<p>I’ve never taken the SAT, but I’m a 4.0 uw student and I got a 31 on my ACT the first time. I don’t like to make excuses, but it was almost certainly due to poor pacing (ie I felt rushed/anxious). My scores on practice tests go up an average of 2 points when I don’t time myself.</p>
<p>What do you guys consider a “seriously low” score, even for students not aiming for ivies? like 1800>?</p>
<p>more like less than 1400 for me but frankly i don’t think scores are important enough in life to really have that much of a “seriously low score” mark. anyone, with enough determination, can make it</p>
<p>They seem like pretty bad excuses to me. However, I do know of a few instances in which kids who I consider smart get low scores. Usually, this is because of inconsistency - not used to the test, mis timed themselves [or of course, being sick/impaired that day], etcetra (I knew a friend who jumped from a 1930 to a 2390 without any studying). Alternatively, it could be because they are smart but careless - E.G. a bright math student getting a 690 on the SAT math, or a great writer getting a 690 on the Writing part. In these cases, this is usually reflected in their grades, too, depending on how hard their school is - so some smart kids have mediocre SAT and GPA; the only way their intelligence can come through is in essays, recs, or academic extracurriculars.</p>
<p>A very low score is <1500, since that’s the national average.</p>
<p>I hate standardized tests, but I’ve received extremely high scores from the NJASK and on the SAT. IMO, standardized test scores differentiate between students who are naturally smart and students who just work hard. Which is why they’re bull.</p>
<p>ok i have a question then.
Why do some people do worse on SATs and much better on ACTs?
[i haven’t read the entire thread, so forgive me if it has been asked]</p>
<p>I think that those who take the SAT and end up with a lower score just haven’t put much time or thought into it. To be Hones,t i was quite arrogant when i took my first SAT and i figured, hell my GPA is high, I’m smart, I’m this and that and that and this, heck it’ll be easy to get oh a 2200 or something.
I get my score back, it’s 1830… where did i go wrong?</p>
<p>On one outlook I could’ve been way too arrogant thus I didn’t take the time to study and get familiar with the exam.
when i retook the SAT, i made sure that i spend time doing problems, reviewing them. I picked up tricks and tips from CC and i got a 1860? why was that.</p>
<p>The OP 's argument is that those who do well in school should do good on SAT’s/ACT’s, etc…and that’s completely logical.
If a student gets flying marks in AP CALC BC [and AB] a 5 on the AP exam, then why does he get a 650 on MATH II?</p>
<p>I think the reason behind this has to do with psychology. When you enter the test all pumped up, and ready to bubble those letters, you probably know everything. You start taking the test and the moment you see a question you can’t answer, you panic. And this is what separates good test takers from bad test takers.
Good ones skip right over and keep the flow, bad test takers just start freaking out mentally, they try to move to the next one, but a part of their mind is still attached to the other problem.</p>
<p>I agree, however, with the OP that people just use ridiculous excuses if they do poorly on the SAT, and once again Psychology comes into play. I forget the word, but it just shows that if you dont get what you expect, you start to think that it was caused by this or that, in other words, you make yourself seem good, and the other thing bad.
For instance, I took the sat, got a 1000 for example. I would say that the test is bad, i would say that time is short, or something, but i wouldn’t say that i didn’t study.
Even saying I’m a bad test taker has to do with the external, rather than the internal./</p>
<p>I feel it also depends on the school itself…Like if u took a student from the inner-city and compared his/her test scores with someone from like a rich suburban school, chances are the inner-city child’s scores will be lower.</p>
<p>As for why people do better on the ACT, I think it’s cause people who are more left-brained rather than right-brained have more of a chance to do well. On the SAT, u r looking at 2-part right brained, 1-part left while the ACT has 2-part left and 2-part right. In addition, it gives people who aren’t necessarily exposed to the use of more difficult words the chance to flourish. As a result, I feel it tests more of ur natural ability with those things rather than how much u can study</p>
<p>
I don’t like hearing people say their SAT score was so poor because their SAT class/teacher was bad. These students tend to also complain about having to spend school breaks in SAT prep classes.
As for people who brag about “I didn’t know anything and I just guessed everything and zomg my score sucks JOKES IT’S BETTER THAN ALL YOURS!” for any test - they need to shut up, who is winning here? No-one.</p>
<p>ifax108 is correct. </p>
<p>“But, does that make them any less intelligent than the kid who spent 40 minutes a day on SAT prep? What if they spent that time pursuing something they loved, like a sport or music? Or reading and expanding their mind?”</p>
<p>I spent time on big extracurricular activities and overseas work. It definitely affected my test results and they are low. (Or maybe I’m just a “bad test taker.” I got a lower score the second time I took the SAT after months of prep…I have no idea how that happened.) On one hand, things shouldn’t depend on just one test score. On the other hand I think I did make a mistake. Although I did attempt to prepare for months and study everyday it wasn’t enough for a good score.</p>
<p>Whatever it is remember that it’s just a test score. It is not a measure of intelligence but rather just preparation. There are many other aspects colleges look at. I’m still thinking about how to explain my score to the top colleges I applied to.</p>
<p>Any ideas?</p>
<p>For a long time, even though I have a 4.0 UW GPA, I performed relatively poorly on CR sections. Why? I over-analyzed too many questions. I thought too much and always doubted myself. And I never really “studied” for these tests. In my defense, I feel like some hardworking people might have difficulty with these tests, and thus attribute it to “bad-test-taking skills.”</p>
<p>Of course, many times, people try to blame everything but themselves. I admit it, I was being dumb by trying to be too smart for the CR passage questions. That’s how it was for me.</p>
<p>Some people can take an SAT prep course for 4 years. It’s really not a great way of measuring intelligence.</p>
<p>I have a friend who has like a 3.4 UW and his grade suckass. But he took an intense Prep course for 3 years (school yr + summer each year) and got a 2380. Cause he’s rich…See other people aren’t as fortunate as he is…</p>
<p>Standardized testing in no way measures a person’s intelligence. In school yes you do have tests but they aren’t timed and you are usually very familiar with the material and the questions are straightforward. Also, in school tests do not make up all of your grade. You could get Bs on all your tests, do all the homework, ace a project and get an A. Timing is a HUGE issue on standardized tests. I don’t know about at your school, but I get the whole class period for tests, and for some lengthy ones we can come and finish it when we have free time. It’s not like that on the SAT, you get stressed out when you hear the “5 minutes left” and you have 15 blank bubble questions. Also, if you don’t shell out money to get prep you don’t understand the testing tactics and tricks, which is essential to doing well. The SAT doesn’t test to see if you know the material well, it tests to see if you have the right strategies. Well, now with all the good test prep books you could probably figure out, but there are plenty of so-so students that get amazing SATs because they shelled out thousands of dollars for 2 year long prep courses.</p>
<p>I never had prep classes; I used around 5 practice tests total for my 2 SATs.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if timing was the issue for me. I feel like a lot of smart kids could easily over analyze CR questions (even though they are rather straightforward as well).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s me lol. I actually don’t guess, but I like to remind people that my superscore is over 2300 while I didn’t put in any actual effort.</p>
<p>Why is that impressive that you didn’t try?</p>
<p>Before sharing my thoughts on this, those who score a little bit on the lower side compared to the high achievers on these forums should not throw in the towl and stop the excuses. Those who score high should not feel superior to others. Its just a test.</p>
<p>If you you score 1800-2000, you have the potential to score 2200+. Its just that the SAT is not like most of the tests you take in school because they force you to memorize and think rigidly. Years of thinking like this will affect your score on a test where you need to think more flexibly. </p>
<p>When I was helping my friend out with the math section, he was scoring 630. Again its not cause he is unintelligent or a bad test taker. Its because his school math tests forced him memorize concepts and apply them to a small range of problems. For example whenever he was stuck on a level 5 problem, he would try various complicated formula’s to solve it. After a couple minutes I intervene and show him the simple solution. He watches with amusement at the simplicity of the solution and wonders how he didnt think of such an approach. He didnt just sit there with the blank face and wonder what I was doing. Instead, he just didnt know how to apply the concepts he had to a broad range of problems. Once he figured out his problem, he had an epiphany and scored a 770 in one sitting. He had the same issue with reading and writing. His school would analyze lit in more rote terms. Once he took some practice tests, he pretty much figured the sections out. </p>
<p>Before finishing I also want to talk about the intelligence thing. Again, beyond 1800, it pretty much proves you have natural intelligence but it just says that your not thinking in the SAT mindset. However, after 1800, I believe the SAT fails to really distinguish. The SAT tests skills not far more than intelligence. Your intelligence cant shoot up by 25% but your SAT can.</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree with eagles94. I’m sure everyone here has probably passed Algebra II/Geometry. SAT has a certain mindset to it and you just have to adjust to that mindset.</p>
<p>^Thanks Jess. If everyone would cooperate like this, this forum would be alot more beneficial. The reason I am able to know how my friend felt is because I was in the same position until my mentor came along and guided me in the right direction. He didnt put me down and let me know that I was capable.</p>
<p>I have never heard the SAT described as requiring flexible thinking. A lot of people tend to say it promotes rigidity. I suppose you have a good point, though.</p>
<p>Eagles you are absolutely right.</p>
<p>It’s just a test. Period.</p>