Talk:SAT

Sunday Testing

The SAT and ACT are administered on both Saturday and Sunday. The extremely vast majority of students take the tests on Saturdays. An extremely small minority of students, those who are observant Jews (as well as some 7th day adventists and other religions), take the test on Sunday because of religious restrictions.

Yes, it is wonderful that the USA gives Jews such an opportunity. However, it quite possibly puts the religious Jews at a disadvantage. You see, the SAT is graded on a scale. When the pool of test-takers does better, the tests are graded more harshly. Though I don't have statistics, it is safe to assume that the vast majority of Sunday test-takers attend prep-schools and well-funded public schools. Also, it is well known that academic success and ambition are extremely important values to the American-Jewish world. Therefore, I am assuming (though uninformed, the college board won't answer my query) that Sunday test-takers face a disproportionally harsh scale.

It's very irresponsible to suggest this. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence. Secondly each exam (and in fact each exam question) is thorough tested on a wide variety of test takers. The exam is scaled and equated to the cohort of test takers, not to the individual set who show up at a particular exam.

Feinstein 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Feinstein, the entire cohort of students taking the test on Sundays must have letters from clergy stating that they have a religious based excuse for taking the test on Sunday. The administered test is different from that taken on Saturday, and thus it is scored on a different scale. The wide variety of test-takers you refer to is made up primarily of Jews, though there are also seventh-day-adventists and perhaps some other small groups. You are right that there is no evidence. That is why the article presented the complaint as only a complaint and nothing more. It makes clear that the College Board has refused to provide statistics on the matter, so there can be no hard evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.181.75 (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Do not put this in the article until you have sourced it. The exam is not scored on a different scale. It scaled and equated against the entire cohort of testers, not just those who take it on that particular day. All of the questions on the exam are previously tested against a sample of the population - in other words, the questions given on the Sunday exam have already been tested on other people through the use of experimental sections. Feinstein 04:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sunday tests are by necessity different tests from the ones given on Saturdays, just as by necessity test forms are different not only from one administration to the next, but from person to person at a given administration. (Recall that test forms are individually labeled and that seating in a testing room is assigned by ETS.) Sunday examinees are not compared against the other Sunday examinees, but against all test-takers that year based on expected average scores and standard deviations. Sunday examinees would not be at a particular disadvantage, as such a situation would diminish the reliability of the test, and ETS and the College Board go to some length to ensure that the test are above all reliable measures of scholastic ability (and it is for this reason that the tests have been adjusted and adapted several times).SWalkerTTU 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk from 2002 to 2003

Anyone interested in why I moved the page can find the discussion in Talk:Scholastic Achievement Test. I couldn't seem to make the talk move with the main page. Ortolan88

---

"Beginning in 2005, the SAT includes a writing section, which has less of a correlation to IQ."

I removed that. It's too bold a claim, since (as far as I know) no one has conducted studies on the link between SAT Writing score and IQ.

---

I hope some of Ralph Nader's criticism of the SAT will also find its way into this article, tnx n8chz

Well, gee, put it in. Did Ralph have anything to say that isn't in there already? I thought the president of the u of cal was pretty damn devastating. Ortolan88

"often referred to as the college boards" - Nope, I've never heard of these terms being used before. Where did this come from? --Jiang 20:56, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It was written by Isis who has now left Wikipedia. However, a Google search does show quite a few uses of the term. Angela 21:17, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This use seems very obscure. The sites that use them are not prominent. I couldn't find the use for this purpose on the college board site itself. I vote to remove that phrase. "Often" is definitely the wrong word. --Jiang 21:13, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I can't really comment as I'm not American so I don't know what people do call their tests. Remove if you feel it isn't a common enough usage. Angela 21:17, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is administered by the college board, which may be seen by visiting http://www.collegeboard.com --Undercooked

I have heard them referred to as "the boards" or "the college boards" mostly by people of my parent's generation (who took them in the late 60s/early 70s) -- it may have few internet references mostly because people haven't initially thought about them for a while. 18.214.0.181 01:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

This should probably be removed: "As a gauge, state universities require an 800 score (both parts added) while Ivy League schools generally expect a 1400 for admission. The SAT is offered every year in October, November, December, January, March, April, May, and June."

I'm not sure what the mean score is for the Ivy schools (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Yale), but I doubt that it's 1400. My guess is that the range (25-75%) is closer to 1450-1600. As for state schools, the top tier universities usually accept a range (25-75%) that's probably closer to 1100-1400. Since admissions processes have been getting increasingly competitive and selective, the figures in this article seem outdated. In addition, this distinction between Ivy schools and state schools is too simplistic. A number of state schools are about as competitive as the Ivy ones, such as Berkley, Chapel Hill, and UVA. A number of private schools are also even more competitive than most of the Ivies, such as MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford.

But the biggest flaw is the lack of arguments in favor of the standardized text. There is a great deal of evidence demonstrating its usefulness as an indicator of undergraduate success.

172 06:53, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed it. See:[1] --Jiang

I think you're overestimating the the Ivies. I've never seen a single college with the 25th percentile of students getting 1450.

---

Good. Perhaps you'd like to add more content. I don't know your feelings on the exam, but perhaps you could balance the article with favorable views. You're probably much more well versed in the subject than I am, given what I see on your user page. 172 11:19, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I went ahead and deleted some absurd POV against "slashdot geeks" that apparently no one noticed for a while. MattH 05:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Added content

I added some more content. Stuff someone should add soon:

• links to more statistics
• sample questions
• comparision with PSAT, etc

Also, I feel there should be a rebuttal of some of the criticism (for example, IIRC, Asians score slightly higher than whites on the test) but I'm unsure how to do this in a NPOV style.

I keep switching the "five column grid" phrase in the SAT Reasoning Test section to "four column grid," because that's what actually is. I have proof: [[http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/prep_one/spr/prac/prac01.html SAT Student-Produced Responses]] Whoever is switching it back should stop.

Hm. Sorry, for some reason I kept thinking you were changing the one referring to the usual five-column grid. Hope you weren't discouraged or anything. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

'k, I may have goofed on that one. Like the posters say, given the %&^#@ that's ongoing in that country it's too hard to tell. Kwantus 14:01, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

What are the SAT subject tests (SAT II) for?

What is a perfect score on the SAT I? \

Hi I'm new here... I have an idea though. Maybe the bit about the Asians scoring slightly higher than white should be taken off of here. That's ethnocentrism/prejudice. Thanks!

Oh and sorry I don't have any info on the SAT s but I will take them soon

New SAT

OK, since the New SAT has officially been administered for the first time (I took it yesterday, yay!), I think it's time to update the information to reflect this as the primary area of information (currently, it pretty much sums up the old version and then briefly comments on the new one). Any objections?--User:naryathegreat(t) 20:45, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I support this move. We shouldn't remove info on the old version, though; just add more on the new one. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English SATs

My mistake, there is some information on the disambiguation page. Still, maybe it should be more prominent?

I don't even see a disambiguation page? Can someone re-add this ASAP.

Is 800 on a section really "perfect"

I read somewhere that each section of the test is actually graded 0-1000 and that because tests aren't as accurate on the extremes, anything above 800 is reported as 800 and anything below 200 is reported as 200. The GRE subject tests were this way. If this is true then 800 isn't really "perfect". Does anyone have any information on this? Bubba73 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

the 800-200 score range is the scaled score. A scaled score of 800 almost always requires getting all or almost all of the questions correct. I missed just two math questions resulting in a scaled score of 760. Jwray1 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of this before, but since there's no way to verify this AND even if such a scheme could be proven to exist, the 800+ scores aren't reported, so 800 would still be the official perfect score. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It would mean that you probably didn't get every question right, even if your score was reported as 800. Years ago, I made 910 on the GRE math subject test. Later they anounced that scores over 800 would be reported as 800. And I certainly missed some questions on the test. Bubba73 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

See the Snopes link in the article for more info on scoring. Scores under 200 aren't reported. As for why the scale only goes to 800 and not to 1000, that has to do with how they convert the "raw" score into a "scaled" score. I'm pretty sure it at least *was* possible to get 800 without getting every single question right, before the new SAT was introduced. I'm not sure how, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's related to how the scores are all multiples of 10. So if you got 798 or so, maybe they round it up. But this is just a guess, so don't assume it's correct! --68.239.189.53 08:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not how it works actually. The score is a scale, meaning that each and every score must correspond to a score between 200 and 800. There aren't any scores below 200 so they couldn't be reported anyway. It's not a question of changing the score, it's a question of the raw score. The raw score is the score you earn based upon the point value system awarded to right and wrong answers (1 point for each right answer, no points for a blank one, and -1/4 of a point for each wrong answer). You receive a raw score on each section of the test. The collective raw scores are put through a complicated process and then a scale is created which matches up to the raw scores. The scale will always be 200 to 800.

At a certain point the raw score translates to 200 and every raw score below that becomes a 200 as well. It's usually somewhere around 0 I believe. At the high end some raw score becomes 800 and any score higher than that is an 800 as well. There are no scores outside the 200 to 800 range, either internallly or otherwise. However, there are raw scores outside the normal range which correspond to the 200 to 800 range. The range of raw scores is different for each test; it is based on the results of people who took that particular test. For instance, one almost always needs to make a perfect raw score to make an 800 on the math section, but one hardly ever needs to do so to make an 800 on the writing section. However, the opposite could be true; it all depends upon the performance of the individuals on the test date.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It is possible to get an 800 without answering every question correctly. I took the test in Jan. 2006 and had one incorrect answer on each section and no skipped questions. I still got a 2400. This isn't always true on the PSAT, because there are fewer questions. When I got one math question wrong there, I got a 760.

--The SAT is a norm-referenced test, meaning its scoring scale is based on statistics and not directly on content criteria. To derive a scaled score, a particular test form has an expected average raw score and an expected standard deviation value for the raw scores. An individual's raw score is turned into an s-score by subtracting the average score from the individual's score and dividing that result by the standard deviation. Theoretically, an s-score should be between -3 and +3. The s-score is then rounded to the nearest tenth, multiplied by 100, and is increased by 500. Thus, a minimum s-score of -3.0 becomes a scaled score of 200 (representing a raw score three standard deviations below the mean), while an average s-score of 0 becomes a scaled score of 500 (representing a raw score equal to or very close to the mean), and a maximum s-score of +3.0 becomes a scaled score of 800 (representing a raw score three standard deviations above the mean). Raw scores are rounded to the nearest whole so missing two questions (a 1/4 point deduction each) equates to three below the maximum score. On a particular test batch this may still be three or more standard deviations above the mean, in which case the scaled score is maxed out at 800. It is also theoretically possible that a maximum raw score on a particular test batch falls less than three standard deviations above the mean, making it possible to answer all the questions correctly and still not score an 800. ETS does attempt to design the test so that there is some consistency among scores between different test administrations for the same individual, and general consistency in the scores among all tests (especially trying to ensure that the population of scores fits a normal distribution, so that on any given component roughly two-thirds of examinees score between 400 and 600 (+/- one standard deviation), and something like 94% score between 300 and 700 (+/- two standard deviations).SWalkerTTU 22:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

--New here, never posted on Wikipedia or done any editing, but I got a 790 on the Math SAT three years ago (2006) because I left one question blank and didn't get any questions wrong. I ordered the score report, so it's verified. Maybe it's possible for you to get an 800 and not be perfect on another section, or maybe a different year on the math, but I know from experience that you can omit only one question (not even answer it wrong) and wind up with a 790. It was one of the multiple choice ones, too (stupid question about gas mileage, wasn't even hard - looking back on the score report, there was extraneous data I didn't get rid of, it was only a 3 star question. Grrr.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.219.198 (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspicion

"The newly added writing section anal-lyzes the students capability."

was written by User:65.120.80.8 who has made lots of bad edits on various pages. You should double check it. ABostrom 23:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not really inaccurate, but it is redundant. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 06:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

2006 SAT Scoring error

I added the news about the error under the history section, but it could probably be added to a different part, or maybe be made into a new section. I'm not sure if I put it in the best place. If anyone wants to do anything about it, here's a news article with some of the information:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002860011_satfallout12.html

Perfect4800

Perfect 4800 "Perfect 4800" is a common high school slang word, meaning a student scored a perfect 2400 on his or her SAT I Reasoning Test and at least three perfect 800's on his or her SAT II Reasoning Tests (three different subjects). Using a simple addition method, we get: 2400 + 3 x 800 = 4800. Usually, only one out of every 10,000 test-takers receives a perfect 4800. "Perfect 4800" kids are among the brightest high school students in the world. The Stuyvesant High School in New York City had two students who achieved this amazing record.

what a blatant lie

I wouldn't call this a common high-school slang word. Maybe it is in highly competitive high schools.--Aleron235 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section was superfluous and unecessarily complimentary (perhaps written by one of these "amazing" Stuy kids?) Also, I am fairly certain it is rarely, if ever, used. --Ec- 22:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the section. Not well written, obviously self-promoting and a term that google has never heard of. Rusty 22:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Who can do an SAT test?

Hi. Do you need a high school diploma (or GED) to be able to do an SAT test? Example: Imagine you're living in Germany and have got your Mittlere Reife. To study in Germany you would need to do another three years of Gymnasium to receive the Abitur which allows you to go to a university. Would you then - without a high school diploma, GED or German Abitur - be able to do a SAT test and go to a university in the USA?

I know that if an American goes to Germany his or her high school diploma is seen by the insitutions as equal to Mittlere Reife. So an American would not be able to study in Germany. I don't know whether he or she would be able to study in Germany with SAT scores.

(Please excuse any linguistic mistakes I did, I'm not a native speaker ;-)) 19:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for someone to respond to your question. Being from America, all I know is that student here take the SAT before graduating high school. I found this website, which may or may not help you. timrem 03:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• Strong support the word name is no longer offical; who moved the page a while ago?? Georgia guy 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support—"SAT" was the most common name even before. Ardric47 00:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - My guess is only SAT registered as a trademark (the expansions were too generic). —204.42.20.62 20:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - NicAgent copied the text of SAT to Scholastic Aptitude Test, thus he didn't preserve the edit history. Also, the official name is now SAT, so that should be the article title, not Scholastic Aptitude Test. timrem 20:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this means that we can't move it without an admin or something to move the edit history, right? Ardric47 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

sighs Yes, this means more work for admins. —Nightstallion (?) 07:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION: can a nontraditional student take the SAT/ACT? i am 25 years old and went back to college after a series of certifications. i have over half my credits for an assoc and desire to transfer. some say students must take the SAT/ACT to apply. so can a 25 year old still take the test if they never have? i can't find this anywhere.

The answer to this question is yes. Anyone can take the SAT, as long as that person follows the rules of ETS and the College Board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.12.47 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the only requirement is that you have to be at least ten years old. Zginder 21:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias

There are 2 pictures shoving influence of parents wealth and educations on kids SAT score. I infer they should be removed or at least the source of data should be stated, clearly shown and referenced.

>> I can't understand why the graphs does not have any source. They should be removed since they present such controversial result without any explaination what so ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.159.176 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This essay seems overly critical of the SAT. Wikipedia should be a place for facts not a laundry list of opinions and if there at least should be some counterpoints if there is criticism.

>> I disagree. In fact, I want to raise the worrying issue that the source for the graphs under "Criticism" are in fact sourced from quite a biased site. I'm worried that the data it supplies is not quite accurate and bias towards showing there are inherit racial differences. Moreover there is little or no discussion as to *why* ethnic differences exist - just saying what is NOT to blame. --131.111.203.148 05:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The way that the 'bias' section is worded, it probably ought to have an NPOV label over it. Again, it's not the content so much as the phrasing. Antelan ^talk 05:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush

According to a couple of sources, George W Bush received a 1206 on his SAT, but this article says that's impossible. Does anyone have any insight into this discrepency?

Scores on each section range from 200 to 800, with scores always being a multiple of 10.

71.112.2.226 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what sources you are referring to or anything about Bush's SAT scores, but it might mean he averaged a 1206 after taking the SAT more than once. Usually, you wouldn't take an everage of a person's SAT scores, though, but instead the highest score on each section in combination (say someone takes it twice: 1st they get 600 english, 400 math, 1000 total; 2nd they get 500 english, 700 math, 1200 total; overall, you would look at 600 english, 700 math for 1300 total) as I understand it. It wouldn't be possible to get a 1206 on the SAT after taking it once (or maybe SAT scoring has changed since Bush took it). Hope this helps. timrem 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is supposedly from the New Yorker but has been reported widely. Mentioned in Slate: This week's New Yorker reproduces a document that George W. Bush wasn't eager to have published: his Yale transcript, which includes his SAT scores (566 verbal, 640 math) and college grades (C average). I think its probably a fabrication (people wouldn't swallow Bush receiving a 1550 or any such score, but he would be laughed out of office with a score below 1000, so someone split the difference and gave him a 1206...nothing too round of course, a 1200 would draw suspicion) Justforasecond 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dubya's SAT scores are a fabrication because...

I came here, in a roundabout way, for the same info. I read something that said that, specifically, at some point, it had been changed (simplified) so that scores go by 10. But I couldn't find any specifics, and the article didn't explain either.

Averaging Out Scores after X Times

Is it true that the collegeboard will average out your scores if you take the test more than 3 times? 71.99.22.212 15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Never heard that. What I've heard is universities usually have their own policies on how to deal with multiple tests -- sometimes average, sometimes most recent, sometimes highest total, sometimes take the highest scores on each section and use those, etc. Justforasecond 00:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

History

Early history of the SAT is quite incomplete/wrong; I've just stubbed Carl Brigham and here is an very decent overview, if someone wants to expand that section... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by maarten 00:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

It's missing something else, too, 'cause I've heard a Princeton prof credited with inventing it in 1926... Trekphiler 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's Brigham. I was hoping someone else incorporated that, because it's early history is a touchy subject (crf. Brigham's idea's about "the marked inferiority of the Negro"; institutionalised anti-Semitism in elite universities...). But as no one seems to bother, i'll take a whack at it... maarten 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect?

"The "old" SAT had an incredibly high ceiling. In any given year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. If one makes the reasonable assumption that all of the very brightest people in that U.S. age group, which numbers 3 million, took the test, then a score above 1580 has a rarity of about one in 400 thousand., equivalent to the 99.9997 percentile. [3]"

The source that is cited here refers to the SAT before what is now know known as the "old" SAT...the one that was replaced in 1995. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to affirm about either the pre- or post-1995 test the claim that "a score above 1580 has a rarity of about one in 400 thousand." Deleted the section.

Generalizing

"You should notice that there exists no test for IQ. You can train for every IQ-Test and get wide above-average results. This is of course is also true for the SAT."

Just want it to be known that I'm changing this sentence from "You should notice" to "It should be noted" in order for it to sound more formal/general than personal. In it's current form it does not sound like an encyclopedic entry. If the sentence is not needed all together feel free to delete it.Nadiasama 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename 8.2 from MIT to Essay

The views of MIT Professor Les Perelman do not represent the ideas of MIT as a whole. The title "Essay" is also consistent with the other Criticism titles "The SAT and IQ" and "Bias" which both are the subject of the criticism. -- Karma Thief 08:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

These points are bad

Each district has different testing scores, therefore whether or not the people are minorities has nothing to do with how they do. And quite frankly, the real arguement to be made here is that the SAT only covers three subjects, those being math, critical reading, and writing. Now, not everyone has math and English as their strong points, some people are better at history and science. The ACT includes science and is better designed to test on what a person has learned throughout their educational career rather than their overall concept of thought. Since all tests taken in secondary schools are more or less about knowledge rather than thought concepts. However, even though the ACT is more suited to be called a standardized test, it is not required by colleges, the less precise SAT Bold textItalic textis required by most colleges. This is what to argue about the SAT, not minorities, not racist questions, but the simple fact is that the test only paints half the picture, not the whole.

Is that true? The ACT (examination) article claims

Almost every college in the U.S. accepts and treats the ACT and SAT equally.[2]

So either the article and reference (n.b. I didn't actually check the reference) are wrong or your wrong Nil Einne 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

30% of 2400 = 240??? Please don't compute like this on the SAT!!

Here's what the page states (11/29/06):

"In the complex process of scaling a test-taker's writing score, the essay score accounts for roughly thirty percent; the multiple choice component, seventy percent. In other words, the essay score represents roughly two hundred and forty points out of 2400; on most test administrations, it should be possible to obtain a score of 2160 or above while leaving the essay blank."

If I'm not mistaken, 240 is only 10% of 2400, so 30% would be 720.

Try again. The writing section accounts for a third of the total score, so the original calculation is correct. Exeunt 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he's right something's wrong.
I'm not sure what the writing section is (not having such a thing when I took the SAT) but the text is wrong.
"the essay score accounts for roughly thirty percent"
"the essay score represents roughly two hundred and forty points out of 2400"
If the 'writing section' is something more then just the essay score then text should be changed to reflect that.--149.101.1.130 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't do so hot on the verbal section, eh? The essay counts as thirty percent of the writing score, and 240 points out of the total score. Exeunt 12:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be a jerk about it. It didn't specify "writing score", so there's no reason to get upset. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.250.177 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

He's not a jerk, just cannot create a concise and factually accurate sentence, verbally challenged obviously or is that an "E" or a "C" in the middle of |Exeunt]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.182.3 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad Assumption

the Article states "The "old" SAT (prior to 1995) had an incredibly high ceiling. In any given year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. If one makes the reasonable assumption that all of the very brightest people in that U.S. age group, which numbers 3 million, took the test, then a score above 1580 has a rarity of about one in 400 thousand, equivalent to the 99.9997 percentile"

However because of the ACTs it is unreasonable to assume that the brightest students are all taking the SATs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.71.137.225 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Essay percent value

According to the article on Perelman, "Multiple-choice counts for 75 percent of the new writing grade; the essay 25 percent." (near the bottom). [2] A citation for the 30/70% split currently claimed would be good. Ealex292 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Another comment (note I am not the person above): What does "the essay worths 30%" mean? Probably, different analyses of how much the essay section counts would give different percentages. I think this number does not sound very encyclopedic... Something should be added to explain it.

(I am sorry if I am posting in the wrong place. I don't want to think now...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.101.164 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

mechanical pencils

Why is there no mention about the fact that they do not allow you to use a mechanical pencil on the SAT? Also, why are mechanical pencils not allowed? Is the reason unknown or not verified, which would make that a "no original reasearch" violation? Even so, wouldn't this be important information? Also, they were not restricted on the 2006 PSAT, are they restricted there, too as of now? Gatemansgc 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It really makes no difference whether you use a mech. pencil or not (So long as it is #2 lead). I have used mechs. on dozens of Scantron tests with no problems whatsoever. But, bubbling answers can be time-consuming with a fine tip. I just used my mech pencil to circle the answers in the booklet, then bubble copied them over with my good-ole' wood pencil. Very time saving!

No, actually, on the SAT test itself and the collegeboard website, it says do not use a mechanical pencil. This can be verified by simply going to the site. It is really annoying and pure evil, but that part is a point of view and could not go on the article Gatemansgc 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does say not to use them, but they are not banned. The test administrators will not stop you from taking the test if you have a mechanical pencil. As the previous person said, it says not to use them because it's more time consuming than regular pencils for filling in bubbles. -Jaardon 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a test proctor, and yes, they are prohibited. The ETS now supplies us with #2 pencils and the students are supposed to use those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.218.3.8 (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems strange

This section might need clarification

If the two readers' scores differ by more than one point, then both are rejected, and the student's score is two times the 0-6 value given by a third reader. In the complex process of scaling a test-taker's writing score, the essay score accounts for roughly thirty percent; the multiple choice component, seventy percent.[citation needed]

Is this third reader usually someone who is considered a better or more experienced reader? Because it seems strange to take the trouble to use 2 readers and then reject them both if they differ by more then one point only to take the word of a single reader Nil Einne 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, according to ETS, the third reader is a "scoring leader," whatever that means.

Ceiling

The article is not particularly clear. Was the ceiling 1600 from the inception of the SAT to 1995 and then 2400 from there on or what? Nil Einne 14:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC) --KrakatoaKatie 03:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This information is located in the introduction. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

References

The references on this page are largely in the form of weblinks and should be condensed to form an appropriate bibliography. Is someone willing to take up the gauntlet? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Trevor Loflin merger completed

The article Trevor Loflin, with minor modifications, has been merged into the section Raw scores, scaled scores and percentiles. Not positive if this is the most appropriate section, but given that the fame is most closely associated with the topic of scoring, I'm sure you'll see my reasoning. (The other possibility that might make sense would be the one currently titled "Taking the test.") Of course, there's not too much reason it shouldn't be its own section, either… I guess I thought it might look a little strange, in contrast to a bunch of topics that are immediately connected to the SAT in the sense that you could say a variant of, "This is the X of the SAT", whereas you'd never say, "This is the Trevor Loflin of the SAT". Drop a line if you think it should be moved to elsewhere in the article. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit awkward in that section and should probably be placed in a misc. one. We need another subsection, perhaps the Oct 2005 misscoring. Just a thought. Yodaat 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, after seeing that in the middle of a perfectly good article, I can guarentee this will never get FA. It shouldn't. Thousands of kids have perfect scores. This one is not particularly special --especially special enough to warrant inclusion in the main SAT article. I think people have been tricked --or at least I hope so because this seems utterly absurd. --Bobak 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

R scores

The section about scores going from 600R to 2400R is ostensibly documented by the references on the page. The suggestion that it has no application or importance to "most readers" of the page, which is the justification by which it was removed, is quite absurd; it is entirely valid historical and encyclopedic information about the SAT and should thus be included in the article. I personally was unaware of the previous scoring methods and found them very interesting when I read about them for the first time on this page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The "R" info is in the "history" section where above read it. Not important enough to 99% of test-takers to be in into. 95% of test takers just want to improve score. For the 5% who care about SAT History, the "R" is not even in the top 10 to be in intro.

Suggest you support your argument with examples from SAT prep books - IF any - or SAT history books "The Big Test" instead of how you feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.16.148.174 (talk • contribs) 15:56, April 9, 2007

Please note that the R being in the history section is highly worthless to Wikipedia; if it's not in the article mainspace, then nobody will know about it and there's really no purpose to the information at all. Note also that Wikipedia does not exist solely for the benefit of test takers and is not intended as test preparation, see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus it is its place to include all relevant information regarding the test; the scoring information is historically valuable information and the criterion clearly applies. The suggestion that I supply my argument with evidence from an SAT prep book is highly irrelevant because the purpose of the article is not test preparation and no information relevant to the article will come out of it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wiki rules on reverting. Reading about an article on Wikipedia, which was not well written to begin with does not make you an expert on the SAT. Using your own personal opinion, assertions and personal attacks would get you 2 or 3 on an SAT essay. If you are going to make young, naïve edits, you may want to make sure you are anonymous – incase being a destroyer of chickens comes back to haunt you in future job search - as one should do with any flame war. Or is destroyer of chickens just playing dumb and I am wasting my time trying to "learn" him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.16.148.174 (talk • contribs) 22:45, April 10, 2007

I definitely agree with "Niffweed17" here. He's the only of these two people making arguments that are relevant to the content of Wikipedia, and not entirely about personal feelings. This page is not for takers of the SAT, it is for the general public. Every article is. It seems completely obvious that including the basic history of something like this is encyclopedic. In fact, it's the content of SAT guidebooks that wouldn't be acceptable here; Wikipedia is not for tutorials and cheatsheets, it's for general knowledge TheBilly 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could be just an unfortunate coincidence, but odd how two people have the same love of “;” , compound sentences, unnecessary adverbs, (may I suggest the book IF You Catch an Adjective Kill It) and making totally (note the extra adverb) absolute assertions.

I never made any claim that Wikipedia should be a tutorial, and person(s) is (intentionally?) diverting attention from the real argument – is “R” or no 770 – important enough to be in introduction – to straw arguments about purpose of Wikipedia. Suggest one of you support with one other example of any SAT description that has “R” and/or no 770 on first page. Likewise, I never even argued that it was not encyclopedic – just not important enough for intro. If you want to waste the time of thousands of readers on 13-year-old ancient history – who could read the history section if they are interested, go ahead. How did this get TWO history sections anyway?

I fail to see the relevance of our grammatical tendencies as to our abilities to determine the appropriateness of content for this article. If it's worth anything, which it isn't, I got a 2140 on the SAT in March and will retake it in June. I have read all about Wiki rules on reverts, and I find myself with no good arguments except from someone with a complete lack of knowledge of what Wikipedia actually is as to why the R scores should not be included in the article. Unless you provide such justification, please don't revert back. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism. Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

No explanation or Context for “R” in introduction makes it useless to readers who don’t read added history. The gaps in scores – 54/60 math questions spread over 200-800 leads to gaps, not the revision alone. Google SAT “1600R” vs “1600” and over 99% of time R is not included. R is not prominently listed in other books/articles on SAT that I know of – feel free to mention one. By you own admission, your source of knowledge about R is this article – should look up and source more if you care about informing. Unless you bother to read my edits to history which you blindly reverted, I don’t think you can explain when R is important – it’s only important to comparing year 1990 with 2000 or so – and even then percentiles were given with scores so everyone know how they did compared to others. If you really got a 2100+ , which is considered bad form to brag about, I assume you either think your quick impression from one read of Wikipedia is enough to judge what is important enough to be in intro – or you are trying to covertly vandalize the article – slightly smarter than others who write “SAT sucks”…. and so on.

Serves me right for not checking everything on Wikipedi, but in my excuse the “R” is so unimportant that I or anyone else would not notice its absence, but I think the college board eliminated the “R” in October 2001 according to their web page. The scores are still reentered, but the R is history.

“As of October 2001, the recentered “R” indicator was removed from the candidate record.All scores for tests dated April 1995 or later are reported on the recentered scale.”

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/prof/counselors/tests/sat/2006-07-high-school-electronic-data-layout.pdf

In “Historical Notes” lower left which shows how important it is.

Total speculation, but I would guess that after 6 years of revised, recentered scores, colleges rarely have to compare SAT scores 7 years apart.

It appears that someone put 1999 info on website and others thought is important enough to put in intro without checking. But feel free to offer any other info but not BS – in theory could be other forms of reporting….

"The section about scores going from 600R to 2400R is ostensibly documented by the references on the page." - I can't see ONE reference that even gives a hint of any "R" documentation. There’s absolutely ZERO references in the sections about the score going from 600R to 2400 at present and at time comment was made.

I'm willing to let this one go based on your rewording and cleanup of the information, but I'm very dismayed by your misconceptions of how Wikipedia is run. First of all, reversions are not just for vandalism. They are to correct mistakes from the article. All of my reversions followed Wikipedia's policy of good faith, and were appropriate in that you were completely removing content from the article with no good reason. In this case, however, you have corrected yourself and included the content in the article. Your allegations that my SAT scores (which are thoroughly irrelevant to this discussion; I shouldn't have brought them up) were what suggested to me that I felt entitled to change the article based on what I found important are incorrect and absurd; the fact remains that Wikipedia is not a test prep center and historical information such as that contained on the scores is perfectly valid for Wikipedia. With regards to the references, I have no idea whether the information is actually contained in them, but one should assume good fath; there are a number of books cited. It would be impossible for me to check each one thoroughly; thus, there is little alternative (and no reason) to assuming that the information is correct. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I and virtually all academics, journalists and everyone I every heard strongly disagree that “one should assume good faith” for anything you read on Wikipedia. It’s also not wise, even plagiarism to use, vouch for references you have not checked – since you are not the first person to discover that the references one stole/copied/referred to were made up.

Please read the page before jumping to erroneous conclusions. I didn't say that you should trust all information on Wikipedia. WP:AGF refers to assuming the good faith of other members of Wikipedia; unless there is clear evidence (obviously absent in this situation) that they are merely tampering with Wikipedia (such as several repeated instances of blatant vandalism) one should assume that other users are intending to improve Wikipedia. And please sign your name with ~~~~ after your comments, otherwise this discussion is rather difficult to follow. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

subject tests

Why is this article almost a featured article but SAT Subject Tests is prity poor? We could use some of the editors of this page over there.Zginder 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

History of the test

I'm not sure where the information in the history section comes from, but it contradicts other internet sources that say the SAT started in 1926 (not 1901) as an outgrowth of James Bryant Conant's university reforms.--ragesoss 23:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If you have a source, please change the information you feel is incoorect an cite it. Remember: WP:SOFIXIT.  :) --Ybbor^Talk 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Law suit

I removed the following because it has no source. As sone as someone find a sourse put it back at the very end of the History, name changes and recentered scores secion.

A lawsuit was filed in 2005 by about 4,400 students who received an incorrect low score on the SAT. The class-action suit was settled in August 2007 when The College Board and another company that administers the college-admissions test announced they would pay nearly $3 million to thousands of students. Under the agreement each student can either elect to receive $275 or submit a claim for more money if he or she feels the damage was even greater. A retired judge will issue individual decisions. Zginder 12:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Added back in with source, with some small corrections to the information. --Ybbor^Talk 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

International equivalents

I checked this page to see if I could find an Israeli equivalent of the SAT, specifically the SAT II, and I think some way of showing what each country's SAT-type test is would be useful. For example, the closest analog China has is a test which determines what college you go to (unless my recollections of what an exchange student told me is inaccurate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to pin down true equivalents in other countries. One system I know well is the French "baccalaureat" system, comparable to what is done in Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Belgium, and to some extent England. The "classical" branch of studies is divided into 3 majors : Sciences, Literature, Economics. In the Science section, the exam comprises:

Written French : 4 hours to write a dissertation on a given topic. Mine (1995) was "how did the readings of young J.P. Sartre influence his life as a philosopher and a political activist".

Oral French : 45 minutes (25 minutes prep, 20 minutes exam). A text (either unknown chosen from any book or previously studied in class) is assigned to the student who must prepare a literary analysis and present it to the examiner.

Philosophy (written) : 4 hours to write a philosophical analysis of a given text or to write a philosophical dissertation on an given topic. Mine was "does work contribute in uniting or dividing mankind".

History/Geography (written) : 4 hours to analyze several documents and draw meaningful conclusions, and to write a dissertation on an given topic. The documents on my exam dealt with the production of steel in post-WWII era, and my dissertation topic was "The 1929 financial crash : worldwide causes and consequences".

Mathematics (written) : 4 hours. Many topics possible (equivalent to Calc I, II, and III in the US).

Physics (written) : 4 hours. Many possible topics and problems. Equivalent to the first 4 Physics courses commonly offered in US colleges.

Biology (written) : 4 hours to analyze documents and draw meaningful conclusions, and to write a dissertation on an given topic. The documents on my exam dealt with the menstrual cycle in human females, and my dissertation topic was "How did oxygen appear on the originally barren planet Earth".

English (written) : 3 hours to analyze documents and write an essay on a given topic. Mine had to do with emigration from Ireland to the US during the potato famine.

2nd foreign language (oral) : 45 minutes to prepare and present an analysis of a given text and translate it (either unknown or previously studied in class). Mine was Spanish. The topic had to do with the liberation of the Spanish culture after the death of Franco.

3rd language (optional, oral) : 45 minutes to translate a given text (either unknown or previously studied in class). Mine was Latin. The text was an excerpt of Plautus' "Aulularia".

Physical Education : I know nothing of this one. I was exempt ! But I know it's normally mandatory.

The topics and their importance in the final score vary according to the section students are in. Clearly, in the Science section, we had lots of Math/Phys/Bio to prepare, but less Philosophy. Unlike literature majors who had no Phys and no Bio. Economy majors had no Physics/Biology but they had an Economy exam. The system is quite complicated. Lots and lots of possible "branches" of studies. I have only listed above one of the most common ones (the one I followed). The optional 3rd language depends also on the high school. Small HS like mine only offered Latin and Greek, but in Paris the large HS offer Chines, Korean, Russian, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.12.119 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of SAT

Am I the only one who finds it extremely strange that the explanation of what the letters SAT mean is found about halfway down the article, and not in the first or second paragraphs??? Famartin 09:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is because the letters SAT don't stand for anything... they USED to, which is why that's noted in the historical development section, but as they don't mean anything now it would be misleading to put that information higher. Brainmouse 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I grew up knowing this as the Scholastic Aptitude Test, its original meaning. While it seems wrong that the meaning was removed, this is a commercial neologism, like KFC. Let people naming themselves or their concepts define what they mean. Some words are not in the public domain. Jimgettman (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Scholastic Aptitude Test

Could somebody find a place for the acronym definition in the intro? Given that "SAT" is written in capitals, it's pretty clear that it is an acronym, whether or not the organization says that it still is.

I would expect that many people click the link to this article to find out what the title stands for, and the meaning is currently obfuscated somewhere deep within : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetMeme (talk • contribs) 16:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

2005 changes - repetition

the second paragraph seems to repeat the first paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whmice (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ETS and the College Board

Since 2005 the College board has been developing, publishing and scoring the SAT itself. ETS only administers it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the College Board hired another vendor to handle answer sheet returns and the scoring of the new SAT (including the essay portion). ETS continues to provide test development services as well as some publishing services (in addition to administering). Lilsby (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

University of California's conversion chart

This conversion chart either has changed or is flawed. They do not use the composite for the ACT instead, "[T]he University multiplies the sum of your converted math, reading and science scores by two-thirds, then adds the converted English/writing score." the article is misleading. I would use the one by The Princeton Review found here [3]. Zginder 2008-04-17T22:10Z (UTC)

Your name here?

I've been told on numerous occasions that as part of your raw score, a person is accredited 600 points for signing their name prior to the main examination. Is this fact or fiction and if indeed true, why is there no mentioning of it?

Thanks, Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The minimum score is 600. I remember reading an official FAQ about this. It said that one could say that you get 600 points for signing one's name, but a blank test is not scored. Zginder 2008-05-05T13:28Z (UTC)

So basically you're guaranteed that 600 point minimum if your test is scored?

- Alan 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that.

Yes, the minimum score on each part is 200, so that's a total of 600 (if you add up the three scores - which is NOT a meaningful thing to do). However, it is not correct to assume that a blank scoring sheet automatically gets a 200. That's because a blank score sheet gets exactly zero, while actual raw scores may go below zero (due to the quarter-point penalty for incorrect multiple choice questions).

In fact, a blank sheet would more likely receive something like a 240 or 250, and possibly as high as 290 or 310! The raw-score conversion charts in "The Official SAT Study Guide" (published by CEEB) indicate that a "raw score" of zero maps to a "scaled score" of 210-310 for Math, up to 290 for Reading, and up to 290 for Writing. Therefore, adding up the three scores (which, I repeat, is NOT a very meaningful thing to do!) could yield a total as high as 890 for an a raw score of zero on an entirely blank test (with identifying information and a signature).

By the way, the reason for having a floor of 200, and a ceiling of 800, is to ignore meaningless differences within the "tails" of the Gaussian ("bell") curve, centered at 500. The 200 minumum score is just an artifact of the process, and has no real significance. (Likewise for the 800 maximum.) The distribution is designed to push approximately 50% of the test-takers into the range 400-600, with 25% each in the low and high tails (200-400 and 600-800).

- bam (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A further (trivial) observation on the "blank" test situation:

For the grammar section (which comprises about 2/3 of the scaled score on the Writing test), a raw score of zero is shown with a range of from 24 to 34 on the scaled score for "Grammar" (which ranges from 20 to 80). With a blank essay, this still maps to 200-290 in the conversion tables, but all other things being equal it might be said to correspond to a Writing score (discounting the essay) as high as 340 for an entirely blank score sheet on both the 35-question grammar section and the 14-question section 10.

(Might this be yet another reason why many schools ignore the Writing score?)

- bam (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheating

I removed the cheating section because it was WP:OR and it had some refs for indirect and tangent stuff, which made it, in parts, a WP:SYN. If you want it back, please source it. Otherwise, its really bad for the article. Brusegadi (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Strivers" program

This section said that scores were originally ALTERED UPWARDS BY ADDING POINTS if the test taker was a minority. From my understanding, (and several articles) this is not true, and the students were essentially given an extra "Striver" status (essentially a gold star on their score) for exceeding the average calculated for their race, gender, and social status (a sketchy practice to be sure but not as sketchy as altering scores). Here are some sources (not sure on reliability but it's what I found)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_6_31/ai_56750013/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11197 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2999122 (only the first page is here)

If I'm wrong about this, sorry for the trouble. I just don't want people to get the impression that there's some point boost system going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.105.145 (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Check these sources. The chronology might be incorrect. They list the Striver score coming into effect in 1999. Cas4wilson (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

SAT/ACT score conversion

Could somebody edit the section entitled, "SAT-ACT score comparisons"? The information in this section is outdated as ACT Inc. and The College Board have released an official conversion chart recently (I believe July).

Here are links to help with a new chart: http://www.act.org/aap/concordance/index.html http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/act-sat-concordance-tables.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.92.34 (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We have to give SAT if we want to go to a university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.246.140.123 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Test Preparation

The last several edits bring up that question seen on other standardized test pages: should there be any listing at all of test prep companies here? On the one hand, any reference to specific companies invites firms to come in and create a links-type section, which is contrary to the purpose of these pages. On the other, test prep is a big part of the SAT culture, and at least several of those companies--Kaplan, PowerScore, Princeton Review, Revolution Prep,and Test Masters--are ones that are fairly large in prep circles. The College Board also runs its own online test prep course, which I'm sure must attract many students. So, I guess the question is, keep this section with the most general of references to test prep companies, or make it more specific by including several notable companies? Transmissionelement (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No further comments on this so far, but more companies continue to add links. Any objection to removing the references? Please state it now if so. Transmissionelement (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on no objections after a very reasonable time period, and per the standards used on other standardized test pages, I have removed the references to individual test preparation companies as inappropriate. Either a complete list should be provided, or no list. And this article is likely not the correct place for a complete list of providers, especially as there is a test preparation p[age already in existence that lists all companies Transmissionelement (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Essay Statistics

So, the article says: "In March 2004 Dr. Les Perelman analyzed 15 scored sample essays contained in the College Board's Score Write book and found that 90% of essays that contained more than 400 words got the highest score of 12 and that the essays with 100 words or fewer got the lowest grade of 1."

But isn't that impossible? I thought the 'lowest' score could be either a 0 or a 2; I'm pretty sure that a disagreement between two graders between a 1 (the lowest a single grader can give) and a 0 (a score reserved solely for essays that either haven't been started or are incomprehensible) is a tad more substantial than one concerning any other score.

I think he was considering the score as given by a single grader, i.e., varying from 0 to 6. Nonetheless, it would be hard to be sure about "the essay received a score of 1"... It could either mean that at least one of the graders gave it a 1 or that both graders gave it a 1, couldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliz.rhf (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The SAT is a sham

The SAT is a sham designed to admit the the best off young men and women to the elite universities. In every Ivy class I have attended I have only observed virtually lily white student populations. The more elite the school, the whiter and taller the students. For example, Harvard has more HWM (height, white and might) than Columbia. The limited number of minority students are always tall young men. The admissions process requires a thorough restructuring. I taught myself law and could hold the position of President of Harvard or Yale myself so my perceptions are credible.

As a brief but pointed thought experiment, let's take the case of a short white male form a moderate income non-college family background who approached his teachers about attending Harvard Yale or MIT. When he inquires what SAT score he would need for an admission and how his teachers could help him score at least the SAT cut off, he is simply ignored. Minority young people from the poor areas of the country are treated in a similar fashion.

Recently, Harvard abolished transfer admissions. No doubt to exclude the most qualified students (those with Phi Beta Kappa averages attending less prestigious universities) from the world of opportunity opened to a Harvard graduate.

My law is that admissions will always reflect the society in which the subjects live. The SAT is not and can never be fair. Our elite university presidents need to come forward and admit this and take truly affirmative steps to correct the errors and live up to their promises. If they refuse then we will eliminate the flow of our federal money to their universities. When we pay the piper, we the people call the tune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.50.21 (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

SAT is not a sham

Concerning the above post, I beg to differ. The SAT is a very good measure of how closely you paid attention in school, and having payed close attention, how well you learned the material. The "elite" schools are elite because they in fact have the smartest students, and they found them (in part) by checking SAT scores. I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, but I paid attention in school and found the SAT's very easy, even though I was raised in a Spanish society and not exposed to the day-to-day culture of the continental US, particularly the Northeast. No matter, I knew the stuff, and the other kids who supposedly had an advantage over me didn't. I was just smarter, yep, just like the IQ tests said! I went to an "elite" school, and where I came from didn't seem to matter to my friends or my teachers.98.170.203.240 (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Somebody messed up this article

This arcticle URGENTLY needs reviewing and possibly a restoration of some previous version!

Some jack-ass smuggled in a few complete nonsenses, such as that it takes 24+ hours, inconsistence in the pricing (71 vs. 94 USD) etc. etc. I mean "measures *baby and motor* skills that are needed for academic success in college" come on?! Is there a mod around to fix this?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurik (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --ElKevbo (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.39.69.238 (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Raw scores, scaled scores, and percentiles

The table in this section is not very satisfactory, as it stands. http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SATPercentileRanksCompositeCR_M_W.pdf is cited for the table, but that only has data for the combined M+V+W SAT (out of 2400). I consider some of the numbers in the "1600 scale" column suspect... for instance, I'm almost certain it can't be true that >= 1420 is 97th percentile while >= 1380 is 88th percentile. In the 2400 column, it takes a difference of 200 points to get this difference in percentiles, and in the 1600 column just 40 points? The 1600 column would be informative if it were true... but without some source I suggest it be removed.

Another issue that I have is, which percentiles/scores are included in the table have not been chosen systematically. I especially suggest removing the >= 1770 row, perhaps inserting rows for >= 2000, >= 1300, >= 1100, and perhaps inserting rows for the lowest percentiles (just as rows for the highest percentiles are there). Kier07 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Images without reliable source.

Back in the days when I used to think Wikipedia was scrupulous about sourcing (before I became a Wikipedian and read more talk pages and more article bibliographies more closely), I used to recommend to friends in a variety of online forums two images that show plots of SAT scores versus income for different "race" or ethnicity categories. One of those online forums had further discussion that prompted me to look for the underlying source for the images. There isn't any Wikipedia reliable source for the images that any editor has yet mentioned, so I have been deleting those images from the article recently. At length, a statement of a source is now included in the Wikimedia Commons data for the images, but that source is not at all a Wikipedia reliable source, failing several criteria identified by the Wikipedia content guideline. One very pertinent question about such an image is why it dates back to the early 1990s. By now there should be more recent data. The organization that gathers the raw data about all aspects of the SAT is the College Board, and no editor has yet pointed to any College Board publication, or any publication by independent researchers with access to College Board data, that replicates the findings shown in the unsourced images. So I've gone from being a believer to being a skeptic, and insist that the images be properly sourced by Wikipedia guidelines before returning to the article. (It would be better to update information on that point from a more recent reliable publication.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Data showing the general concepts.

.Gov site: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind93/chap1/doc/1c8b93.htm

SAT giver: http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2009.pdf

Travürsa (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the annual College Board reports--which is precisely why I began to doubt the provenance of the Wikipedia unsourced images after a while. The government report from the early 1990s is interesting, but it also doesn't serve as a source for the images, and it is rather dated information in several respects, as the official statistics in the United States (with which I am also very familiar) don't currently use the reporting format shown in the unsourced images. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2007/national-report.pdf

Using scores by ethnicity in comparison to family income and perential education, I have crated the following image http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7062/satd.png

These charts display data which is quite close to both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Education2.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png

Therefore, I conclude the data from http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//testing.htm is accurate within natural changes. Logically, the data has support, but I can not find a true Wiki Certified (tm) source.

Travürsa (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please explain precisely how you related median scores to income by ethnicity when the data report you cite doesn't display income groups by ethnicity. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All I did was multiply the mean score of each ethnic group by the mean scores at the given levels. I just wanted to display that there are striking similarities between the data from http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//testing.htm and modern data.

Travürsa (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Advert???

"Some test-preparation programs have been shown to help students improve test scores,[46] but others may have little effect." --88.66.203.123 (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)