with your comment about getting Cs on tests and ending up with a B in an AP class....do you think it is an accomplishment to consistently get As in AP classes when you are taking 4 at the same time??? To me I think that says something about the student's intelligence and work ethic.</p>
<p>Yeah, I don't think SAT prep classes are necessary... I never took one, and I did more than fine on my SAT.
My main study resource was the CollegeBoard blue book, and a few other smaller prep books.</p>
<p>All I was saying is that it sort of sucks for lower-income students, because I do have a few friends who took SAT courses, and they claim it helped... So for some students to not have that opportunity is sort of unfair.</p>
<p>That said, I am an advocate for placing heavy emphasis on the SAT in terms of admissions. As was said previously, I think it measures both intelligence (skills you've been learning - Reading, Writing, Math - since you were in elementary school), and work ethic (no one scores in the high 2000s without doing considerable prep for the test).</p>
<p>Even to purchase the CB blue book and a couple of other study items, I don't think the cost would exceed $100, probably even a little less than that. Granted, I'm not from a low-income family, but that doesn't seem like a ridiculous amount of money to spend on a student if s/he really wants to do well on the SAT/shoot for a good college.</p>
<p>Jonathan - do you seriously not know how to use the internet - search function - google? You MUST imagine that this question has been answered before. </p>
<p>[Sorry for the lashing out - I'm tired and cranky - but still.]</p>
<p><a href="http://www.google.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.google.com/</a> site:<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com</a></p>
<p>OMG!!! TECHNOLOGY!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm leaning more towards the SAT. Grade inflation at schools can definitely bloat up your GPA, which wouldn't mean anything. Preparation for the SAT, however, does take a lot of work, so even if you aren't the smartest kid in the world, if you work hard in your SAT preps and stuff, it'll pay off. If you're just really smart, then the SAT will also reflect that. GPAs can't always reflect either.
[/quote]
So you're saying 4 years of hard work/all nighters/taking 15 AP classes counts for nothing if compared to a stupid 4 hour test? I'm sorry, but I have met with personal admissions officers, and trust me, SATs aren't important as you all think...</p>
<p>I don't know which admissions officers you met with, but at the most prestigious universities (eg HYP), SAT scores are very important.
At schools such as HYP, GPA and SAT probably add up to more than 50% of the admissions equation.</p>
<p>I met with columbia and brown representatives... What about ACT scores?</p>
<p>SQL, college is about papers as much as tests, and in the humanities it can be practically all papers.</p>
<p>gpa is more important concluded --> but taking alot of ap courses and getting a low gpa does have its benefits =D get alot of ap credits in college hehe</p>
<p>SATs are ridunkulous</p>
<p>no, sats are a nice and important way of balancing things...but admission officers don;t quite look at it as important as the gpa because sat scores are given as distribution ranges because of the inability to obtain an exact accurate number. eg: 700-760 so a sat score of 2100 is basically almost the same thing as 2190.</p>
<p>But the range for someone who scored a 2190 will go up to like, a 2280 ? (Is it always 90 pts?)</p>
<p>
[quote]
and trust me, SATs aren't important as you all think...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't understand. You met with admissions officers from Brown and Columbia... What are you saying that they told you?</p>
<p>I don't agree that SATs are weighted more heavily than GPA, but they are certainly a very important factor, and probably the single-most important factor after GPA.</p>