<p>they simply based college admissions off the Math & Critical Reading SAT? Most of the people I know who do really well on these tests are truly intelligent. If colleges are truly looking for the best and brightest students, shouldn't they forget extracurriculars and the Writing SAT and base it entirely off how people do on these two sections and also take high school grades into account??</p>
<p>I've seen too many really intelligent people get shafted at top schools and quite a few less intelligent people get into the same schools, so it makes me wonder what the hell colleges are really looking for. I apologize in advance. I'm just really nervous. For some reason, I think I'm not getting into any of my top choices. I saw someone with really high SATs on College Confidential get deferred from Duke Early Decision!!! I think her screen name is isabellaaaa or something like that... I haven't done much else besides SATs and math competitions.. so I've been thinking.. why wouldn't Duke or Dartmouth reject me??</p>
<p>My S got less than 1100 on the SAT (slightly better ACT), but just finished his first semester with a GPA of 3.987 and that was with biology and chemistry. I'm glad he found a school that was willing to take a chance on him. Standardized testing is not always accurate.</p>
<p>WOHA. So you pretty much implying (if not outright saying) that because you know how to master a standardized test, you should be chosen over though students who you think are "less intelligent" because they aren't good standardized test takers even if they have near perfect GPAs, hold tons of leadership positions and truly help out the clubs they are in, are great people....ect. But nope. No one cares about that-just how many points you scored on one test. </p>
<p>Your screen name and post just reek modesty ... </p>
<p>Standardized test scores are not the end all, be all. The top tier liberal arts colleges and universities are looking for those, but need something more. They are looking for leaders and agents of change.</p>
<p>Except for the near perfect GPA, nothing else you said indicates intelligence.
The problem here is that 'leadership skills' is such a subjective term.</p>
<p>In my opinion this would only make sense if one couldn't take the SAT more than one(okay maybe two) time(s). I think we all agree that a person who scored above 2200 on his first try is more intelligent than a person who took 5 times to achieve the same score.
Also every study aid and prep book should be eliminated, because with good books a score above 2000 is not that hard.
But by doing this some people would lose their job, and who needs that right now? </p>
<p>The same way I reject admission based only on GPA, I reject admission based only on standardized test. Just because somebody scores 1600/2400 doesn't mean that he is a great person or somebody who will do great things.</p>
<p>Top colleges aren't supposed to accept the people who are going to be 'great people'. Anyone can be a great person and go on to do great things.
It just takes some people more time to become motivated to do great things. Those who are ultra-accomplished outside the classroom by the age of 18 usually are so un-introspective that they burn out early on once they realize that their ridiculously high confidence in their abilities was unwarranted.
Calling the kid with a 1600 who just drinks alcohol all day an 'ungreat person' is ridiculous!! I bet that person could do better in an abstract algebra class than the guy with a 1390 who does a lot of community service and is class president.
Top colleges need to be focusing on accepting the most intelligent people and helping them hone their skills.
I agree with you that the 1600 kid may not necessarily go on to do great things BUT it is clear that he has the potential to do so.</p>
<p>first off, SATs do not measure intelligence. I know plenty of people who are not that smart they study really hard to get the high scores. One girl started SAT prep when she was a freshman.... Second just because you are intelligent does not mean you will succeed in life. You need "street smarts" and have certain leadership qualities.</p>
<p>Basing admittance by SAT scores is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.</p>
<p>I have seen different. Most of the people I've known who really did well on the SAT (I'm talking 1500+ here...) are truly intelligent. They just get it when others don't. </p>
<p>Yet again though.. college admissions should not be based on subjective factors like "who can succeed in life"!! </p>
<p>My cousin struggled with alcoholism for four years but is a certified genius. He was even in danger of having to leave college once. You know what though, he got over his alcoholism and now he's at Columbia Law School and is going to do great things with his life. The truly intelligent can overcome the obstacles they face and once they do, there's no stopping them!!</p>
<p>A top college may have looked at his application and saw a lazy, unmotivated person and thought, "This person isn't going places." You can't predict that sort of stuff, you arrogant adcoms!! I support fairness and objectivity. To make it truly objective, I also think we should also have an economics-based affirmative action system. The kid with the 1500 from rural South Carolina should get preference over a kid with a 1500 who's at Andover..</p>
<p>In my experience, it's the opposite of what you've said - SAT's aren't meant to measure intelligence, or if they are, it's a pretty darn poor job at doing it...it's a bunch of patterns and whatnot useless stuff IMO, doesn't have much to do with intelligence. </p>
<p>I'm definitely not intelligent and my last one without being familiar with the SAT/questions and the like at all was like a 2200 (which isn't the best, but not bad I think? Idk how this works), and some of my more intelligent friends have gotten worse scores than I have. </p>
<p>As for college admissions, I don't know anything about it.</p>
<p>Congratulations 174IQPartier. Did you know that the EXACT method of admissions is already being practiced? By whom? Well ... about 90% of colleges in the USA. They FULLY AGREE with your statement and have not plans to veer off track. </p>
<p>But you might ask: who are those idiotic 10% who don't share my world view? Well, they just happen to have names like Brown, Yale, Georgetown, Harvard, Stanford... </p>
<p>Understand this fact 174IQPartier. The very system you advocate is the very system that the so-called "top" schools DO NOT practice. What does that tell you? It tells me this: their holistic admissions systems are a large part of their success and exactly what society view as prestige-worthy. Since you're hoping to foist your "metrics" only system on schools that don't practice them, aren't you then asking these "top" schools to cease what they have practiced to make them "top" schools? Can't have your cake and eat it too. </p>
<p>Duke and Dartmouth may very well reject you as is their wont to do. Why? Because they receive apps from math competition participants, high test scorers who ALSO happen to be Football captains, charity organizers and politically involved HS applicants. Does this mean you're a bad person? Certainly not. You're to be congratulated for your achievement -- many, many people haven't and cannot do what you've done. But there are people who HAVE done what you've done and more -- and these are your competition. That's reality.</p>
<p>I'd say you're most likely headed to a very successful college career. It may or may not be Duke or Dartmouth but you'll do fine, regardless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have seen different. Most of the people I've known who really did well on the SAT (I'm talking 1500+ here...) are truly intelligent. They just get it when others don't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are clearly not as smart as you claim to be. And that you "have seen different" just tells me you haven't been out in the world in the least. Perhaps you should stop eschewing leadership as subjective and recognize the skills and intelligence behind it. SAT's measure little more than test taking ability and provide yet a small glimpse into the merit of an academic transcript. It is not a litmus test of intelligence or ability. As has been said plenty of places on this board and in the world, there are a lot of smart people that have the personality of a rock and others who no sooner care to contribute to the world and their community than a felon. I am going to guess you may be of the latter, although you could be the former as you've not exactly garnered friends or a positive reception here.</p>
<p>Just something you may want to consider before claiming to know all of the answers based on such a myopic standard.</p>
<p>"A top college may have looked at his application and saw a lazy, unmotivated person and thought, "This person isn't going places." You can't predict that sort of stuff, you arrogant adcoms!!"</p>
<p>You've got issues. </p>
<p>Let's pretend. You sit in front of a pile of six applications. You have one slot to fill. If a red flag emerges from one file (i.e. motivation), how does that compare to the five who have demonstrated excellent motivation? And you ONLY have one slot for the six?!? What are you going to do, Mr. I'm-Never-Arrogant?</p>
<p>There are loads of people with high SAT scores and mediocre (or worse) GPAs because, although they may be smart, they don't apply themselves. "Slackers" is the pejorative term. There's no particular reason to believe people with this kind of track record in HS will suddenly turn it around and do better in college. And the more selective colleges simply don't have the time of day for them---they're looking for people with BOTH high test scores and a proven track record of academic achievement in as rigorous a program as is available to them. The most selective colleges are looking for something even a little beyond that: people who are smart, have a proven record of academic success, and are active "do-ers" as evidenced by their ECs, people who will bring something interesting or unique to campus with them. For these colleges, kids with high test scores and not much else to recommend them aren't likely even to get a serious look.</p>
<p>Colleges want people who will actually contribute their schools during the four years they spend there and when they graduate and become an alumni.</p>
<p>Yes, someone may be smart enough to pull a 2250+ SAT score but if they have no leadership or people skills, they're going to spend their college years doing nothing but studying. If you haven't noticed, there are plenty of people who may not have had the scores to get into the HYP but went on to become millionaires because of their drive ad sheer will to accomplish things. Many of the people I know who aren't in clubs because they simply don't feel like committing (as opposed to having other more important obligations) aren't as motivated as people who are extremely involved.</p>
<p>Top colleges can't admit everyone with top-notch SAT scores. Plus, it would be illogical to say a 2400-scorer is smarter than a 2380-scorer. The latter only missed one extra problem on one test on one day.</p>
<p>By your logic, and if colleges admit students solely on inherent intelligence, they should make decisions based on IQ tests taken in the first grade... how would that be fair to kids who aren't naturally born geniuses, who would be auto-rejected from birth?</p>