<p>You can get most of questions right without a time limit, and if it's supposed to predict future performance, why not measure the brain instead of measuring the brain under pressure? I saw on CNN that in the future, they might replace the SAT with technology that can measure your brain activity and neurons. Sure I think it's important to have good reading skills, good vocabulary, good grammar, and going logic skills in math, but I definitely feel that some really smart people can get screwed over by this test and some really stupid people can spend their entire summer to get a good score. Not everyone who gets a good score on it does great in college, which is why I feel that it's not a good test. What are your opinions?</p>
<p>Not much you can do about it, you've just got to do good on it or try the ACT. Still, the ACT is even harsher on the time limit. While a time limit is necessary for standardized testing, it can definitely can ruin it for some people.</p>
<p>I don't think the time limit makes much of a difference. It's not like you have to answer the questions in rapid-fire succession. You have plenty of time to think, and if you don't know the answer, spending another 10 minutes thinking about it probably won't help. The only people who feel any kind of pressure while taking the SAT are those who vastly overestimate how important the test is (or those who have strict parents). Calm down. It won't make or break you. And the CNN story just sounds like sensationalized reporting to me. It would be stupid to use technology like that to determine who gets into college. Might as well use your IQ score instead. And seriously, it's a standardized test (i.e., a fair source of comparison to other college applicants). Mostly based on simple logic and reasoning. The smarter or harder working people will get the best scores. It's not perfect, and sure, some kids with good scores don't do well in college, but it's still a pretty good test regardless.</p>
<p>agree with panic</p>
<p>The test is supposed to measure innate ability, but the reason people can score so well is because they study for it, not because of their innate ability (most of the time).</p>
<p>I think the SAT is a wonderful test with a few flaws built in. It should be somewhat shorter (perhaps removing that useless writing section would help), it shouldn't be so freaking expensive, and rich kids shouldn't be able to get an advantage on the thing by taking expensive preparation courses and books. Other than that, I think it correlates enough with college performance to be worth administering.</p>
<p>I forgot to mention, they should give out calculators at the exam location. I am sure every school has a healthy supply of at least TI-83's that could be used. The first time I took the SAT I did it with a scientific calculator, and it sucked. DX</p>
<p>Scientific calculators are all you need for the SAT I.</p>
<p>Regardless, there are a couple of things which are easier done in a graphing calculator. Any advantage is an advantage.</p>
<p>I don't see your logic in your statement</p>
<p>"some really stupid people can spend their entire summer to get a good score."</p>
<p>You are saying if someone studies for a Math test then they are not smart? I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.</p>
<p>panic: Is an IQ test not also a test of reasoning? Scores on each do correlate well at least.</p>
<p>The caliber of different high schools varies greatly and a high GPA at one school may have involved significantly less effort and preparation than another. There needs to be some sort of equalizer: the SAT. It's not perfect, but it tells the college information that a GPA cannot, including your ability to work under pressure and productivity level.</p>
<p>kstrike: Uh, yeah. Your IQ score would be more useful than that technology, which is what I said.</p>
<p>In regards to the math piece of the SAT:</p>
<p>Opinion 1: calculators more often hinder rather than help.</p>
<p>Opinion 2: scoring well under a fairly short time limit may occur not just because someone deals with pressure well but because he or she is actually strong in math.</p>
<p>For example: if 2x = 7 and 3y = 11 then 12xy = ?</p>
<p>I've seen many people do this (sometimes with calculators!), solving for x and y, then plugging into the 12xy to solve. Very time consuming. But someone strong in math will typically just use algebra to get the answer in just a few seconds.</p>
<p>"Opinion 1: calculators more often hinder rather than help."</p>
<p>I agree. But they should still be available for the times they can help. I am sure there is at least one or two questions per exam that would be easier with a graphing calculator.</p>
<p>Also, I would also solve that question by solving for x, y, and plugging in. Although I wouldn't use my calculator for that one... I can do it in my head, but on the actual exam I would do by hand for extra safety.</p>
<p>its 154 right.</p>