<p>Wow, this sounds like the Chinese college admissions system. Do you really want a four-hour test to determine where you go for the next four years of your life?</p>
<p>"Hello, and welcome to 85% Asian University! Would you like to see our new black person?"</p>
<p>Four hours is an inconsequential blip in 4 years. It shouldn't be a big deal in the grand scheme of things to take a test, too many people bug out in the high pressure situation that is equivalent to half a day at work. </p>
<p>& I agree that colleges should take the most intelligent, regardless of GPA, and show them what to do with their intelligence.</p>
<p>rsxwheeeeee: my point to the OP is that the bulk of American colleges practice merit based acceptance based on GPA/test scores. However a few (very few) also evaluate other criteria. But the OP wants desparately to get into two of these (prestigious colleges: Duke & Dartmouth) and then cries foul that they aren't like the other 90% of colleges that will admit/reject solely based on metrics. That's what I mean that he can't have his cake and eat it too.</p>
<p>Standardized testing should be weighted much more. Schools teach at very different levels and teachers alone for that matter. Standardized tests put a level playing field for everyone. And if your S or D does not do well on tests, well guess what college grades are like. 4-6 tests, maybe a few term papers if they're gordon rule. None of the busy work crap or easy grades that inflate GPA. </p>
<p>I would certainly say standardized testing is the way to go. Shows what students actually know.. GPA should be used to show a students work ethic, not necessarily their intelligence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Standardized testing should be weighted much more. Schools teach at very different levels and teachers alone for that matter. Standardized tests put a level playing field for everyone. And if your S or D does not do well on tests, well guess what college grades are like. 4-6 tests, maybe a few term papers if they're gordon rule. None of the busy work crap or easy grades that inflate GPA.</p>
<p>I would certainly say standardized testing is the way to go. Shows what students actually know.. GPA should be used to show a students work ethic, not necessarily their intelligence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Standardized testing should be reevaluated and improved. </p>
<p>Also, how many people would support a system where the applicants take an IQ test and the top x number of people get in. Intelligence isn't everything, and it isn't the only thing schools are looking for. You have to have a certain level of intelligence (minimum of about 130+) to be successful at a top school, after that you need to be more than just a computer with better operating specs.</p>
<p>I'm always amazed that so many are convinced that SAT scores don't matter that much. When I look at the common data sets for colleges and back out the hooked, they seem to matter a whole lot.</p>
<p>And it shouldn't, as I've said, it probably has nothing to do with intelligence.</p>
<p>It's hard to argue that SATs don't measure things important to success in college and employment. Employers in some sectors still want to know your scores after you graduate.</p>
<p>A high CR score indicates the ability to take in a lot of information and analyze it quickly and accurately. A critical skill in many jobs. Math speaks for itself.</p>
<p>This is not to say the test is the only thing that correlates with success in school or work--high school GPA correlates with college success to a higher degree, but it's certainly give a picture.</p>
<p>I have several things to say
first of all the math section does not measure intelligence, it shows how careful one is in basic math, and how how much practice he had with the basic math. Some of the people the best people in math get sub750 math scores, while people 2 tiers lower than them(normal math) can pull of an 800. SAT either would need to test higher level math and harder problems from it(think AMC), or logic/iq style questions.
Critical reading is much more objective about intelligence, yet it still can be learned to some point as math is, such as vocab words, and ap lang analysis(made my practice scores go from mid 500's to upper 600's - lower 700's this year) and being careful is also important.</p>
<p>I honestly think they would be better off if they did away with standardized testing as part of the application process. As Toledo has proved, kids can have outstanding academics and simply be poor testers.</p>
<p>If the OP was arguing for schools to place more weight on subjects test I'd understand. After all, they do measure what you should have learned in class and aren't completely random while the SATs are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's hard to argue that SATs don't measure things important to success in college and employment. Employers in some sectors still want to know your scores after you graduate.</p>
<p>A high CR score indicates the ability to take in a lot of information and analyze it quickly and accurately. A critical skill in many jobs. Math speaks for itself.</p>
<p>This is not to say the test is the only thing that correlates with success in school or work--high school GPA correlates with college success to a higher degree, but it's certainly give a picture.
[/quote]
I understand it applies to some people.</p>
<p>It just doesn't seem to apply to most people I know; I'm pretty subpar in intelligence and I got a 2200 (which is considered pretty good), and other smart kids I know got far worse scores than I...</p>
<p>But yes, my anecdotal evidence means nothing.</p>
<p>What exactly does being a "bad test taker" mean? What would make someone one?</p>
<p>Two of my kids did very well on CR and the third not as well. I think he's as intelligent as the other two but he isn't a reader like they are so his reading analysis skills are less developed. Is he a bad test taker?</p>
<p>I think the OP is lacking in other substantial areas that is why he wants SATs to be everything. He is mad at the fact that people with amazing SATs and grades do not always get into the most selective schools. </p>
<p>The math section on the SAT is basic and it does not show intelligence at all. If you get like 4 wrong you go down to a low 700. I got a 660 on math but a 750 on the Math subject test? Does the SAT I score indicate I cant do math as well as the people in the 700's?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the OP was arguing for schools to place more weight on subjects test I'd understand. After all, they do measure what you should have learned in class and aren't completely random while the SATs are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But they don't measure how much you've been taught. There's a reason why I don't think anyone from my school has taken the physics subject test recently, including those in the highest level of physics - They spent almost a semester working on modeling motion with constant acceleration.</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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You haven't been to India or China where gaming standardized tests is a national pastime.</p>
<p>Anyway, quite obvious from the name of the OP that he's a troll. Excellent troll, by the way.</p>
<p>The first problem is that if admissions were only based on SATs, kids would be shelling out even more money on prep courses, tutoring, etc. than they already are, and the playing field would become so level that it would be impossible to distinguish students by their score. </p>
<p>The second problem is that it's difficult for top tier schools to base admissions on SAT scores alone because they are all so close. What if the cutoff score was 1520 and you got a 1510? This doesn't mean the person with the 1520 is smarter. When you get into the high ranges that these schools are looking at, everyone is intelligent enough, and it's harder to make distinctions. Basically, top tier schools are forced to look at things like ECs and essays because if they didn't, everyone would be too similar. </p>
<p>But I do agree that as much as you might hate it, SATs are important and rightfully so. For those who say, "I'm smart, but I have low SATs because I'm just not a good test taker," you very well may be, but remember that you're going to college, and being a good test taker is an important skill to have.</p>
<p>Being a good test taker is not a good skill to have... For school yes, but not for the real world, and that is what school is preparing you for.</p>
<p>What's with all the hate on SAT Writing? You know some schools used to require it as a subject test? There's definitely been some data now that shows how SAT writing is just as good an indicator as CR or Math.</p>