<p>Spartan Phoenix, nice analysis waaaaay up at the top.</p>
<p>bluealien, think about it. if you ask a 5 year old to add 5 and 7, he would take a minute and use his fingers to get 12. if you ask a 15 year old the same question, he responds almost immediately. now which one is more intelligent?</p>
<p>i agree that the SAT is messed up. If its really supposed to measure intelligence and ability then students shouldnt be able to prep for it. However, it is possible to prep for the SAT, hence its a failure</p>
<p>peace</p>
<p>Those with low SAT scores complain about how SAT is too esoteric while the lazy bunch complain how other countries look at test scores only. It really depends on:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>High SAT + High GPA = you don't complain, you either show off, help others or mind your own business. </p></li>
<li><p>High SAT + Low GPA = you moan how school work is too easy thus it is unnecessary to perform well in school.</p></li>
<li><p>Low SAT + High GPA = you bunch complain the most. Why? Because you have put in so much effort that a low SAT score makes you look stupid. Of course thats not always true because some are just bad test takers.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Anyhow, with all that said, I truly believe that SAT is coachable not only by prep classes but by independent practices. I can't say there is not a certain degree of intelligence involved when one achieves a good SAT score, but I can say that the 'intelligence' acquired to do well on the test can be drastically improved by most.</p>
<p>PS: Why do those people who have to work full time get in to top schools with low scores? Of course, colleges take into account that they don't have the resources necessary to prepare for the test.</p>
<p>working full time is considered a big EC, i'd guess</p>
<p>Haha, its not a huge EC, its almost a season pass to any college in the country.</p>
<p>Vehement, your post made me laugh out loud! There are many MANY number 3's at my school, a private school that puts little to no emphasis on standardized tests where kids with 4.3 GPA's are getting 1750's! I can't tell you how many times the discussion of "I hate SAT's!" has come up at the lunch table.</p>
<p>Anyways...schools prepare kids for SAT? Dear god, I don't think my teachers know what SAT is....</p>
<p>to make you feel better:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=60648&page=1&pp=30%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=60648&page=1&pp=30</a></p>
<p>grade deflation/inflation is all over the place. how else are they going to compare us fairly?</p>
<p>Well too bad people. Because the SAT/ACT is the only way to compare students nationally.</p>
<p>
[quote]
bluealien, think about it. if you ask a 5 year old to add 5 and 7, he would take a minute and use his fingers to get 12. if you ask a 15 year old the same question, he responds almost immediately. now which one is more intelligent?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well then, I guess in your mind I'm not intelligent if speed counts. I just barely finish 50 minute tests sometimes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well then, I guess in your mind I'm not intelligent if speed counts. I just barely finish 50 minute tests sometimes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You finish the test in the given time period. It's not like we're saying you should turn it in before the time is over. If you can't finish in the given time period, that means you are less intelligent (in the subject at hand) than others who can finish in the time period without sacraficing their scores. If we all had 12 hours to take the SAT, I'm sure all of our scores will be higher. Obviously there's a reason the ACT and SAT are timed tests.</p>
<p>you shouldn't have time problems on the SAT. the act may have some problems esp. if you're a slow reader or not as quick witted on the science (like me)</p>
<p>but i really disagree with the comment about rich people affording SAT prep classes. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with your score. I personaly took 2 prep classes and i slept through both. prep classes are only for people who have extra money and their parents want them to do well.</p>
<p>the SAT and ACT are nessary. For example, my school is ridiculously hard, i'm ranked 5th of a class of 107. if you average the unweighted GPA's of the top 20 students u'll find that its somewhere around a 3.0. i'm put at an extreme disadvantage compared to the public school kids who have it easy on the grades and stuff. I'm not insulting public shcool education (i know in the north there are some public schools that are harder than my southern private school) but I do think that tests like the SAT help balance a person's college portfolio. If you do not agree, please post</p>
<p>
[quote]
You finish the test in the given time period. It's not like we're saying you should turn it in before the time is over. If you can't finish in the given time period, that means you are less intelligent (in the subject at hand) than others who can finish in the time period without sacraficing their scores. If we all had 12 hours to take the SAT, I'm sure all of our scores will be higher. Obviously there's a reason the ACT and SAT are timed tests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>@@. A lot of things could affect speed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you shouldn't have time problems on the SAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? Eh...I don't even care. I took that test in 1999 anyway. Bleh.</p>
<p>"Those with low SAT scores complain about how SAT is too esoteric while the lazy bunch complain how other countries look at test scores only."</p>
<p>Esoteric? Don't be silly. The SAT is not food! (I love Family Guy).</p>
<p>Anyway, have you ever been to fairtest.org? There are many ways to predict college success and make admissions decisions without regard to standardized tests. In fact, there are over 700 colleges that admit students without regard to test scores. Studies done on them have shown that grades and rank, despite their flaws, are much better predictors than any standardized test. The reason? Even though a test may be the same for everyone, that doesn't mean it's measuring anything useful, which is the case with all these college entrance examinations, which can be and are prepped for, disadvantaging the poor and minority groups.</p>
<p>So? What test in the world cannot be prepped for? I guess by that logic, every school in the world is unfairly biased because rich people can afford the best private tutors whereas the poor cannot. Every single test in the world, including the weird IQ puzzle-like tests can be prepped for - it is impossible to make one that it is not study-able. So what exactly is your problem with the SAT GDWilner? If someone is incapable of doing at least very well on the math part, they do not deserve to be accepted to an excellent college. SAT math is unbelievably basic. The only part that mandates any kind of study is the verbal, and even that part doesn't require it. By eliminating standardized tests, you have absolutely no standard for comparison for any students at all. You guys think college admissions are random as it is? Throw out standardized test scores, and see how much more random it'll get.</p>
<p>The SATs are stupid, but the ACTs rn't. Simply said. ;)</p>
<p>sat and act are ridiculous. spartan and tetrahedr0n: you said that you can study for the test, that's a lie. i took a 175ish hour course at princeton review from june 2004 to may 2005 and i got an 1870 score. my friend went into the test not even knowing there was an essay, forgot calculator at home, and arrived late, and he got a 2160. i dont want to be jealous here but there is something really messed up. those 175 hours of intense studying versus 0 MINUTES of studying: 0 MINUTES of studying pays off and alot more than my score. i might be a bad test taker or have anxiety problems but believe me, either you're good at tests or you're not and thats the end of it.</p>