<p>i think that SAT or ACT are all very stupid tests to take, and yet colleges and people put so much value on what how well u score on a single stupid test. (especially colleges that u went to go and ur parents) AHH, i hate those tests and i hate it with a passion.</p>
<p>I completely agree! I hate how you can work extremely hard during high school and then one day at a test center can make or break your chances. Right now the only thing keeping me from top schools are my test scores which is really frustrating.</p>
<p>Standardized tests don't at all prove how smart you are. In fact, no test will show how smart you are; it's all in the work ethic.</p>
<p>You just take your aggression at not doing well out on the test. As I said on another thread:</p>
<p>There are three types of people that go to good colleges:
(1)people who are smart and hardly work, getting good grades, etc
(2)people who are almost as smart, but need to work hard to get that extra boost to make them competitive with the really smart kids.
(3)people who are smart and work hard...shoeins, basically.</p>
<p>Between the first two types, there are many fights. The first group says that the SAT is a great measure of intelligence (mainly because they do well) and look forward to college, knowing that most of your university grades are decided by tests and that is what these people do well on (without studying much at all). Their GPAs are often somewhat lacking because they just didn't put in the effort in highschool, either due to boredom or apathy. The second group says teh SAT doesn't measure intelligence because it is just one test, it is studyable, and your time and grades in high school dictate so much more accurately how well you will do in college.</p>
<p>I will yield to the second group that you CAN prep for the SAT...but that only goes to prove the value of the test. By that, the people that do well on the SAT are either people who have natural intelligence and ability (aptitude) or those are are willing and able to prep efficiently and suceed on the test. Therefore, someone who works hard in high school to achieve good grades should have teh dicipline to work equally hard on the SAT and achieve a high score. On the same note, those who breeze through high school without studying suceed on the SAT in the same way - by not studying and achieving good scores through natural ability.</p>
<p>Regardless of how you achieve in highschool, your SAT scores can and will reflect this...and you will achieve high SAT scores in MUCH the same manner you achieved your grades in high school. The SAT just manages to remove the variables that come with grades from different high school (different education standards, different competition, different enviornments) and effectively compare all kids accross the country with a STANDARDIZED test. The SAT II's do the same thing.</p>
<p>Any Questions?</p>
<p>Spartan Pho3nix, in case you were directing your post to me, I used to be the #1 type, and am now a mix of the #s 2 and 3 types. I am very smart, but am bad at tests, and thus need to work hard to make up for bad test scores. Still, I am good at multiple choice type tests, and thus did well on all three of them with no preparation (SAT I, SAT II, and ACT). This does not mean that I am not allowed to dislike them and believe that they do not prove how smart a person really is.</p>
<p>I love the SAT and the ACT. They help even out the playing field, something that must be done due to cases of grade inflation and numerous other variables that Spartan briefly mentioned. </p>
<p>Go standardized tests!!! Well, except for subject tests, which I suck at.</p>
<p>Kudos to what Quaker said.</p>
<p>It's also a great way for me to show that I'm not an idiot although my grades say otherwise. For those kids that get screwed over with rough teachers freshmen/soph year it's a great way to equalize.</p>
<p>Tests like the SAT and ACT test very little, other than how well you can take standardized tests. Their content is predictable, beatable, and biased towards those who can afford expensive prep classes. Additionally, they are very poor predictors of college success, as there is little correlation between SAT scores and college grades. From my experience with the SAT and ACT, test preparation has very little to do with "reasoning skills" or "achievement" and much to do with strategy and familiarity with the format. As for the point about standardized tests being an objective measurement, it doesn't really matter whether a test is objective when it objectively tests practically nothing of value, as is the case with the ACT and SAT. Plus, the tests actually detract from students' learning, since the focus of high school curricula has largely shifted to "teaching to the test" and students spend time that could otherwise be spent studying, volunteering, learning a new skill, or enjoying life preparing for a meaningless exam.</p>
<p>Before anyone decries me as a "Type 2" student, my SAT scores are 1540 (old) and 2320 (new), with subject test scores of 800, 800, and 760. I simply acknowledge the truth of standardized test scores--that they are not a measure of intelligence, aptitude, achievement, knowledge, or anything else, for that matter--in spite of the temptation to inflate my ego through meaningless statistics.</p>
<p>I "hate" the SAT, SAT II, etc. too, but only because it puts a lot of pressure on me. But it is by no means at all stupid. Colleges need SOME way to compare students in a STANDARDIZED manner. Yes, the tests are able to be prepared for, but there's no other way to compare students. Letters of recs., grades, etc. differ from school to school, so those cannot be used alone. The tests are used not only to compare students but to support or contradict the grades, letters of recs, etc. Example: a french teacher says the student is "the best student i've ever had" and that student has straight As in her French classes. So far so good. But if she ends up with a 600 SAT II for French, the admissions officers will question the letter and her grades.</p>
<p>Any test where any expensive prep class can bring sucsess is a bad test, hence the SAT.</p>
<p>The SAT is needed because, as people said before it "evens out the playing field." You can be ranked 100th at a school and be smarter than another school's valedictorian, but that will never show, except in SAT scores. So in this way it gives colleges unbiased information on the student. I myself have gotten screwed over many times with insanely hard teachers and the teachers just hating me and not giving me the grade I earned. You can't suck up to the SAT, the SAT can't be biased against you and screw you over, the SAT doesn't give bonus points, and the SAT is always the same for everyone.</p>
<p>People that don't like the SAT because they do bad just realized that they aren't as smart as their school performace led them to believe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People that don't like the SAT because they do bad just realized that they aren't as smart as their school performace led them to believe.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or they just never finished it. If I had to take it again, it would probably take me 12 hours.</p>
<p>I can understand that, but still does it a prep class say anything about a person. SAT II scores can show the same thing as the SAT but are at least not cheatable. Also the SAT is just a bad test in general, it doesn't test anything.</p>
<p>Dmct - I direct you to my post. The kids who achieve in school by work will also achieve on the SAT through studying. The way they suceed in school=the way they suceed on the SAT. However, still...the top kids in school (or in smarts) suceed on the SAT.</p>
<p>it sets the basis for colleges to determine a students admission to the school. You have to understand that there are many other students (1000s) that have grades higher than 95s and colleges have to use the SAT. if no sats then what should colleges do?</p>
<p>the only one i hate is SAT II Bio... like seriously... with a passion</p>
<p>sats are just a way for colleges to eliminate a good portion of the applicants</p>
<p>Although I'm not a fan of either the SAT or ACT, people are correct in saying that it does provide college admissions officers with a level playing field, because our school's are totally different from what they were 15-20 years ago. </p>
<p>The only way we could eliminate such test's in our society would to create a national cirriculum and create a clone of one teacher, so everything would be level.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or they just never finished it. If I had to take it again, it would probably take me 12 hours.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly why it's a level playing field, everyone gets the same amount of time. Intelligence isn't just being able to get the right answer, it's the speed at which you can do it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Exactly why it's a level playing field, everyone gets the same amount of time. Intelligence isn't just being able to get the right answer, it's the speed at which you can do it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How does intelligence have anything to do with how fast a person can do something?</p>