Should we do away with the S.A.T and A.C.T?

[WilliamTheWise]

Should we do away with the S.A.T , A.C.T and other standardized test needed to get into most colleges?

Discuss:

 

[Angel]

while i would love if they did, no.

SAT tests two important skills: logic, and the eloquence needed to express that logic.

 

[Crimson Crashing]

Hell no!
I got in the top 4% in my state. =]

 

[Nyangoro]

I think they should be improved, but I wouldn't remove them completely. Their good analytical tools for colleges.

 

[TheWaft]

We should dump them all into a freakin black hole. SAT/ACT=WORST DAYS OF ANYONE'S LIFETIME

 

[Aucune Raison]

SAT? No. Everything else? Yes.

 

[Zook]

As someone who was accepted to Mass Maritime without submitting my SAT scores at the time I do not think it is all that important however I still think it is needed. I do, however, feel it should be re-thinked, having me sit down for 5 hrs reading a bunch of short stories that I could care less about and answering a bunch of questions about does not necessarily spell intelligence my eyes.

 

[The Lionheart]

SAT? No. Everything else? Yes.

Agreed. Having only one test would make things so much easier.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I agree with Ragione. Fuck everything but the SAT.

 

[StevenCho]

I did well on both of them so I think they can stay.

 

[Nyangoro]

What's wrong with the ACT? If you compare the two tests, they both provide good insight. The SAT is good for those who are "good test takers" (IE, focuses on reasoning skills), while the ACT is good for those who do very well in school (IE, focuses on what was, or should, have been learned in school).

 

[Hollow Bastion]

Do these standardized tests actually represent how intellectually promising a person is?

 

[Dogenzaka]

Not really, the SAT is more about being able to logically work things out under time pressure.
ACT is more knowledge based I believe.

Only taken the SAT, though.

Don't have a problem with any of them. Standardized tests are a part of life.

 

[Azrael]

As much as it has its problems, the SAT shows how well you work under time pressure and it scored me a 2023

 

[KaiSparda1018]

Some one from the college I want to go to (The University of Rochester) advised me to take the SAT twice.

 

[gelandporn]

Do these standardized tests actually represent how intellectually promising a person is?

No.

I got a 2250 on the SATs and a 34 on the ACT. Regardless, I think both are a crock of shit. Standardized testing is so faulty at measuring overall intelligence (and fails on many levels). There's no merit in scoring a numerical value on someone's intellect at a random time for random questions. They're roughly as good of an indicator of how well you'll do in college as your regular grades, no one needs the added stress of additional testing on topics that aren't even pertinent to your current education.

If I had to ditch one, it would be the ACT though, mainly because it's so similar to the SAT that it feel redundant. The only noticeable difference, the science section (which doesn't require much knowledge on science so much as it needs basic skills in graph interpretation and analysis) is idiotic.

I'd actually say that the SAT Subject tests should stay. Unlike the regular SATs, they have a specific topic that continues from high school into college years (such as physics). So the subject tests are, you know, relevant and useful, like an AP exam.

 

[Azrael]

No.

I got a 2250 on the SATs and a 34 on the ACT. Regardless, I think both are a crock of shit. Standardized testing is so faulty at measuring overall intelligence (and fails on many levels). There's no merit in scoring a numerical value on someone's intellect at a random time for random questions. They're roughly as good of an indicator of how well you'll do in college as your regular grades, no one needs the added stress of additional testing on topics that aren't even pertinent to your current education.

If I had to ditch one, it would be the ACT though, mainly because it's so similar to the SAT that it feel redundant. The only noticeable difference, the science section (which doesn't require much knowledge on science so much as it needs basic skills in graph interpretation and analysis) is idiotic.

I'd actually say that the SAT Subject tests should stay. Unlike the regular SATs, they have a specific topic that continues from high school into college years (such as physics). So the subject tests are, you know, relevant and useful, like an AP exam.

Because they actually specialize in said subject? Exactly like an AP test?

 

[Home bound]

SATs measures wealth, not intelligence.

 

[scubasteve]

Never took the SAT, since it's more about the ACT here in the midwest, and I don't really know much about it. However, if it's anything like the ACT, then it's a load of bullshit. Colleges put too much emphasis on your scores. A 4.0 student can score like a 26 on the ACT and suddenly be screwed out of a few extra thousand dollars in scholarships. I think that if the students can at least meet the College standards and their grades are high enough, then their ACT scores shouldn't affect them too much.

I really don't think the ACT is an accurate measure of intelligence. The people who score 30+ usually do so because they take prep courses or practice like a fiend until the test.

 

[gelandporn]

Because they actually specialize in said subject? Exactly like an AP test?

Depends on what you mean by "specialize." I never took the Subject tests (since none of the colleges I applied to recommended them) so I wouldn't know the degree to which they cover their respective subjects, but I would imagine they would be more general than specific.

More colleges are starting to consider the SATs with less weight, which is a step forward in my eyes (fuck the NCLB Act).

Also, I'm surprised at the number of people that have said "No," which leads me to believe that most of you probably haven't even taken the SATs yet and assume the test is significant and infallible because of what your teachers say.