[MOVED] Question about SAT scores versus math abilities

[Guest]

Since the "renormalization" of the SAT's a few years ago, the tests are less capable of identifying potential future math researchers at top universities. (I.e., the compression at the top means an 800 on the math SAT, while as good as you can get, does not separate the very good math student from the rare one who will be capable of the sort of work expected at a Harvard, NYU, or Cal Tech.

Indeed, I don't know whether an 800 indicated this level of ability even before "renormalization."

Thus, my question: Is it true to say that anyone capable of eventually doing math at the high level got an 800 (or, let's say, a 750) on his math SAT? What about before "renormalization." Is such a score necessary, but not sufficient?

Interval

 

[stapel]

Is it true to say that anyone capable of eventually doing math at the high level got an 800 (or, let's say, a 750) on his math SAT?

I got a master's degree, but I never even took the SAT. Would that make me an "outlier"? :wink:

Besides, the SAT, to my understanding, it intended to help measure preparedness for general college studies, not outstanding talent in a particular discipline. One could be very well educated and prepped (thus getting a good score) but not be particularly talented in that area. On the other hand, one could have had a dismal education (thus getting a poor score) but discover a hitherto untapped proclivity, talents which can be further nurtured to great success after having first gained some necessary background and foundational content at the local community college.

The SAT was never meant to measure what I think you're asking about, so I don't know that it would be fair to judge the SAT by its success in this area.

I could be wrong, of course.

Eliz.

 

[Guest]

ok

Thanks for the input. I personally feel that standardized exams are given for 3 reasons: 1-to make money; 2-to discriminate against people with little education and 3-to do away with weak condidates for a job or school. Your view?

 

[stapel]

I'm not sure what you mean by "making money". A service is being provided, and a great deal of time, effort, resources, and research went into the provision of that service. How would it continue to exist, if the providers could not recoup their costs?

As for "discrimination", if you mean "be mean", then this of course is silly. If, however, you mean "provide an objective standard, so that people won't be judged by such trivialities as gender or skin color", then yes, this is exactly why the tests were created. (At the time, they were used to show "the establishment" that Jews were perfectly capable of succeeding at college.)

Your third point is pretty much the same as the second: to provide an objective standard by which to measure. Instead of saying, "well, yes, but he's black, so he's out", we have "he got the highest score, so he's in", regardless of the skin color, etc.

For example, I got a very poor K-12 education. If I'd been "not picked on and discriminated again, you poor little dear" by objective standards, I might have been granted entry at some high-falutin' university. But I would not have had the background or foundation for such an environment. Admitting me may have made admission statistics look "correct", or may have made establishment types feel all warm and fuzzy, but I would very likely have flunked out. I wouldn't view that as a "kindness".

Instead, I went to the local school, to which all state residents could gain entry. And I worked my way up. I didn't need to go because I was "stupid" or something; I needed to go there because that's what I was ready for.

Saddling standardized metrics with the additional task of redesigning society according to whatever is "correct" this week is not entirely reasonable, in my opinion. And throwing them out entirely because they can't do something they were never intended to do (and which may be impossible, in any case), seems a little short-sighted.

Again, I could be wrong.

Eliz.