Why SAT's Rule

<p>spratleyj has a lot of great points! Just as a response to the point that tests help distinguish a 90 in a hard class from a 100 in an easy class, I don't think that standardized tests are the only, or even the best, way to solve that problem. I addressed that issue earlier when I said, "I'm not arguing for a greater emphasis on GPA. Actually, I think that grades should be abolished too. I would want a greater emphasis on things that are actually about you as an individual, like written comments, portfolios, student-led parent-teacher conferences, exhibitions, etc." In all of those, you could see how well someone has been coming along, and you could see how hard the class is. And if you did any of those, you would make it unique and individual to the student, rather than putting them through some crazily stressful social machine and defining their work ethic with a single letter.
And I don't think anyone who knows anything about anything really considers an IQ as grounds for intelligent. That worked a few decades ago, but there have been so many people who propose things about multiple intelligence that that test has sort of become dated.</p>

<p>dude, i've got better things to do next year than get into a debate about anything with someone who only ripped down a 2180 even with the help of knowing the "tricks." peace out.</p>

<p>Wow - I think you hit a nerve with me as I have a child at Skidmore and one on the way to Swarthmore in the fall. I can honestly tell you my child at Skidmore is every bit as smart, driven and intelligent as the one headed to Swarthmore. I just wanted you to know that when you use a hypothetical situation, sometimes it is incorrect. And, I love both colleges!</p>

<p>Duhvinci -- grow up, you sound like a loser with nothing better to do. And you're giving us a bad name.</p>

<p>Duhvinci,</p>

<p>What do you feel about the ACT? I know many people whose SAT scores are much lower in comparison to their ACT scores.</p>

<p>It's annoying when people say that scoring high on the SAT just means that you "know the tricks". I got a 234 on the PSAT without this sort of prep. </p>

<p>When study for the SAT, the tricks I found didn't even seem that helpful. </p>

<p>"On passage-based CR, make sure the answer can be proven." - Erm, duh.</p>

<p>"Plug in numbers when there is a variable." - Maybe if you somehow find plugging in up to three different answers faster than doing some algebra.</p>

<p>"Eliminate wrong answers." - I suppose if your school was really, really terrible and you've never seen a multiple choice question before you might not be aware of this.</p>

<p>The only section that really requires special explanation is the essay.</p>

<p>duhvinci, </p>

<p>I think your great! Cuz its completely true that those who get 2400s are going on to be the world's great leaders, and everybody else is just dumb pond scum...darn i guess i'm part of the scum..</p>

<p>lockn: I didn't say that all the SAT measures is how well you know the tricks; I just think that that certainly plays a factor, and for me, it raised my CR score 100 points. And the types of tricks I mentioned in my last post were not the ones you chose to address (except the "eliminating wrong answers" one, but I was referring to the strategy of if you can eliminate 1 or more answers, you should guess). I was saying that the test measures, among other things, your ability to take tests. I mean that you can be extremely bright, but not have great test-taking skills. I am not remotely trying to downplay your high scores. I think that's great! But you have to recognize that some other, very intelligent people might not have been so adept at test-taking, and that there's more to the SAT than just testing useful life skills.</p>

<p>duhvinci: I love these over-the-top phrases like "someone who only ripped down a 2180". You are quite the character. That is in the 99th percentile, and according to <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-act-tests-test-preparation/310352-list-average-sat-scores-50-colleges-universities.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-act-tests-test-preparation/310352-list-average-sat-scores-50-colleges-universities.html&lt;/a> , the average Swarthmore SAT is 2130. So again, I am not saying I dislike the SATs because I am angry over my own performance.</p>

<p>ok, i promised myself that once classes began, i wouldn't goof off with this, but everytime i try to get out, they drag me back in (was that from one of the godfather movies? they didn't test that on the sat.)</p>

<p>collegedad: if your child at skidmore was as intelligent as the other, he/she would be at swat or its equivalent, not skidmore (people confuse the two schools, but trust me, they aren't in the same universe, not even close.) the smart and hard driven part may be true. the sat does not account for drive or hard work (which, in my estimation is worth more than a high sat score.)</p>

<p>smiley: i never said 2400's will lead the world, only that i want them to help with the crossword puzzle (ok, i'm being a little condescending, i never need help on the crossword.)</p>

<p>bpkap: i know you have all day for this, all you have to worry about at this point is the prom, i've got lab reports up the......</p>

<p>anyway, you say "But you have to recognize that some other, very intelligent people might not have been so adept at test-taking, and that there's more to the SAT than just testing useful life skills." my response: not being good test takers is an excuse. of course there are intelligent people who don't score as high, it's just that they're not quite as sharp as the high scorers, that's my point. what the heck are you babbling about with the second part of that sentence? "...that there's more to the SAT than just testing useful life skills."? i didn't know that the sat actually tested life skills and you claim that the sat does even more than that? i thought the sat just gave the schools an idea of where kids fall in the universe during app season so they have a way of comparing where each kid belongs so that the "sharper" ones aren't held back by the valedictorians with 1800s (the fort lee types.)</p>

<p>lastly, before you get all puffed up by scoring over the swat sat average, you should know that the 2130 includes diversity students, who because of economic or ethnic considerations tend not to score as high (but still incredibly high in relation to their socio/economic peers). if you aren't a diversity applicant (and the great diversity at swat is one of the reasons i chose swat, it certainly wasn't for swats participation in march madness) the 2180 is probably not what got you in. you must have great ec's. it just kept the door from shutting on you. ciao y'all.</p>

<p>(Duhvinci, you should keep debating this. This is the 4th most viewed discussion topic on the Swarthmore bulletin, and its gotten over 1400 views, so I think it would be in your best interest not to end after only posting 3 or 4 times.) I love that DuhVinci admitted that "the sat does not account for drive or hard work (which, in my estimation is worth more than a high sat score.)"! I totally could not disagree more about the Swarthmore vs. Skidmore part (that argument is like, so unbelievably judgmental), but the fact that you admit that one thing about the SAT is a great start! WOO!</p>

<p>As for the point about prom, I would think that most girls would be way more interested in someone who is open-minded and will find the good in everyone than someone who would call her "intellectually inferior" if she got a 2100 on the SAT. What type of girl would listen to someone call people at state colleges "inferior cattle" and think to themselves, "wow, that is the man of my dreams!" At least I would be able to recognize what is special about each person. And I already have a girlfriend, so take that!</p>

<p>As for your response to me saying "But you have to recognize that some other, very intelligent people might not have been so adept at test-taking, and that there's more to the SAT than just testing useful life skills", you still haven't answered what about the nature of the SAT makes it 100% sure that the sharp people will do well, and the non-sharp people will not do well. If I am answering a writing question and I hastily, due to time restrictions, forget that one sentence was in the passive voice, or if I don't know what the median of a set of numbers means, how can you say with absolute certainty that I am a less sharp person than someone who knew those? Like, are you kidding? I don't know what your definition of "sharp" is, but I can't imagine that it is that valuable or applicable to anything. You think if I'm in an art history class, the fact that I got a 750 on the Math section of the SAT would make me more participatory and intelligent in class than another person who got a 600? And when I was saying the part about useful life skills, I was quoting what the Collegeboard describes as the skills that the SAT measures. When I said there's more than that, I mean that the test is not so simple in that it only measures life skills; it mainly measures test-taking skills. I would think that someone with as high of an SAT score as you would not misinterpret a sentence so drastically (just kidding). In all honesty, for someone to really place that much significance on one multiple-choice test would make me sort of think that you've been brainwashed by the school system, and you mindlessly accept anything that the Collegeboard says. Maybe I'm wrong about that, I'm not sure.</p>

<p>I've already responded to the fort lee, ambiguous grading process argument MANY times in this blog, so I'm not going to go through it again. I'll just copy and paste from my last post: "I'm not arguing for a greater emphasis on GPA. Actually, I think that grades should be abolished too. I would want a greater emphasis on things that are actually about you as an individual, like written comments, portfolios, student-led parent-teacher conferences, exhibitions, etc. In all of those, you could see how well someone has been coming along, and you could see how hard the class is. And if you did any of those, you would make it unique and individual to the student, rather than putting them through some crazily stressful social machine and defining their work ethic with a single letter or number."</p>

<p>The fact that you think I'm getting "puffed up by scoring over the swat sat average" shows that you haven't REALLY read anything I've said as of yet. If I felt remotely egotistical about that, that would completely contradict everything else I've posted so far. I posted that I scored higher than the average as a response to you saying "i've got better things to do next year than get into a debate about anything with someone who only ripped down a 2180". From what I've read about Swarthmore, I think they say that the SAT is almost never the single thing that gets you in or gets you rejected.</p>

<p>Guys, don't let Duhvinci fool you!</p>

<p>If Duhvinci really goes to Swat, he is putting on a persona to get everyone excited. In fact, I suspect that beneath that abrasive exterior lies a caring, gentle soul. </p>

<p>It is doubtful that anyone exhibiting Duhvinci’s traits of superiority would feel comfortable at Swat and remain in that environment long enough to be a junior. (I surmise that he is a junior because a quick search revealed that his first post may have been in May 2006 after he/she visited during Ride the Tide and in true Duhvinci fashion was inquiring about a Haverford shirt...) </p>

<p>So let us just continue to enjoy his pimping comments and quietly laugh with him.</p>

<p>And by the way, the SAT is just a tool that has managed to rape the American educational system while the so called SAT college tutors and the collegeboard laugh all the way to the bank....</p>

<p>dramatica: very astute to see that i truly am a caring, gentle soul. that's exactly what my mom says...hey wait, you're not my mom are you? btw, that haverford shirt should be included in all swarthmore welcome packages. i still don't have one. lastly, it's not the sat that raped the american educational system, tenure did that.</p>

<p>bpkap: 4th most viewed? wow, i feel like a rock star (or at least a guitar hero.) swat v skidmore? its not judgemental, ask around (just don't ask collegedad3x, he may be in denial). since you're going to be a newbie here next year, let me fill you in on the chicks here. they are sooo not open minded. first off, they are so entrenched in their liberal and pc beliefs that if i were to openly express what i feel (as i've done here) i would never get laid. </p>

<p>you ask me what makes me think that higher scoring sat students are sharper? field study. my friends who score 2300+ are quicker on the uptake than my friends who score 1800 and my friends who scored 1800 pick up faster than my townie friends who scored 1100. beyond that, those are just my own personal beliefs. the premise of the discussion is that the sat's slot kids in their proper boxes so that colleges and universities can form a class of contemporaries. a reliance on grades oftentimes paint an inaccurate portrait of an applicant in that the grades vary from school to school, region to region. grades can also be manipulated as in the fort lee incident. you can't hide from your sat score. 4.0 and a 1700 puts the picture into clear focus and it won't be the gpa that stands out.</p>

<p>you're right that i may not have read everything you write because i found your earlier posts to be rather banal. on the other hand i'm not sure you actually understand the gist of my statements either. i believe that hard work is more essential to success than a high sat score, it's just that i would rather spend my time with people who score high than people who score low. its just that i don't have much in common with those low scoring kids except the beer that we like. i also agree that the sat's are totally useless beyond the segregating of the applicants. i don't believe that one can really prep much for it. you either have a grasp of the language or you don't. one could work on the math concepts and do answer elimination and goose up the math, but if you're illiterate or close to it, you're just not going to score higher than 650 on either verbal sections. all the work for the verbal started in first grade. ya dig? </p>

<p>i know i may have missed some of your arguments, but my neighbor just flipped me a ritalin so i can get back to my sh.. and work for another couple of hours so i have to end this. lastly you say "What type of girl would listen to someone call people at state colleges "inferior cattle" and think to themselves, "wow, that is the man of my dreams!" i'll tell you what kind...my kind. and kudos to your girlfriend, she must think she has quite a catch.</p>

<p>dramatica: one more thing, i don't have feelings of superiority (traits? maybe). much to the contrary. read my freshman posts. i have been humbled here. its true, at haverford it would have been an A.</p>

<p>

You can't be serious.</p>

<p>Hey Duh (I think that is more appropriate), who should I ask? S1 loves Skidmore and his closest friend there turned down Swarthmore for Skidmore. Since attending Skidmore, he has had the chance to study in London with Oxford professors who openly say that no one gets an "A". Also, his best friend in high school that had similar grades to him now attends Swarthmore and is doing very well there. They told me their classes and work loads are very similar. Food for thought I feel.</p>

<p>S2 fell in love with Swarthmore. It was as simple as that. However, Skidmore was his second choice. </p>

<p>Since you call the young ladies there "chicks", well, I think that says so much about you. It is funny though, we have visited numerous times and EVERY student we have met there have been incredibly positive. I spent 15 minutes speaking with a young man at Swarthmore and he was one of the most impressive young men I have ever met. So, Duh, lighten up and enjoy one of he finest educations on the planet.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Duhvinci, you should read all of my posts. You totally have the time, and if they were intolerably boring, then 1700 people would not have viewed this thread. That is stupid to respond with your own arguments when you don't even really know mine. I have probably addressed your argument "grades can also be manipulated as in the fort lee incident" at least 5 times. Like, come on, read it. You'll live. </p></li>
<li><p>Even though that is so stupid and narrow-minded to say that someone with a higher SAT score is smarter than someone without one (as I showed in the Collegeboard statistics about how SATs say nothing about freshman performance), and even though people who do well on the SATs often were able to get a tutor, and were often rich, white males, even though so much depends on how you were feeling on the day of the test and what particular topics that one test happened to emphasize, and even though you don't have any evidence to prove that the SATs measure anything worthy besides a few friends of yours while I actually have studies to back myself up, let's just ignore that. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that none of that is true, and that it was actually proven that people who do better on the SAT are better at critical reading, math, and writing than those who don't. Even if that were true (which it's not), those are only 3 types of intelligence. You are being CRAZILY oversimplistic when you just say that one person is "sharper" than another. There are way too many different types of intelligence for someone to overall be sharper. Even if the SAT measured one important type of intelligence, there are SOOOO many other types of intelligence out there that have nothing to do with the SAT. Go to Multiple</a> Intelligences for a list of the eight types of intelligence. There are many 300+ page books that examine types of intelligence that are not taught in classrooms. You are measuring "sharp-ness" as if it is this one uniform, concrete idea that some people have a lot of and others have less of, depending on their test scores. To say that one test is all there is to sharpness is a very brainwashed type of opinion. Saying that one person is "sharper" just because they exhibit one type of intelligence is missing the point, and is harmfully narrow-minded.</p></li>
<li><p>The thing about political correctness and being a narrow-minded liberal is actually really bad. I agree with you. Is everyone really like that? That would so suck. However, I think that this is the same issue as the SATs: you need to recognize that people are really diverse, in their political opinions, but also in their forms of intelligence. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>I'm still really curious what everybody else's opinions on this issue are. Only like 2 or 3 other people have taken a side.</p>

<p>SATs are not a measure of intellegence; it's a measure of test taking skills and memorization skills. It is in no way indicative of how smart or dumb a person is.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Really? You're going to chastise him for saying "chicks," and then go on to call the men men and the women ladies? That kind of double-standard may fly at Skidmore, but not around here, pal.</p>

<p>

Wow, I've never heard this one before. Let me guess, IQ tests just test a person's ability to take IQ tests, but don't really say anything else about him, and there's really no validity at all in trying to quantify a person's intelligence?</p>

<p>Fascinating.</p>

<p>A.E., </p>

<p>No, the SATS aren't indicative of one's intellegence. Anybody can cram some words and learn grammar rules. The only section I think is good is the math section, because it requires critical thinking in a short period of time. There are really smart people who are horrible test takers, and there are really not-so-smart people who are good test takers, but as soon as that test is over, have forgotten everything they crammed.</p>