<p>wow i cant believe how 20 years ago or so mid 600s were acceptable to places like harvard yale and all those elite colleges. anything above 700 was quite rare.</p>
<p>I seem to wonder what things like princeton review has done for us. The SAT should be a test of already learned material, not material that has been constantly studied and prepared for. Everyone should just take it cold with maybe 1 practice test and thats it.</p>
<p>If only parents and kids werent so caught up in all this perfectionist craze. We wouldnt have so many kids getting such unbelievably high scores. Give me a kid who gets 2200 without any prep over a 2400 3rd time anyday.</p>
<p>It is not collegeboard who has ruined the SAT, its the millions of kids being pressured by their parents to do good. If the world was more apathetic it would be much better.</p>
<p>It's actually because colleges are putting so much pressure on kids to get such high scores. The parents putting more pressure on kids is only a result of that.</p>
<p>Also, if the SAT is preppable, then I see no reason why someone wouldn't prep for it to get a better score (since the score is so important). If they want to make it a test of already learned material, they should redesign it so it's much harder to prep for.</p>
<p>people didnt prepare as much 20 years ago than they did today. Too many kids are obsessing over their scores, and its just not healthy enough. We even see professors complaining about these grade grubbing kids who have no originality. All this test has made them do is learn the test and take it. Its become pretty much worthless as a measure of aptitude and the high 2100+ scores have really become pretty much undistinguishable between colleges since they know this is going on. However, you cant question the statistics of SAT scores today at top colleges compared to several years ago. </p>
<p>Plus, a high school kid should not be worrying about the SAT at all during his age, it should be of no significance to his childhood, and I continually see people who are wasting their entire high school careers trying to become the perfect applicant and such. No coincidence between this rise in depression and suicide? right?</p>
<p>I think that you're attributing the blame to the wrong group of people. Parents are only stressing this because they care that their children have great, successful careers. Many top careers require a degree from a university and the majority of top universities require and use SAT scores in the admissions process. </p>
<p>Studies have shown that there is a correlation between higher SAT scores and better first year performance in college freshman. This includes those who studied to get the higher SAT scores. If someone is willing to study and can bring up their score (for many, studying does not improve SAT scores) it shows to the college that they are willing to put in the necessary work.</p>
<p>Not to mention that it seems like you're suggesting that these tests should be a 1-time punch. This means if I am having a bad test day I won't be able to take it again to prove that it was a fluke?</p>
<p>While it is good to identify problems, it seems like you're jumping to an awful number of conclusions and not really providing any sound solutions.</p>
<p>Funny you mention the correlation between higher SAT scores and better first year performance in college as freshmen. I am currently taking AP Stats and we are learning about lurking and confounding variables. Keep in mind that correlation does not prove causation... Perhaps the ppl with higher SAT scores are of the more motivated breed which makes them better college freshmen.</p>
<p>well I know at least on my side it isn't my parents rly pushing me..and I didn't take any prep courses, but i do want to get really high scores. Though I did a few past papers the night before on my december retake, (i went to a party before my nov one, and went to my first sat test without knowing there was an essay section =P)
So I think of it as just a natural ability test, and u can see the drop offs like in my sat IIS i had
780 lit, 720 bio but only 600 maths. IF i went to kaplan i could probably have gotten higher on maths, but well didnt want to spend 5 hrs a week studying for a test i dont rly need (unis only need 2 scores)
but yeah...I think that apart from doing a few practice essays, so u can get a feel for the timing, u can get pretty high marks on sat Is without any study, that's linked to your natural ability, and as long as u pick sat IIs in ur good subjects, u'll do fine too without prep. Kaplan/Princeton review Prep is more the difference between 600 and 620 or 760 and 780 than true difference.</p>
<p>A bit of historical perspective - in 1995, the College Board recentered SAT scores, effectively adding about 100 points to the average total score (can't remember the exact breakdown between math/verbal). So add 100 points to that SAT score from 20 years ago and you'll see things really haven't changed much.</p>
<p>Thanks fireflyscout - I was going to mention the same thing. I was wondering how I could have been a NM semifinalist with the score I got compared to the scores now.</p>
<p>^^^ Probably not becuase everyone else's score would have been affected. I'd think that when a fixed number of spots are available (whether NMSF or Ivy admissions), getting higher scores or all the extra work by everybody shouldn't really matter. The same set of kids will probably make it. In that sense, OP's argument makes sense. Why should everyone work harder if it doesn't lead to increased number getting in?</p>
<p>what collegebound and backfire are discovering is the economics of an arms race. My suggestion is they take an econ class or two; with a good prof it won't just be dry supply & demand curves but a chance to really think about issues like this.</p>
<p>As for the arms race angle it presents interesting issues you can think about from many perspectives. collegebound asks "Why should everyone work harder if it doesn't lead to increased number getting in?" and that is what underscores the irony of what happens. If you don't work harder than you won't get in, so each person has an incentive to work harder and harder. The bar rises, but there is no magical jump in the numbers of those getting in! Themes of the prisoner's dilemma should be sounding in some people's head, as well as the notion of the invisible hand and where it leads.</p>
<p>I graduated from high school in 1979 and I have to disagree with some of your assertions that we didn't prepare for the test. I went to a very competitive public high school in northern Virginia and all college-bound students took a one quarter long class that we called SAT/CRAM, which I remember being mostly vocabulary. Many students at our school scored in the 1400's and 1500's. I recall one friend's sister taking the test numerous times in pursuit of a 1600, which I believe she got eventually. I wish I could get my son to take his ACT so seriously.</p>
<p>In part that's because the test was "recentered" in 1995, so scores after that time are inflated by comparison.</p>
<br>
[QUOTE=""]
<blockquote>
<p>It is not collegeboard who has ruined the SAT, its the millions of kids being pressured by their parents to do good. If the world was more apathetic it would be much better.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I see. So you want everyone to be apathetic except you, right? So you can nip in there with your natural talent a get by on a mediocre score? But darn it, those hard workers just keep messing it up for everyone!</p>
<p>Not only were scores recented in 1995, which effectively adds 70 points to verbal scores, but the percentiles themselves have changed in this age of no child left behind, self-esteem boosting. It used to be that a 1360+ was in the top 1% and 1280+ was in the top 5%. I get the impression after adding 70 points that 1430+ isn't as high as top 1% and 1350+ isn't as high as top 5% with new score compression, which makes it harder to stand out which has caused added competitiveness.</p>
<p>The SAT conundrum now is if you (as a parent) don't play the game that everyone else is playing, your kids are at a disadvantage. My son only took the SAT once, and I'm now thinking that was a mistake. He should have taken it two or three times, should have had a math tutor to get that magic 800, etc. It's about an equal playing field -- if everyone else is studying and prepping and taking it repeatedly, aren't you handicapping your child by not having them do the same? I wish we could go back to the way it was when I was applying for college -- no prep, just show up, take it once, and be done.</p>