Are SAT scores just higher now than the mid/late 90s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I blame the internet for making it so much easier to prep for the SAT. Or maybe I blame the internet for exposing it and showing us all it isn't very good at measuring aptitude?

The current SAT is not designed to measure aptitude.

Then why are the most competitive schools requiring it again?

DP: Because the test now measures college readiness: knowledge of math, reading, and writing. An aptitude test evaluates a student's natural abilities and strengths.

The College Board no longer considers the test an aptitude test (this is well documented). It hasn't been an aptitude test since the 1990s.

Some history: https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html

You can't easily separate out knowledge and aptitude.
Without knowledge (tool), you can't display your aptitude.
Without aptitude (strength), you can't use your knowledge effectively.
I would say if you score higher than 1550, it means you have both aptitude and knowledge.
If one scores lower than 1550, perhaps knowledge is there but aptitude is somewhat lacking.

If one scores lower than 1550, perhaps aptitude is there but knowledge is somewhat lacking.

Or how a kids from rural areas or anybody else with so so education not disadvantaged?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I blame the internet for making it so much easier to prep for the SAT. Or maybe I blame the internet for exposing it and showing us all it isn't very good at measuring aptitude?

The current SAT is not designed to measure aptitude.

Then why are the most competitive schools requiring it again?

DP: Because the test now measures college readiness: knowledge of math, reading, and writing. An aptitude test evaluates a student's natural abilities and strengths.

The College Board no longer considers the test an aptitude test (this is well documented). It hasn't been an aptitude test since the 1990s.

Some history: https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html

You can't easily separate out knowledge and aptitude.
Without knowledge (tool), you can't display your aptitude.
Without aptitude (strength), you can't use your knowledge effectively.
I would say if you score higher than 1550, it means you have both aptitude and knowledge.
If one scores lower than 1550, perhaps knowledge is there but aptitude is somewhat lacking.

If one scores lower than 1550, perhaps aptitude is there but knowledge is somewhat lacking.

Or how a kids from rural areas or anybody else with so so education not disadvantaged?

DP: Yes, this is why the test is more coachable than pre-1990s. The College Board released research supporting your point. It's not an IQ test. Of course there is a correlation between high IQ and doing well on the SAT because the test indirectly measures intelligence (reasoning) but the test was revised to measure primarily college readiness, which means skills, not intellect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I blame the internet for making it so much easier to prep for the SAT. Or maybe I blame the internet for exposing it and showing us all it isn't very good at measuring aptitude?

The current SAT is not designed to measure aptitude.

Then why are the most competitive schools requiring it again?

DP: Because the test now measures college readiness: knowledge of math, reading, and writing. An aptitude test evaluates a student's natural abilities and strengths.

The College Board no longer considers the test an aptitude test (this is well documented). It hasn't been an aptitude test since the 1990s.

Some history: https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html

You can't easily separate out knowledge and aptitude.
Without knowledge (tool), you can't display your aptitude.
Without aptitude (strength), you can't use your knowledge effectively.
I would say if you score higher than 1550, it means you have both aptitude and knowledge.
If one scores lower than 1550, perhaps knowledge is there but aptitude is somewhat lacking.

If one scores lower than 1550, perhaps aptitude is there but knowledge is somewhat lacking.

Or how a kids from rural areas or anybody else with so so education not disadvantaged?

DP: Yes, this is why the test is more coachable than pre-1990s. The College Board released research supporting your point. It's not an IQ test. Of course there is a correlation between high IQ and doing well on the SAT because the test indirectly measures intelligence (reasoning) but the test was revised to measure primarily college readiness, which means skills, not intellect.

Forgot to add that the post 1990s test is arguably more valuable to colleges because it assesses readiness. Most of the research that demonstrated GPA is a higher predictor of college success is base earlier versions of the SAT. It is entirely possible that the reason why the current SAT and GPA together better predict college success is because the test now actually measures what it supposed to do.

[Anonymous]

Scored an 1110 in 1981 (New York HS). Good enough to get me into Syracuse (engineering), Stony Brook and RIT. Also get me a $1,000 Regents scholarship. I was in the top 15% of my graduating class.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I blame the internet for making it so much easier to prep for the SAT. Or maybe I blame the internet for exposing it and showing us all it isn't very good at measuring aptitude?

[/quote]
The current SAT is not designed to measure aptitude.[/quote]

Then why are the most competitive schools requiring it again?[/quote]

DP: Because the test now measures college readiness: [b]knowledge[/b] of math, reading, and writing. An aptitude test evaluates a student's [b]natural abilities and strengths[/b].

The College Board no longer considers the test an aptitude test (this is well documented). It hasn't been an aptitude test since the 1990s.

Some history: https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html
[/quote]

ah this explains it. :)

i remember or at least thought it was aptitude test in the early 90s. but read recently that it tests what you actually should know from school. if new, thats a second thing that is easier. easier to master a test of finite info.

even w raw talent seems like you 100 have to try as much as humanly possible if you care what school you go to.

much of the "issue" seems to be a combo of squishing the scoring variance+ plus everyone having to compete harder to stand out, feeding more comp etc. one could go 0/10 fairly easy if they pick a bit wrong,

and before w raw talent and some desire you could do 75% effort and get a 1250 (course but treating it as apptitude) w a 3.45 uw from hard school, or 3.8 from easy ,ea uw , and go to an ivy easy - esp if you had a creative dope essay and read a book or two on process or were just organized or just had informed parents. i read a book from the library and my list went from D1 state schools to LACs my insular dc private seemed to have never heard of

in 1995 at 100% max effort someone truly smart could do 1350+ and 3.5 uw from hard and 4.0+++ from easy uw. w 3 or 4 AP classes (all jr and senior yr like normal) getting all 4s and 5s. the Gpa bump is dumb, how do they know
it wasnt an easy Ap class or do you need a 4 or 5 to get the bump, do they even look for the >4 anymore. HSs could just give everyone an A and tell them not
to take the test

now every memorizing robot has 10 APs, 4.5 w, and a 1600. truly smart people that admins want may or may not have that. so why did they switch? just to make the number line up w a an arbitrary notion of what mid means, like a womens size 8 for feels?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I blame the internet for making it so much easier to prep for the SAT. Or maybe I blame the internet for exposing it and showing us all it isn't very good at measuring aptitude?

The current SAT is not designed to measure aptitude.

Then why are the most competitive schools requiring it again?

DP: Because the test now measures college readiness: knowledge of math, reading, and writing. An aptitude test evaluates a student's natural abilities and strengths.

The College Board no longer considers the test an aptitude test (this is well documented). It hasn't been an aptitude test since the 1990s.

Some history: https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html

You can't easily separate out knowledge and aptitude.
Without knowledge (tool), you can't display your aptitude.
Without aptitude (strength), you can't use your knowledge effectively.
I would say if you score higher than 1550, it means you have both aptitude and knowledge.
If one scores lower than 1550, perhaps knowledge is there but aptitude is somewhat lacking.

If one scores lower than 1550, perhaps aptitude is there but knowledge is somewhat lacking.

Or how a kids from rural areas or anybody else with so so education not disadvantaged?

DP: Yes, this is why the test is more coachable than pre-1990s. The College Board released research supporting your point. It's not an IQ test. Of course there is a correlation between high IQ and doing well on the SAT because the test indirectly measures intelligence (reasoning) but the test was revised to measure primarily college readiness, which means skills, not intellect.

Forgot to add that the post 1990s test is arguably more valuable to colleges because it assesses readiness. Most of the research that demonstrated GPA is a higher predictor of college success is base earlier versions of the SAT. It is entirely possible that the reason why the current SAT and GPA together better predict college success is because the test now actually measures what it supposed to do.

Nah, gpa may be a higher predictor of gpa in college bc college is easy esp if you are purposely trying for a high gpa, so "college success" but why not
look at "success", that is what they want.

what the hell does "college readiness" even mean or matter for? beyond a low fundamental baseline suggestion that you may not fail?? it just covers the stuff that every human should have mastered.

as long as you dont flunk out, the college wants interesting insightful people who will come up w new ideas be vibrant and become renowned in a field , pref famous , and give back to the school. every college outside of those grading on a curve (mit, cornell and caltech if they still do that, so 3?) is fairly "easy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just starting this journey with a soon to be 9th grader, so we're just starting to figure out the basics. DH and I both realize that college admissions has gotten a lot tougher than when we graduated high school in the mid/late 90s so we are definitely not pressuring our kid for any particular type of school or anything. Honestly he still needs the first few years in HS to figure out what he needs whether that's a small supportive environment or a big flagship with the football scene or whatever.

But as I'm looking at posts here, CC, and just anecdotally, are there just far more kids getting 1400 and 1500+ SAT scores than their used to be? I'm sure the data distribution exists someplace but I haven't run across it yet.

I mean I went to a good public HS in NJ - though no where near the top in NJ; yet DS's Va HS current day is supposed to be MUCH better than the current day standing of my NJ HS. When I was there, my NJ HS usually sent about 15 out of 400 graduates to the Ivys every year and then probably another 15 or so to Duke, Northwestern, NYU, Gtown etc. And even there, it really seemed like a handful of the top super stars would have a 1450+ type of score; certainly not all 30 kids going to the Ivys + top 10 schools had 1500s. It SHOCKS me now that I got into Penn - Wharton undergrad with just a 1360, as nowadays that score would be a - don't even apply; and no I didn't have any superior ECs, they were just all in school type clubs.

Has something changed with the SATs? Do all upper middle class kids do years of SAT prep classes now? Or just smarter kids/the game got more competitive in the last 2 decades where I obviously wasn't paying attention to it?

When more people started applying to colleges, the SAT scores start to drop so they started recentering the tests starting in the 1990s to keep the average score around 1000.
They have also flattened the curve and widened the tails.
I took the SAT in the mid 1980s and there are maybe 10-20 perfect SAT scores every year. There's maybe 500 perfect scores every year now.
Getting a 1500 used to be a big deal on the SATs now, not so much.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I blame the internet for making it so much easier to prep for the SAT. Or maybe I blame the internet for exposing it and showing us all it isn't very good at measuring aptitude?

[/quote]
The current SAT is not designed to measure aptitude.[/quote]

Then why are the most competitive schools requiring it again?[/quote]

DP: Because the test now measures college readiness: [b]knowledge[/b] of math, reading, and writing. An aptitude test evaluates a student's [b]natural abilities and strengths[/b].

The College Board no longer considers the test an aptitude test (this is well documented). It hasn't been an aptitude test since the 1990s.

Some history: https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html
[/quote]

ah this explains it. :)

i remember or at least thought it was aptitude test in the early 90s. but read recently that it tests what you actually should know from school. if new, thats a second thing that is easier. easier to master a test of finite info.

even w raw talent seems like you 100 have to try as much as humanly possible if you care what school you go to.

much of the "issue" seems to be a combo of squishing the scoring variance+ plus everyone having to compete harder to stand out, feeding more comp etc. one could go 0/10 fairly easy if they pick a bit wrong,

and before w raw talent and some desire you could do 75% effort and get a 1250 (course but treating it as apptitude) w a 3.45 uw from hard school, or 3.8 from easy ,ea uw , and go to an ivy easy - esp if you had a creative dope essay and read a book or two on process or were just organized or just had informed parents. i read a book from the library and my list went from D1 state schools to LACs my insular dc private seemed to have never heard of

in 1995 at 100% max effort someone truly smart could do 1350+ and 3.5 uw from hard and 4.0+++ from easy uw. w 3 or 4 AP classes (all jr and senior yr like normal) getting all 4s and 5s. the Gpa bump is dumb, how do they know
it wasnt an easy Ap class or do you need a 4 or 5 to get the bump, do they even look for the >4 anymore. HSs could just give everyone an A and tell them not
to take the test

now every memorizing robot has 10 APs, 4.5 w, and a 1600. truly smart people that admins want may or may not have that. so why did they switch? just to omake the number line up w a an arbitrary notion of what mid means, like a womens size 8 for feels?[/quote]

This reads like a robot wrote it.