<p>Why is taking the SAT multiple times bad?
If I know my score will improve on the next SAT test I take-- by 100 points at least, why should I not take it after four attempts at achieving this next score?</p>
<p>Are you saying this would be your 5th time?</p>
<p>yea</p>
<p>Why ruin a perfectly good Saturday morning?</p>
<p>Some schools require that u send them ALL the test scores. Five times looks looks obsessive, like u don’t have a life.</p>
<p>
No one “knows” they’re going to improve by at least a 100 points</p>
<p>Hmmmm… just up your alley</p>
<p><a href=“take SAT 5 times? - Princeton University - College Confidential Forums”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/865760-take-sat-5-times.html</a></p>
<p>Note my quote in reply #13</p>
<p>How do you know you’re going to raise your score 100 points?</p>
<p>No one knows these things. I expected a constructive debate discussing the pros and cons of taking the SAT 3 times. Clearly my expectations are too high. Nevertheless, when you take the SAT more than 3 times, it looks obsessive at all angles. If you haven’t raised your score too significantly by the 3rd time, it shows that there really isn’t a chance you WILL go up. If you have high scores and are just picking at a scab (e.g. 800M, 800CR, and 780W), then you look like you’re striving too hard for perfection. 2380 out of 2400 is no cause for a crying fit and a rush to the computer to register for the next test.</p>
<p>While Score Choice can be your friend, some colleges ask to see everything. Do you really want them to see everything? </p>
<p>It’s time for everyone to understand that a 100 point improvement on the SAT is meaningless. In the higher end of SAT scores, all it represents is a few more correct answers. A 100 point improvement is not gargantuan leap putting you in front, but simply the same basic step forward. Consider that the SAT is a test designed to predict within a certain error rate the ability to read write and do math. A 2100 SAT Score is basically the same prediction as a 2200 score, especially in light of human error, testing error, testing circumstances, etc. All repeated testing does is make the SAT (owners) that much richer. As long as I’m on my soap box, shame on the College Board for allowing such repeated testing, which is done only to line their pockets. My opinion is that no more than three tests should be allowed and even then only in the case of sickness or testing disruption.</p>
<p>I’ve known several students who got into HYPSM having taken the test 4 or 5 times. It’s not an unequivocal no-no, although of course it’s a huge waste of many otherwise useful Saturday mornings.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Everyone is entitled to his erroneous opinion. But not his set of facts … some might add. To be clear, you are dead wrong. Students are free to take the SAT as many times as they want. Fwiw, the seminal research by Tom Fischgrund provided enough evidence that students are not penalized for more than X tests. </p>
<p>Xiggi:. I stated that testing should be limited, I did not state that testing is limited. Your interpretation of my post is wrong. However, I agree that students are not likely penalized (except for time and money) for multiple test taking, which actually supports my opinion. There is no benefit, so there is no penalty. </p>
<p>BTW to all test takers: we are discussing the extreme case of a fifth test. In the case of a low score because of sickness or test disruption, then by all means the test should be retaken. GL to all test takers.</p>
<p>1) You never KNOW that your score will go up 100 points – some people perform better on practice tests than actual tests 2) The prevailing wisdom is that twice is generally enough – five times certainly seems excessive to me, but if you feel strongly that you will improve that much, then nobody can stop you from taking the test once more. </p>
<p>How can you know your score will go up? On my second SAT test, I thought my math score would go up by at least a hundred points. You know how much it actually went up? Twenty. And that was only my second time. Put your time and money towards something more productive, or try the ACT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a really hard time following what you are trying to convey, but to be clear this is the part of your post that I consider to be dead wrong: “My opinion is that no more than three tests should be allowed and even then only in the case of sickness or testing disruption.” </p>
<p>The current version is --of course-- not limited, nor SHOULD it be limited. Again, you’re entitled to your erroneous opinion. </p>
<p>There is a limit to the ACT, it’s 12 times, so it’s not really a constraint for most people. I think the SAT is unlimited, but in reality, they do only offer it so many times a year, although there is a group of people who are addicted to it and take it for fun, even as adults, seeing if they can get a perfect score. Most don’t, even with unlimited prep and chances to take it.</p>
<p>The biggest improvements is almost always between the first and second attempt. At some point, you are just going to hit your limits, although a lot of people don’t want to believe that.</p>
Xiggi: With consideration to time, money, and statistics for improvement why should 4+ test attempts be considered a good thing?