Should students take the SAT/ACT's?

[3ajesse]

All of this makes complete sense. I am one of the worst test takers in the entire world and find it incredibly difficult to sit through a 45 minute test about one subject so how am I expected to take a 3 hour test on multiple subjects? It's absurd that one can get a 97 in an class but then get a barely any points on the reading and comprehension part of the test. Ones college career shouldn't depend on a test that can not accurately depict their knowledge. It should be taken under consideration by high ranked DOE officials that none of these tests can explain a persons education and knowledge. The dependance of test taking is ridiculously unimportant and all this energy being put into making these tests and teaching for these tests is a waste of time if not everyone has an equal amount of ability for taking these tests.

[10channah]

I am very against the standardized testing that goes on. From my experience taking the SAT, I know that it does not show how people are as learners and as students. I understand that it is very hard to find a way to test everyone to see if they are the best for a certain college. But I think there are other ways we can go about it. For example, the extra programs people do should weigh more. If someone is very into music and the college is looking for someone like that, then they should be accepted. Just like they did at Laguardia. It does not have to be anything involving the arts, but everyone that has a talent that they think makes them different from everyone else that would make a college like them should get the chance for really show it off, and make the college want them for that. Also, I think that even though school grades are also based off of testing, and I do not believe in that either, but they should weigh more too. I think that if the grades that we get in school from the start are less test oriented and really show us as students, that is what we should be judged on. The SAT also should be changed. It should not test something through multiple choice and there shouldn't be a trick and a certain way to take the test in order to do well, and that test is supposed to be what gets us into the college we want. I think it is very smart that many colleges are going away from test scores, and looking more for AP tests and at letters of recommendation because they are more of a representation of a student.

[6gzelda]

I agree that standardized testing in general doesn't make sense nor should it be the determining factor of our future. There is too much pressure and emphasis put on this one test. A generalized test will in no way measure ones intelligence. In addition to that SAT/ACTs aren't any kind of measure of intelligence the majority of it can be figured out with simple tricks people have noticed. These tests only measure the number that you can score under a lot of pressure. The results of these tests should in no way define you as a person or your intelligence. Students take these numbers too seriously and they drive themselves crazy over it. This isn't necessary to just add to the already large amount of pressure put on students with a test made up of tips and tricks.

[3smaya]

The SAT is a topic I feel very strongly about. I just took my first SAT on saturday the 24th and I was baffled and amused at something my proctor read out before the beginning of the exam. She said that the SAT was designed to test how ready a student is for college. I laughed a little in my head because i couldn't wrap my head around how a 4hour test could determine if a person is college ready. A person who scores a 2000 on the SAT doesn't make them any better than a person who scores a 1600. Colleges shouldn't base their admission on on a number but rather on the quality of student and things like extra curricula activities, recommendations and student resumes.Also as mentioned in comments before, teachers don’t cover the topics that are on the SAT. Students have to find tutoring and prep books else where which can be very costly. The SAT is also too long of a test for an average student. The average teenager has an attention span of approximately 20 minutes. The SAT is 12xs that. Even a typical class is a little more than 2xs that. The testing system overall is something that i Am entirely opposed to. Ive realized that whatever students are being taught in schools are only for the sole benefit of a test at the end of the year. After that the information is lost never to be used again. Testing is such a huge part of our school system today that even teachers are being assessed on how well their students do on tests. STUDENTS SOULD NOT TAKE THE SAT

[3mmargaret]

Before the SAT, distinguished colleges largely admitted students who came from a certain privileged background. They looked for the children of old money; as a result, their student body was mainly rich kids who came from a handful of schools. The SAT was first created in an effort to level the playing field. It was supposed to remove money and social status’s influence on the admission process. The upper and lower classes were tested in the same way, a way that could not be altered by wealth. It was designed to be a type of intelligence test that would give opportunities to talented people. It would “identify them, train them, organize things so they got the power instead of this old group of people descended from the original settlers of America,”[1].

The SAT system was an improvement when it was created, but it no longer serves the honorable purpose it was intended for. What went wrong? Among other things, test prep. Courses at companies like Kaplan and The Princeton Review often cost thousands of dollars, and private tutoring sessions can be hundreds per hour. The SAT has become yet another way to favor those with fat wallets.

With that said, I understand why the SAT still exists. If it didn’t, how would admissions work? Some colleges receive hundreds of thousands of applications – it would be impossible to give a thorough personal evaluation of each one, and different judges might hold different biases. Personally, I am as against the SAT as all of you. No four hour test should hold that much power in determining our futures, let alone one that, as many of you pointed out, is not an accurate indicator of intelligence. In many ways, it is a test that tests how well you can take a test. I disagree with some of you in that I do believe it tests a certain type of intelligence, its function similar to that of an IQ test. However, there is not one type of intelligence, and many outstanding minds are mislabeled due to the narrow pool of skills that it tests. I recommend reading this: skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm . The SAT does not even come close to addressing these different types of intelligence, so I will always disapprove of the system. On the bright side, we can take it more than once, and we can improve our scores by studying the test – it is beatable, even if we shouldn’t have to beat it.

[1] www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/lemann.html

[6bmatthew]

The assertion that the SAT/ACTs are completely irrelevant based on the fact that they force a student to adapt to a new system is false. Being good at taking tests is not an inapplicable skill. The test(s) determine one's ability to problem solve using logic. How quickly one can do this is directly applicable to one's life. In every field, these problems come up. Everyone will have to know how to do basic algebra, read and analyze pieces of literature, and express oneself in a grammatically correct (read: comprehensible) manner. To be honest, they are REALLY simple problems. The "trick questions" are simply ones that are not the straightforward questions that one sees in his/her regular classes. Those are directly tied to skills that are being assessed. The SAT/ACTs test the application of those skills. It is important to remember that, while the SAT/ACTs are not the sum total of one's intelligence, they do test a very important sector of a students overall capablity, namely, problem solving under pressure, AKA testing. You will be tested in your life, it only makes sense that the college process should reflect this fact.

[3risabel]

These tests should not be required for getting into college. They do not define a student. A student is so much more than a number that they receive based off of the knowledge displayed from a four hour test. There is so much more to a person than that. Many students are weak test takers. This says nothing about their intelligence or work ethic. However, this quality can determine whether they get into the college of their choice. Students are such multifaceted, complex people and a number should not dictate who they are as a person. Yes, there is a great deal more than the SAT/ACTs that goes into account when selecting students for college. However, said tests are great factors. They are much more important and definitive than they should be. They provide little insight into the passion and hard work a student puts into their studies. They label students as numbers that may or may not be accurate to their intelligence. Students should not have to take the SAT/ACTs.

[bruneai08]

It all depends on what a student wants to do in life. These are two good options. My daughter is preparing for the bar and has begun the New York Bar Exam Course as well. She wants to become a successful lawyer one day and even I am helping her achieve her goals.