August 7th - Domestic - SATs: Beneficial or Not.

[Megan]

In the past couple of years, there's been quite a bit of debate centering around the use of SAT scores to determine whether an applicant should or should not be admitted to a college. Even with the restructuring of the test in the Spring of 2005, there are still questions on whether SAT scores should be used as a last factor, to determine whether student A or student B should be admitted, if they match in all other categories, such as grades, strength of courses, extracurriculars, volunteerism, etc. Are alternative tests, such as the ACT, more accurate in determining the success of a student?

What do you think? Should SAT scores matter less than they do now? What credentials should be held in higher regard when it comes to college admittance?


There's also this (http://www.fairtest.org/optinit.htm) list of colleges that do not require test scores.

[Aelfric5578]

I can't stand the SATs. I took the test twice and did weel on it both times, but I never liked the test. i would love to see the SATs de-emphasized.

The problem is tens of thousands of people apply to college each year. They come from all around the country--good schools, better schools not-so-good schools. There is no way for the college admissions process to be as personal as it should be. Since 'perfection' cannot be achieved at one extreme, statistical data is used to make the process as impersonal as possible. Once students are grouped and classified, schools can devote more time to 'tie-breaking' so to speak.

Standardized tests should not be used to automatically guarantee acceptance or rejection, but they can and must be used for example as the only way to compare a group of students from northeast Maine and studends from southwest California. While it would be great to do away with the SATs, there is currently no better alternative.

[Chewie]

Yep. Long story short, standardization can't be 100% effective, but it is needed nonetheless.

[jman255]

SAT scores do not showcase someone's intellect, but like chewie said, it is necessary. You can't go off high school GPA alone because I know my GPA would be much higher if I went to a different school or much lower if I went to a different school. The SAT is really the only way to give an even playing field.

[justine]

Wow, I was just looking over that list of colleges that don't require SAT scores and I saw a bunch of well known speech schools there. The ones that really come to mind are UT, GMU, and Western Kentucky. Great, now my parents are NEVER going to let me go to a school with a speech team.

[flyingkai]

I remember having to learn alllll about analogies at my GT Elem. School, and all the teachers reminding us that it would really help us on our SATs.... nevermind that by the time I was taking them, analogies were gone.

Personally, as the daughter of a teacher, I hate standardized testing and think that it's forcing teachers to 'teach the test' instead of teach.

It's a neccessary evil, but making anyone take a 3 1/2 hour long test is just WRONG. After the first hour i got fidgety.

[KrispyKreme]

Anyone see Perfect Score? Just watch it.

[Morri]

A. Perfect Score is an amazing movie
B. When I took the SAT there were ten people taking it, including all those seventh graders who take it each year. In missouri at least the ACT is the big thing, I'm the only one in my grade who took the SAT and thats only because I want to go to Humboldt State.

[CaptainBee]

I think that judging off of tests is rediculous period. It's ineffective.

So is the whole stupid GPA. As has been said, the number would change based on the school attended.

The only way to decide something like that is to have an interview.

We should immediately commence selective breeding. Only the smart may reproduce. This will make the need for test scores and GPAs dissipate . . . in a few hundred, few thousand or so years.

*sigh*

I haaaate numbers, in all contexts. Test scores, GPAs . . . as communication is the source of all misunderstanding, numbers are the source of all imperfections.

Nevertheless, there's no other way to do it, as of yet. So, I kinda have to agree that it's a neccesary evil.

[freakinalex]

The SAT doesn't really prove much. Sure, knowledge is required for it, but a lot of it is determined by luck. Mainly, you have to be lucky enough to get the questions you happen to know or lucky enough to guess correctly if you choose to guess a question rather than skip it.

Look at it this way. I took maybe 2 practice SATs in middle school and freshman year. I didn't study for the SAT at all, took the thing one morning, and, on the two sections that colleges look at, I got a 1250. Meanwhile, some of my friends who took 2 practice SATs a year since 8th grade, studied quite a bit, and took SAT classes got lower scores than I did, despite the fact that they did much better in school than me and studied way more than me.

To me, that just doesn't sit right. Shouldn't people who are better than me in school and studied more than me get a higher score on the SAT? It just gives me reason to think that the test is flawed.

[Morri]

Yeah...I didn't study period and got a 1360

[Chewie]

Wow, I was just looking over that list of colleges that don't require SAT scores and I saw a bunch of well known speech schools there. The ones that really come to mind are UT, GMU, and Western Kentucky. Great, now my parents are NEVER going to let me go to a school with a speech team.

But I bet they either require the ACT, or something similar.

I mean, UMKC *could* make that list because they only require one or the other...


The SAT doesn't really prove much. Sure, knowledge is required for it, but a lot of it is determined by luck. Mainly, you have to be lucky enough to get the questions you happen to know or lucky enough to guess correctly if you choose to guess a question rather than skip it.

No. Not luck. Judgement. People aren't going to spend quadrillions of billions of dollars to create a test that is that subjective/variable.

Regarding your friends...you can't compare them. Just because you have an impression of how they do in school, that doesn't reflect their test-taking ability, nor their actual intelligence. I finished high school with a 3.4 or 3.5 GPA, but had a 1300 on the SAT and a 32 on the ACT, because I wasn't disciplined enough to put forth the effort for a 4.0. There's a huge difference between intelligence and academic credibility.

Take the test five times YOURSELF, and see if you get different scores, or compare the scores of someone else who took multiple tests in succession.

[Tuck]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/NiskNask/batmandoesnotapprove.jpg

[Chewie]

Which?

[friedeggs]

ACT is shorter and more accurate. It wins every time.