Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember a decent amount of the SATs... back then when I took it over a decade ago, there was no writing portion. Just a perfect score of 800 for math, and 800 for reading portion. I read a Time magazine article stating it was part hoax part fraud. IMO, that sounds about right.
It's not as much as an indicator on how one will do academically, seems to be a good $$ making scheme, and colleges use it to inflate their national rankings. Other issues include how the questions aren't that appropriate for the knowledge it's supposed to be testing and how unlike a traditional test where students get it back with corrections so they can see what they got wrong and why. The article suggests using high school standings and academic records there (although I clearly remember the SATs being cited as a "level playing field" for all high school students, but then how would one account for ACTs?).
I treated it as one of life's many nuances that had to be overcome, but was glad to be done with it.
The article even cited some sample questions from the first SAT given in June 1926 (97 minutes to answer 315 questions like....)
1) the projecting lower edges of a roof are ___
Spoiler
eaves
2) if a package containing twenty cigarettes costs fifteen cents, how many cigarettes can be bought for 90 cents?
I remember a decent amount of the SATs... back then when I took it over a decade ago, there was no writing portion. Just a perfect score of 800 for math, and 800 for reading portion. I read a Time magazine article stating it was part hoax part fraud. IMO, that sounds about right.
It's not as much as an indicator on how one will do academically, seems to be a good $$ making scheme, and colleges use it to inflate their national rankings. Other issues include how the questions aren't that appropriate for the knowledge it's supposed to be testing and how unlike a traditional test where students get it back with corrections so they can see what they got wrong and why. The article suggests using high school standings and academic records there (although I clearly remember the SATs being cited as a "level playing field" for all high school students, but then how would one account for ACTs?).
I treated it as one of life's many nuances that had to be overcome, but was glad to be done with it.
The article even cited some sample questions from the first SAT given in June 1926 (97 minutes to answer 315 questions like....)
1) the projecting lower edges of a roof are ___
Spoiler
eaves
2) if a package containing twenty cigarettes costs fifteen cents, how many cigarettes can be bought for 90 cents?
Spoiler
120
I think you bring up a good point about being able to get feedback from your tests, homework, papers, other assignments. At least it generates a sort of a feedback loop to learn from and break out of.
When I took the SAT's more than 15 years ago, it just seemed like a bunch of word/math games in a timed environment. It is almost like, what is the point of this?
I still think GPA is a better indicator. For one thing, you get a broad range of subjects that figure into that number, and some of the courses line up with your job requirements. The example from the other thread was a software testing posting that required both GPA and SAT. I would argue, for that position, that you're programming courses and English/writing courses would come in handy. I don't see how the SAT test has any bearing on how well you could do the job
From what I've seen, the SATs - and almost any other standradized tests for that matter -- are good indicators at the tails of the bell curve and not much use in between. Kids who score exceptionally high on them, let's say 700+ on the SATs, are almost always going to be smart kids and good students. Kids who score very low, let's say in the 300s, are usually not college material. (There are always exceptions either way of course, but I'm speaking generalities.)
But in between the extremes, from what I've seen, SATs aren't very predictive of much of anything. The college Board says that the SAT is a strong predictor of first year college performance, but almost everyone acknowldeges that the high school transcript and grades are better. I've seen kids who had only middling SAT scores in the 400s and 500s go on to do well in college, hold down interesting jobs, and be terrific people to boot. In that mushy middle a lot of things are happening with students that can affect academic outcomes, and life outcomes for that matter. These can often be the kids who will be extremely motivated, hard-working, and good at what they do once they find their niche--which every kid doesn't do in high school. I'd argue actually that most kids don't. It's just that college give you some time to figure that out, and you can have a lot more options at a a highly-selective college.
Unfortunately they (the kids who score in the middle) are often kept from doing that in an academic setting because so much emphasis is placed on the scores. So they have to find other ways to show what they can do. They can join the service, work their way up at a job, or go to schools that deemphasize or don't require the SATs and ACTs. But in the worst cases, they can end up feeling marked and never live up to their potential, either in school or in life.
From what I've seen, the SATs - and almost any other standradized tests for that matter -- are good indicators at the tails of the bell curve and not much use in between. Kids who score exceptionally high on them, let's say 700+ on the SATs, are almost always going to be smart kids and good students. Kids who score very low, let's say in the 300s, are usually not college material. (There are always exceptions either way of course, but I'm speaking generalities.)
But in between the extremes, from what I've seen, SATs aren't very predictive of much of anything. The college Board says that the SAT is a strong predictor of first year college performance, but almost everyone acknowldeges that the high school transcript and grades are better. I've seen kids who had only middling SAT scores in the 400s and 500s go on to do well in college, hold down interesting jobs, and be terrific people to boot. In that mushy middle a lot of things are happening with students that can affect academic outcomes, and life outcomes for that matter. These can often be the kids who will be extremely motivated, hard-working, and good at what they do once they find their niche--which every kid doesn't do in high school. I'd argue actually that most kids don't. It's just that college give you some time to figure that out, and you can have a lot more options at a a highly-selective college.
Unfortunately they (the kids who score in the middle) are often kept from doing that in an academic setting because so much emphasis is placed on the scores. So they have to find other ways to show what they can do. They can join the service, work their way up at a job, or go to schools that deemphasize or don't require the SATs and ACTs. But in the worst cases, they can end up feeling marked and never live up to their potential, either in school or in life.
agree 100%. took the SAT once in 1998 and scored a 1010. my ACT was comparable. my gpa was high (Ohio Honors Diploma) and i decided to attend a state school that essentially had open admissions (99.9% acceptance rate) and offered me some decent academic aid. graduated with 2 degrees (BA and BEd).
like you said the middle group just has to find it's niche.
SAT tests and other such standardized tests are good at identifying people who are good at taking tests. That's about it, I'm afraid. It always worked well for me.
The SAT is great at what it was designed to do. Predict first year college success. Nothing more and nothing less. GPAs are too easily manipulated with grade inflation (high school and college).
I think the SAT still serves a slight purpose. It is an even playing field for the students all across the country. Going strictly by GPA does achieve this. It is a fact that some states are better educated than others when comparing students right out of high school. By factoring in GPA along with the standardized test score, you get an better understanding of the student. Is it foolproof? Of course not, but nothing rarely is.
The SAT is great at what it was designed to do. Predict first year college success. Nothing more and nothing less. GPAs are too easily manipulated with grade inflation (high school and college).
It actually correlates well to 1) If you will finish College and 2) Your final GPA. High school GPA and coursework correlates about the same when you take into account what classes the student takes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101
From what I've seen, the SATs - and almost any other standradized tests for that matter -- are good indicators at the tails of the bell curve and not much use in between. Kids who score exceptionally high on them, let's say 700+ on the SATs, are almost always going to be smart kids and good students. Kids who score very low, let's say in the 300s, are usually not college material. (There are always exceptions either way of course, but I'm speaking generalities.)
But in between the extremes, from what I've seen, SATs aren't very predictive of much of anything. The college Board says that the SAT is a strong predictor of first year college performance, but almost everyone acknowldeges that the high school transcript and grades are better. I've seen kids who had only middling SAT scores in the 400s and 500s go on to do well in college, hold down interesting jobs, and be terrific people to boot. In that mushy middle a lot of things are happening with students that can affect academic outcomes, and life outcomes for that matter. These can often be the kids who will be extremely motivated, hard-working, and good at what they do once they find their niche--which every kid doesn't do in high school. I'd argue actually that most kids don't. It's just that college give you some time to figure that out, and you can have a lot more options at a a highly-selective college.
Unfortunately they (the kids who score in the mid dle) are often kept from doing that in an academic setting because so much emphasis is placed on the scores. So they have to find other ways to show what they can do. They can join the service, work their way up at a job, or go to schools that deemphasize or don't require the SATs and ACTs. But in the worst cases, they can end up feeling marked and never live up to their potential, either in school or in life.
I disagree. There needs to be an standard part of the puzzle. Kids with 4.0s taking underwater basket weaving are not as empowered as someone with a 3.5 taking Physics, Chemistry, etc. Also grades vary so much from school to school due to a number of reasons, but a lot of it is money and pressure to have good grades. My sister's school didn't have enough people on the honor roll, so at the end of the year they went back and added a letter grade to all grading cycles to make them higher than a rival school. When questioned, they said that it was fair... BTW no one failed even someone that didn't show up the entire year got a D.
Should a University deny entry due to SATs. I believe so. As long as they provide the facts to the Universities concerning the entire statistics of entry including mean, median, standard deviation, variance, etc. Once you break out of one standard deviation you are looking at the top 15 and bottom 15% If you are within 1 standard deviation, it can be a wash especially with differences in education quality around the country.
Bottom line - It should be used in conjunction with other info such as GPA, coursework, etc. It can be used as a sole discriminator when used outside of the middle 70%.
I remember a decent amount of the SATs... back then when I took it over a decade ago, there was no writing portion. Just a perfect score of 800 for math, and 800 for reading portion. I read a Time magazine article stating it was part hoax part fraud. IMO, that sounds about right.
It's not as much as an indicator on how one will do academically, seems to be a good $$ making scheme, and colleges use it to inflate their national rankings. Other issues include how the questions aren't that appropriate for the knowledge it's supposed to be testing and how unlike a traditional test where students get it back with corrections so they can see what they got wrong and why. The article suggests using high school standings and academic records there (although I clearly remember the SATs being cited as a "level playing field" for all high school students, but then how would one account for ACTs?).
I treated it as one of life's many nuances that had to be overcome, but was glad to be done with it.
The article even cited some sample questions from the first SAT given in June 1926 (97 minutes to answer 315 questions like....)
1) the projecting lower edges of a roof are ___
Spoiler
eaves
2) if a package containing twenty cigarettes costs fifteen cents, how many cigarettes can be bought for 90 cents?
Spoiler
120
Those questions just crack me up! We're supposed to think the students of the past were oh, so much smarter and learned than kids of today!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaveyL
I think you bring up a good point about being able to get feedback from your tests, homework, papers, other assignments. At least it generates a sort of a feedback loop to learn from and break out of.
When I took the SAT's more than 15 years ago, it just seemed like a bunch of word/math games in a timed environment. It is almost like, what is the point of this?
I still think GPA is a better indicator. For one thing, you get a broad range of subjects that figure into that number, and some of the courses line up with your job requirements. The example from the other thread was a software testing posting that required both GPA and SAT. I would argue, for that position, that you're programming courses and English/writing courses would come in handy. I don't see how the SAT test has any bearing on how well you could do the job
I read an article about admissions requirements recently (sorry, I'll never find it again in a million years) that many high schools don't compute GPA any more. Now I'm not sure if that's really true or if it's more that high schools these days don't have a valedictorian, but rather an honors group b/c some students have gotten so cagey about gaming the system to get the best GPA. In other words, and I can certainly verify this from my own kids' (HS classes of 2002 and 2005) experiences. Some kids would take courses like PE and the like "pass/fail" so as not to bring down their 5.0 GPA that they were getting from all their "weighted" classes and the like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
