Standardized Test Scores

[Superfluous Curmudgeon]

So I've been spending the better part of the new year studying for what had to be the last two standardized tests (of this nature) that I would take, due to the fact that I'm getting old and high school is rapidly coming to an end. I'm definitely not a natural test taker, as I scored a 22 the first time I took the ACT and a 25 the second time. My parents decided it would be worth it to get me some tutoring, and the tutors quickly decided that the SAT would be the better test to take. Long story short, I took the January SAT and ended up with a score just 10 points over what I needed for a certain scholarship (1950 total, 1330 CR+math - the part that actually counts).

I also registered for the February ACT, and knew I wouldn't get my SAT score until the ACT, so I spent two more weeks studying for that, just in case the SAT fell through. I won't know the score I got on it for another couple weeks, but I'm very relieved to know that my first try succeeded.

Anyways, the point of this thread isn't to gloat (I'd be foolish to think a 1950 was anything better than fair), the purpose of this thread is to post your own score, and to discuss what's good/bad about the two standardized tests that every other college relies so heavily on (at least here in America).

[MoreGun89]

I don't remember my scores to be quite honest. I think it's good that we have those tests (as it's an extra hurdle of determination) to separate those who want to give college a legitimate try (by taking it) versus academic space wasters.

[Adrian Ţepeş]

SAT/ACT = Pure Bullshit.

[Schofield]

Originally Posted by computernerd

SAT/ACT = Pure Bullshit.

I don't even understand them, they're fucked up. They're used to see if someone is ready for university/college, right?

In Canada, if you do well in grades 11 and 12 you're basically guaranteed a position in university/college if you can afford it. Grade school testing is a lot more accurate than a bunch of multiple choice questions.

[Superfluous Curmudgeon]

One the one hand, I think they are a good, objective way to sift through students, as you said, Moregun. On the other hand, they are huge money-making "organizations" whose tests do little to test actual academic potential. The tests themselves are quite easy, and only test basic academic skills. It's the timed situation that makes them difficult, and those who naturally think quickly on their feet will do better than those who don't nine times out of ten, regardless of academic knowledge/ability.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Schofield

In Canada, if you do well in grades 11 and 12 you're basically guaranteed a position in university/college if you can afford it. Grade school testing is a lot more accurate than a bunch of multiple choice questions.

Those who advocate standardized tests argue that due to grade inflation variations between schools, high school grades make it very difficult to distinguish which students are good, and which are bad. I have to agree for the most part. A lot of American schools suck, and getting straight As in a school that doesn't care could say nothing about how much a particular student knows/understands. The SAT or ACT would seem like a good, objective option at first, but there are a lot of holes that make it not so objective.

[Adrian Ţepeş]

Well unfortunately, my condition makes standardized tests rather difficult

[kow_ciller]

Originally Posted by computernerd

Well unfortunately, my condition makes standardized tests rather difficult

Whats that, being a dumbass?

[Adrian Ţepeş]

No no, that's your condition

How many times do I have to keep reminding you? Then again, you're not exactly someone who would be in any position to pull rank or talk down to anyone, least of all me, so I guess it doesn't really matter

[Superfluous Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by computernerd

Well unfortunately, my condition makes standardized tests rather difficult

40 practice tests and we'll have you fixed up real good.

[Adrian Ţepeş]

I like the sound of that