[CLOCK TICKING] In the States, we have
standardized tests, called the SAT and the ACT. Most high school
juniors take them at around the time they’re
applying for colleges. In this episode, we’re going
to be talking about the SAT specifically. Test scores are a huge deal. A majority of colleges
require them when applying, and a low score is bad news. The SAT is thought to
illustrate generally how smart a student
is and specifically how well they’re going to
do during their first year of college. Except, maybe it doesn’t. Intelligence can be considered
many things, and much of it incredibly
difficult to quantify. Studies have shown that there
are more accurate predictors of success besides SAT
scores, and those scores seem to correlate just
as much, if not more, with things other than smarts. Like, my SAT score was
awful, but now my alma mater invites me back to give
advice to graduating seniors because I have a YouTube show. What’s up now, mediocre
prediction of success? So if the SAT isn’t just
measuring intelligence, what else is it measuring? To answer this, we
gotta do history. The SAT became a test
for students in 1926, but it was based on an IQ
test given to the army. The army test was
used to determine who was fit to rise
in the ranks, who had the necessary mental
machinery to become an officer. But it was also a test
of the test itself. Would people take it? Would it work? What would the results be? And wouldn’t you know
it, it’s results, according to Nicholas
Lemann’s book, The Big Test, perfectly reproduced the
pre-existing social order. At the time, it was
popularly thought that Nordics were the
most intelligent stock, alpines next, and
Mediterraneans, dumbest. Said test confirmed this. In other words, the test
didn’t describe individuals so much as it justified
attitudes towards people. He would later recant
on his beliefs. But at the time, Carl Brigham,
the man who wrote the test, was a passionate
eugenicist, someone who believed that the
future of humanity could be improved through
selective breeding. Many early 20th century American
academics, social reformers, and scientists
supported eugenics, and they considered these
tests an objective measure of a biological fact. Really, eugenics was just a
pseudo-scientific justification for racism and the exclusion
of people considered inferior. In 1926, the army IQ
test became the SAT, slightly more
difficult and aimed at, though not yet widely given,
to college-aged students. That wouldn’t happen for awhile,
but an important first step in that direction was in the
1940s with Harvard President James Conant’s
dedication to the idea that education could make
the country a better place. It’s a newer idea
than you might think. He thought anyone,
which at the time was a much more restrictive
word than it is now, should be able to get
a serious education and that this would establish
an intellectual elite that could lead the country to greatness. And I mean, here we are back
at a really weird relationship between tests and social order. But it still meant, no matter
how much someone didn’t fit the old ideas of who
should possess intelligence, if they passed the test,
they passed the test. This is the ideal of the
SAT and tests like it and one of the reasons it
managed to become so ubiquitous in the States. In the words of Mark
Bauerlein, the chance to compete against
the sons of privilege was necessary to fulfill
the promise of democracy. In America, anyone can
make it, and the SAT is one way to prove that no
matter where you came from, you can make it. And to a certain degree,
that is still true. But the more we
study it, the more we realize that the
SAT never fully escaped it’s not-awesome origins. Originally, SAT stood for
Scholastic Aptitude Test. It was then change to Scholastic
Assessment Test, SAT Reasoning Test. And as of 1997, those
letters stand for nothing. Like KFC, AT&T, BP, and
the S in Harry S. Truman, those letters front for no word. In some sense,
the SAT has always been running from itself,
and that’s still true today. The College Board knows
that they have problems and is trying to fix them. We must confront
the inequalities that now surround assessment. A bunch of studies,
links in the doobly doo, have shown that there is
a significant difference in the SAT scores of wealthy
versus lower income students. Male students tend
to have higher scores than female students, even
though female students have higher college matriculation
and graduation rates. Depending upon which
study you read, either white or Asian
American students tend to score better than
any other race group. The reasons for this are
many, complicated to nail down at the very least. One thought is that
the test– the format, language, references, the
expected set of knowledge– is simply more familiar,
more culturally ingrained for certain people. Another factor is that wealthy
families can afford test prep, tutoring, and other
extracurricular academic training, sometimes
collectively referred to as shadow education,
even though it’s not used to train their kids
to be super villains. The resources at
particular schools matter, as do the accomplishments
of parents and friends, test costs, and of course time
spent learning on your own. SAT results tend to
align, still today, with common expectations
of the types of people that possess intelligence. Many people who have
studied the tests have shown it to be just as much
a test of wealth and resource as it is of knowledge
and aptitude, maybe no more than academic
achievement in general, though. Just as when it
started, the problem isn’t the SAT alone
but the broader context in which it’s written
and given, which raises an even bigger question. If it’s potentially broken,
why do so many colleges continue to use or require it? Well, a small but
growing number don’t. And for those that
still do, it’s about habit, the importance
of selectivity ratings– which don’t even get me started. But it’s also about ease. Standardized tests
wouldn’t be popular if they weren’t easy to grade. In a way, the history
of standardized tests is also kind of the history
of electronic computation. Ideally, there is little
to no human effort required to score the sea of Scantrons
scribbled upon every year. But there are limits
to what computation is capable of scoring,
grading, ranking, quantifying. Ideally, our metrics for success
are personalized and holistic, and that would be reflected in
our evaluation and assessment processes. But in reality, frequently
success and high test score are synonymous. What standardized tests
measure is considered success because standardized
tests can measure it. There is a weird light at the
end of this testing tunnel. There is a growing SAT optional
movement among colleges. There’s a huge SAT
overhaul coming in 2016, and some testing orgs want to
test for things like creativity or collaboration in the future. But I wonder if this is
educational feature creep, fixing tests with more
tests because that’s how we think and live,
especially in education, by the numbers. It’s easy, and there are
business models in place to do it the way
we’ve been doing it. And so I wonder
what’s going to be the technological advancement,
the change in attitude or even educational policy
that eventually encourages us to stop trying to standardize
that which seemingly resists standardization. What do you guys think? Will we ever move beyond
standardized testing? And if we do, what,
ideally, would come next? Let us know in the comments. And Hansel and
Gretel are to sweets as Idea Channel is to– A,
records; B, T-shirts; C, subscribers; D,
all of the above. Turns out the plural of
Amiibo is actually Amiibo, though as some people
pointed out on Twitter, it could be empty wallet. Let’s see what you guys had
to say about collecting. First thing’s first,
next week’s episode is going to be about the
new Thor comic book written by Jason Aaron. We’re not going to be
spoiling a whole lot. We’re just going to be talking
about the first couple books. But if you want to be
completely spoiler free, that’s a thing that you can
read over the next week. It should be pretty
easy to get ahold of. And also, I am going to be
at the Phoenix Comic Con at the end of May. So if you are planning on
going to that, I will be there. We’re going to be
doing a panel, and I think we’re also
going to be doing office hours on
that Friday night at a place called The Deuce. We don’t have a specific
time picked out quite yet, so keep an eye out here
and also on Twitter. And I’ll let you know
when you can come and hang out and say hi if you
live in and around the Phoenix, which I’m very
excited to go back to. OK, so Jedibob 5 on the
subreddit and a bunch of other people saw connection
between last week’s episode and collectible card games,
like Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh!. And we’re going to talk
a little bit about this when we eventually get to
the tweet of the week, which is related. But, yeah, I mean, I
totally agree with this, and this is something
that’s definitely part of the conversation,
that these are objects that have a collectibility to
them but then can also be very highly consumed. And there’s an economy
that exists around them. And, yeah, I would say
that the difference maybe comes down to how
the object is used, and I think that’s one of
the things that’s really interesting about card games. But, yeah, this
is a great point. Lonerstuck talks about
how gaming itself is also a kind of collecting,
and this is a thing that I’ve been thinking
about over the last week. And I think I agree,
and I think that’s one of the other things that
makes Amiibo so interesting is that they allow you to create
these instances of these really great and nice little
objects that reference CDs or cartridges or things that
aren’t just nice to behold. It’s not nice. I don’t have a great time
looking at all of my old Super Nintendo cartridges. And so having an
Amiibo to represent that collection or those
objects in some way is a good, I don’t
know, stand-in. I don’t know if
that’s the right word, but, yeah, I totally agree. And I’ve been sort of chewing
on this idea for a long time. theMoporter suggests that
the missing component of this conversation
is aesthetics, and that that is
an important part of the process of collecting. And I think that this is a
really interesting question because it asks what the
aesthetic experience is. Like, is the
aesthetic experience a kind of consumption? When you are collecting
things that you have an aesthetic
experience of, are you attempting to associate
yourself with the beauty that you perceive in them? Because I might argue
that you can’t actually have a purely aesthetic
experience of a collection that you have invested
time and money into. And I think that this is
also related to something that Ilmari Thornton
wrote about Nintendo using the Amiibo to cash in, as
it were, on nostalgia, which I see as another possibly
aesthetic experience. So, yeah, I think
these are really great point and things
that are very much, I see, being related to another. Voiced mentions
another interesting way to view Amiibo, which is as DLC. And I think this brings
up the idea again of kind of coerced consumerism
through collection. And if you view it as DLC
and you want the full game when a game comes out,
you know, how do Amiibo relate to this desire
for completionism when you’re playing video games? And this is something
actually that Francis, who we showed in the last video,
said some interesting things about in one of his videos. And actually, on the
subject of Francis, there were a couple
people letting us know that we should
make it clear that Francis is an ironic character
that someone plays. I didn’t know that there is a
misunderstanding about the fact that Francis is a character
and that that is something we should make explicit. So for clarity’s sake, I
will make that explicit. Francis, the guy
who was shouting very loudly in
last week’s video, he’s not actually like that. He’s a character. Turns out I might have
actually been the weird kid who didn’t really play
with their toys the way that they were played
with in the commercials because there were
a lot of people saying that they definitely
play with their toys. There were some people who had
the same experience that I did, but they seem to be
few and far between. So we’ll put a link to
the people describing their relationships
to their toys when they were younger
in the doobly doo, along with every other comment. Ignoramus, let’s just say,
you ain’t seen nothing yet. Also, Ilmari, look. It’s your record. This week’s episode
was brought to you by the hard work of these
nonstandard individuals. We have a Facebook, an
IRC, and a subreddit links in the doobly doo. And the tweet of the
week comes from Kiyote, who points us towards an
NPR show about magic cards and how Wizards of the
Coast saw collectors as hindering gameplay,
and so they sought to burst the collector bubble. It’s a really great lesson. And, hey, in case
you were wondering, this episode of Idea Channel
was brought to by Squarespace. Squarespace is an easy way
to create a website, blog, or online store for
you and your ideas. Squarespace features a
user-friendly interface, custom templates, and
24/7 customer support. To try Squarespace, go to
squarespace.com/Ideachannel for a special offer. Squarespace, build it beautiful.

Tagged : # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

Dennis Veasley

100 thoughts on “What Does The SAT Really Test? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios”

  1. I think colleges are also tempted by the idea of having an objective comparison between students from different schools and backgrounds. Trying to choose between thousands of strangers as to who would be the best fit for your educational community is kind of a crazy thing. And clearly the SAT is not actually an answer, but the reductive approach of "well, these people look similar on paper but this one has a higher score, so let's go with that" at least makes it easier to make a decision, even if it's not a good one. I might argue that it goes similarly in the opposite direction with things like the US News & World Reports or Princeton Review rankings; you tour some schools, they seem good, one's ranked higher, so it's probably better so given the choice (and equivalent financial aid) maybe you go there.

  2. Another good thing about America's school system is that literally anybody can go to school (from elementary to high school) for free.
    In Philippines, there's no such thing. Every school whether public or private needs tuition fee. There is a great amount of unfair distribution of wealth among the citizens and because of extreme poverty, most families don't have enough money to pay for their kids school, thus, they have higher chances of dropping out. These kids who have dreams of becoming doctors, engineers, scientists, teachers, (anything really) never get the chance to pursue their dreams. Instead, they're forced to drop out of school at a very young age and help their family put food on the table. They're stuck in the same old cycle of poverty. Luckily, I wasn't one of those kids even though I lived there for years and even luckier that I get a chance to live in America.

  3. SAT tests concentration more than intelligence. You don't have to know something, you just have to be concentrated enough to reproduce it in seconds. This doesn't involve understanding, this only involves muscle memory.

    Though probably the wealth-based gap in SAT scores is mostly because of the awful school system in the States.

  4. We all know of the problems that tests and by extension the SAT has problems, but the real question we should be asking , and some people are, how do we fix it?

  5. C. Subscribers. The story can not advance without Hansel & Gretel eating the house, the channel may become without subscribers.

  6. The editing on this one was really top notch. Very well done!

    As a European, I never really got what the SAT was, except that everyone in the USA had to take it, which confused me. This was a good explanation of it, and I'm glad for my American friends that things are changing about it.

  7. "Men score higher even tho women have higher college graduation rate & cuz men are tutored and SAT is bias to men."

    Ok, you're being bias towards women. Typical feminist. What degree did women graduate in? Is it difficult degrees like computer science and engineering or easy, impractical stuffs like social sciences and gender studies?
    Secondly, you don't need to be smart to do well in college if courses you're taking are easy. You only need to be hardworking. That's where women are good at, they're very diligent in studying. Men excel when it matters.

  8. I live in Alabama and we use the ACT a lot more than the SAT so I really don't know what the SAT is like. The ACT isn't that bad though, there is a writing portion and a reading comprehension portion, both of which I do think are good indicators of at least some forms of intelligence.

  9. Just because I do well on tests doesn't mean I like them. I constantly feel like every administrator is trying to stuff me in a box. School just seems like an unending test, the results of which make it easy for organizations, like colleges, to choose which people are allowed to live fulfilling lives. The idea that I sit in classes not for the purpose of learning, but for pushing percentages over some arbitrary proportion endlessly depresses me. The way they are taught and the way we are evaluated do not serve to develop enthusiasm for subjects, but to continuously reiterate the fact that the pursuit of knowledge is not the main focus. Don't get me started on artistic classes. If they wanted us to be creative, why would they discourage us from taking risks with a point-based grading system? When you write a paper for English class, you never convey true emotions or convictions, only what is sure to satisfy the rubric. The American public school system is more of a game than an educational effort. My recommendations? Firstly, remove the grading scale from 'filler' classes. In fact, try to remove filler classes. Nobody should have to worry about performance in Wood-Shop impacting their GPA. Speaking as a straight-A student with a focus on Math and Science, I've spent more time working on Spanish this year than in those classes combined. I don't even want to live in a Spanish-speaking country, or even visit one, why should I have to worry about getting perfect scores? It is also impossible to assign numbers to creative classes. Sure, in Math and Science it is pretty easy to hand out rigid scores, but imposing that system in writing classes just stresses out students. If you really want to inspire writers, making people spend time engineering papers with boring subject-matters to game the rubric system is obviously counter-productive. Instead, artistic classes and 'filler' classes should have universal pass or fail grading systems based on effort. The teachers of creative classes should spend time with students to develop their mastery over the respective subjects, and the strict marks just add unnecessary stress. Additionally, some people just can't write, and they should be free to increase their ability in other areas instead of agonizing over a subject they will never truly master.

    I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I do have more ideas.

  10. the sat is a test that favors people with higher class ranking it is very hard for a lower ranking student to score well on this abomination of a test. Lol I'm taking it tomorrow

  11. If we're talking exclusively from the perspective of standardized test scores being a determining factor for entrance into college, which is a perspective that I think is widespread, then it should tell us a bit about what kind of people are getting into post secondary education and why our system is not reaching its intended objectives. The objective of post secondary education should be to give a greater opportunity for specialization and success to people otherwise left a part of an unskilled workforce that is becoming increasingly undervalued as technological improvements like automation make their human capital more expensive than more productive or cheaper alternatives (ie roomba instead of a maid). This means that whether post secondary education has achieved its societal objectives is blind to previous family wealth or ethnicity, nationality, orientation and all other factors that don't correlate to success LATER in life and the ability to specialize in the first place (ie work ethic, passions, public demand). So if the end result is blind to those things, why aren't ALL the metrics we use to determine who gets to use the scarce resource of post secondary education? Certainly many are. For instance, many public universities, at least in my home state of California, will look at how active you are outside of school to separate those with passions, busy work ethics and a self challenging attitude from those who skim the edge of a 4.0 in highschool and just dick around the rest of the time. But so many well meaning metrics fail to make helpful connections like that, like the standardized tests discussed in the video. A better way could be to get as much variety as possible in a first go around (variety in terms of types of passions and the ways people convert them into specialized human capital) and then see which attributes of the pre-university students correlates to success and specialization post-university. Then use testing for those attributes grounds for admission or not in the first place to best use the scarcity of university education. Let me use a nonsense and hypothetical example to explain: If, for whatever reason, people who prefer the color blue over the color red were more likely to be happier and offer more valuable human capital (be more specialized) after going through a university similar to theirs, then testing for color preference could be a metric for accepting potential students. Of course, with that example there are absolutely tons of confounding variables that mean some other thing than the color preference is actually causing the change, but so long as the correlation exists, it still makes it a valid way of allocating the scarce resources, no matter the actual causations. That, of course, doesn't make it right to decrease the opportunities of one race or income group over another if the correlations say it makes sense. That's where we as a society have to consider the trade offs between two very different and often contradictory goals: economic equality and economic efficiency. There are many different ways of deciding which is preferred in each situation where they conflict (slow bureaucratic Democratic process, floating market prices as signals of public value, polls and surveys, dictatorial decree) but in the end these are problems that need public attention or the society they affect will have little or no control over them. Tell your friends about them, communicate with your legislators about them, have (sane, please) online discussions about them in YouTube comment sections, make YouTube VIDEOS about them, write poetry or short stories discussing it through allusion or allegory, satire or outright criticism. Do anything and everything you can to make society confront its own problems because that is the only way they get resolved.

  12. And then there's the fact that if you are a homeschooler EVERY school requires either the SAT or the ACT. Every school. Bit biased, innit?

  13. SAT and similar tests are just a sad way to maintain the Capitalist order. As only these kinds of Authoritarian systems would such emphasis be place on, examination – of this kind – (as in capitalist and similar Authoritarian systems, their partly assessing how good you at being at being a conformist to the (in Capitalism) employer in the workplace ). As if the workplace was a direct democracy and the economy left Anarchist, failure in these tests (if they even existed in the same format) would not make life many times harder for you, as schools would be part of the commons, a place where you can pursue your interests more deeply with a large amount of educational resources within a given volume. Students could set up projects of creativity and collaboration not burden by the constant drive of test, test, test, where students are pitted against each other competing for the best grades and creating social hierarchy, made to constantly study things they don't like, while achieving very little in practical terms but piles of paperwork. And those who do not conform to this are shunned socially and made to feel bad about themselves, while the blame is also redirected away from how soecity is structurally and to themselves as the failure, didn't work hard enough, not intelligent etc. Any in the end Capitalism will (possiblely) make it self obsolete as increased automation will free up way more time (though that's perfectly possible today with economic restructuring) and either make tons of people unemployed in a dystopian nightmare were a few elites have it good or create tons of abundance and freedom were every one reaches self-actualisation part of the hierarchy of needs in near utopia.

  14. this is why the British system practised in areas of the Commonwealth makes more sense. you study a syllabus for two years for separate subjects and you get tested for each subject and your given adequate time to answer and show what you know. as an outsider the SATs makes little to no sense and I really wish I could have a explanation of the process and stuff

  15. This might be less a problem with the test and more a problem with society. If poorer children go to schools with less funding and worse teachers, they're going to do worse on a test of scholastic knowledge.

  16. Hello, I am currently 17 years old and I want to become a walrus. I know there’s a million people out there just like me, but I promise you I’m different. On December 14th, I’m moving to Antartica; home of the greatest walruses. I’ve already cut off my arms, and now slide on my stomach everywhere I go as training. I may not be a walrus yet, but I promise you if you give me a chance and the support I need, I will become the greatest walrus ever. You can Help me achieve my dream just rigggggggghhhhhht Here : https://www.youcaring.com/aref-thaher-644890 .If you have any questions or maybe advice, just inbox me. Thank you all so much <3

  17. I think most math teachers go about teaching math the wrong way. When we're young we get a lot of word problems which seem applicable to life. Then when algebra is taught it's done so in such a way that what students are learning only the seeming trivial ability to move things around in an equation. Which often leads to a situation where true understanding is seldom reached; mostly because students see it as difficult pointless memorization. If a teacher can teach understanding in math then the student will not have to memorize near as much. In my eyes this is a true travesty

  18. It's all about money. The reason we still have the SAT is so that the people making, grading, promoting and in management positions at the College Board can have a job. Also, behind the SAT are thousands of tutoring websites and companies who need the SAT as this is why most kids get tutored. Lose the SAT, they lose their job. But for people to spend money on preparing for and taking the SAT it has to be seen as important. That's where many colleges come in who support the "non-profit" College Board by making the test an important factor in admissions. The fact that an increasing number of have made the SAT optional is bad news for the College Board which is why they changed it (i felt so much pride when they mentioned that now each reading section would contain a historical document). What it all comes down to in the end is that we created the SAT. Thinking top schools will guarantee future success even though people from any college can be successful. Hard work, building long lasting connections, and effective group work I believe are the biggest factors to a successful professional career.

  19. perhaps the SAT doesn't "test student ethnicity or wealth" (Paraphrasing). Perhaps a student growing up in a more successful situation with a more encouraging culture is bound to test better because they've been primed to do so… Students in the poorer rural areas tend to score lower because they, their parents, and most people they know, tend to have a negative attitude towards success (Almost a disbelieve of its existence for people they can relate to)…. they figure why try if i'm going to fail. Now, what i'm stating is not necessarily a racial issue but rather a social and cultural one… negative vibes bring negativity, always has been true, always will be true.

    A list of objective questions can not, by any means, reflect the test takers situation more than the test takers situation reflects their test scores… I feel this is the problem with most statistics, a correlation is noticed, a problem is deduced, and nobody cares to check the correlation in the other direction.

    End rant?

  20. Mediterraneans are stupid, yeah, like the creators of civilization, math and philosophy, suuuure, really stupid… An IQ test would be better as a test, you dont have to study for it, easy and simple

  21. Not gonna lie, when the graph came up around 4:34, i had to laugh because my family brings in <10k a year, and I still scored higher than the average 100k/yr brats.

  22. Ability to score well on a test is not evenly distributed among widely diverse parts of the population? Color me surprised. While it is important that expected pre-knowledge and cultural aspects aren't what's being tested, a measure of intelligence(whatever that is) is going to yield different results in different parts of the population, since intelligence is (sadly?) not distributed evenly. I would very much like to see a test that was a strong predictor of life success (a Jordan b Peterson lecture brings up industriousness and conscientiousness as important factors, next to intelligence), but i don't know how we would test for that.

  23. That world map at 2:11 is actually spot on; ask any college kid and they'll tell you spring break in Mexico= drugs+tacos.

  24. I feel like GPA and class rank are most important, but then how do you compare a home-schooled kid to the other applicants? And some high schools are much easier than others to get As in. I believe the SAT and ACT shouldn't be required and schools should only require 2 SAT Subject Tests, AP tests, IB tests, or some combo (e.g. 1 Subject Test and 1 AP test). At least those tests are more like college final exams in particular subject areas like Chemistry and History where you can demonstrate how much you've learned about those subjects. AP and IB exams in particular are very similar to college exams, so those should be given a lot more weight than the SAT/ACT which are just general tests of basic reading, grammar, and math.

  25. The SAT is a more accurate measurement for motivation than intelligence. If a dumb person is determined to get a high score they will get a high score, and vice versa.

  26. The SAT and ACT test is a university Admissions college from high school like required. In community colleges they don’t accept SAT/ACT scores is called ACCUPLACER testing is a community College Testing.

  27. College Board is just a money-making scheme . You know how many students take it every year? They make thousands of dollars of students failing and taking it again.. Sadly, we are all forced to take it.

  28. In Canada I had 2 universities invite me to join their Math departments before I even graduated high school. I wasn't interested in that, so just went to university taking subjects I was interested in. No exam necessary. You just needed to have grades of a specific level or higher in specific high school courses. I did university for 2 years, then went on to other things. I went to college for a year, and it was just a matter of an application form with a short essay. The tough one was getting into a specific university programme that I really wanted to get into. It was an arts course. They asked for a portfolio. No exam. There were only so many placements, but many students wanting to get in. They never gave me an official reason why I was put on the waiting list 2 years in a row. I finally got in. Later, I went back to college again. No exam. All they required was money. Anyway, I'm very curious about this SAT thing as tests have had next to nothing to do with my own university and college experiences.

  29. Typical agro science racial Marxist drivel. IQ is real and g highly predictive of life outcomes at the group level. IQ differs about individuals and between geography groups (ie race), and this has important social implications that terrify leftists like the shills making this show.

  30. The reason that Asians and ethnic Europeans score higher on the SAT is quite straight forward unlike the drivel this racial marxist is pushing: it's because, on average, they have higher IQs

  31. College Board is just standing there, singing, "It's all about the money, money!" Im surprised people actually support the SAT and ACT.

  32. Thank You So Much for making this video, I haven't been able to find anything like this, oh and PERSON READING THIS ARE YOU SMART ? . . . . . . YES~! you are and your intelligence goes beyond a number on a piece of paper~~!

    I encourage you to leave a list of the things you are proud of yourself for, things that go beyond a perfect score, if you got a high score join this thread. 🙂 Value yourself at a much more prestigious level and infinitley see that you are priceless, perfect, and blessed! You are the everything in someone's life, maybe the only life in someones struggle, the passionate soul who will dramatically change this world for the better <3

    Everything I find on the ACT is based on ~pressure to do well on the `ACT`, I studied lived and breathed the ACT the most I possibly, classes, the book, everything and NO I am not high income, and I am Latina, does this make you have any generalizations, I encouage you to see me for what I am to the core a soul just like you, 🙂

    Still after hard work and constant studying I got a 17 then 19 then 18 🙂 <3 and I am grateful either way because I learned that my worth is not determined or stuck to a number on a paper, I can be and am so much more, including in my list
    bilingual, fluent in both languages
    I play instruments by ear, self-taught, self -trained,
    grateful, strong work ethic,
    determined, kind,
    compassionate, intelligent YES you can be intelligent without a high score
    YOU ARE INTELLIGENT,
    confident, a leader,
    passionate about promoting the welfare of others,
    I love myself, I have everything I need to live and enjoy life, fresh air, love,
    I walk, speak and sing for a profession,
    I learned in a month AP music theory what others learned through a year,
    My interviews have been featured in a speech from the Governor of my state~!
    I've gained two internships so far with no connections to the company, my parents have NO connection to any of the companies I've pursued
    I was chosen for my video editing skills, production and marketing knowledge,
    for my attitude, morale, and ethics
    I do not judge people to best of my abilities I genuinely want to see everyone for what they are , not even human but souls on this earth all looking for validation,
    the person we truly need to validate us is ourselves! I LOVE YOU! YES YOU

    LOVE YOURSELF, life is only now the present and
    You Are Sucessful beyond the numbers on a piece of paper. Strong and brave
    Im not saying this for me alone but for you reading this if you did not get the score you desired and are moving on, remember you are so much more

    I encorage you to leave a list of the things you are proud of yourself for, things that go beyond a perfect score, if you got a high score join this thread I want you to value yourself at a much higher price and infinitley see that you are priceless , perfect, and blessed !

    THank You Bless YOU Much LOve<3

  33. I took the ACT, and did fine, although, I'd been in the army and was older than the average student. I also had been through flight school. I had been teaching aviation ground school. So I took the test six years after high school. My son, the smart one in the family, refused to take the SAT prep course. I offered to pay for it, but he argued on the grounds that it was unethical to study for the test that's supposed to measure what one learned in school. It seems to me that if one can study for the test and take special courses, which are expensive at that, then the whole practice of giving the test is basically weighted toward family income, levels of education and family education level. So, the test is a form of discrimination, and thus is invalid. When one thinks about test validity and examines the whole SAT process, it's often culture and race baiting for the poor and the black and hispanic commutnities. That's NOT very democratic and is basically unfair. I would actually like to see ETS shut down for good. One last point, most students will mitriculate at state run universities, such as the University of MIchigan. By using the test criteria, which is race and social background, prejudiced, that makes the public university system of admissions for students very unfair. This and other critiques of the SAT and people who have spent time analyzing these tests,; well many have the same opinion as me, and my brilliant son,who did get a high score, went to a very fine school. By the way, I"m a university professor. I learned more in the Army and Flight School, but found universitiy actually wonderful. I didn't need some silly test that churs out students who merely memorize a lot of 'stuff" , to keep me from grad school, or becoming a teacher/researcher. Good luck folks!!

  34. "Really eugenics is just a pseudoscientific justification for racism and the exclusion of people considered inferior."
    Strongly disagree there, Michael. Eugenics is a tool to manipulate populations via genetics. Use of eugenics is usually an unethical but effective way to change genes. The selective breeding of wolves to produce dogs is a canine equivalent to eugenics. Because dogs have simpler needs and wants, controlling how dogs breed is far less unethical than for humans. People have love and relationships and parenting and all aorts of complex stuff going on, making selective breeding of humans cruel.
    But eugenics of people isn't JUST selective breeding. It also includes gene manipulation of embryos. If you could take a test to see if your unborn child was going to be born with a crippling disability, would you? And if it returned positive, might you want to abort the embryo and try again? As a supporter of VOLUNTARY eugenics, I believe it is the right of every parent to control their child's genes.

  35. I don't get half the things you are saying lol 🙂 anyway…..wish me luck i'm sitting my SAT test on Monday TOMORROW but some videos and teachers have helped me calm down a bit but I AM STILL WORRIED AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!………………lol

  36. Here’s a novel idea! How about you don’t hinge someone’s entire future on a 3 hour test and instead base it upon the hard work accomplishments of his or her FOUR YEARS in high school!

  37. People defending the SAT forget to mention that it is a for profit organization… if they really cared about these kids and their futures it would be cheaper or even free… really 60 dollars for a couple pieces of paper?

  38. Where has this country’s love of learning gone? Too many students at my school and around the states invest lots of time and money into the sat. Why would anyone want to do that when their assets can be invested in learning about our natural world? A 1500+ on a the sat cannot be compared with the value of a scientific discovery

  39. I scored an 1120 on my SAT and a 30 on my ACT which is a pretty bizarre difference of about 30 percentile points depending on the year taken. The SAT punishes you for best guess and the ACT rewards you for it. I freaked out on the SAT and spent too much time on each question second guessing myself. I got a full ride on my ACT score. Weird.

  40. Can you talk about more in depth about shadow education, diploma mill,and ghostwriter aka essay mill ?

  41. Hi guys .. Have a question gor you .. Which test shoould i take if i want to study at University in US ? SAT 1 or SAT 2 ? Thank u guys ..

  42. I would like some clarification:
    1. Do Americans have to take these tests?
    2. Are they the only exams that pupils take?
    3. Are they free?
    4. Are they all multiple choice?
    In England we have GCSEs which are taken in year 11 at 16. Then you have further exams at 18. Only a few questions per paper are multiple choice.

  43. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Atlantic Telegraph and Telephone Company, British Petroleum. Just off the top of my head (it may be the Atlantic Telephone and Telegraph Company, but someone else can look it up).

  44. It doesn't test how intelligent you actually are. it just shows whether you're good under time crunches and how good you are at guessing.

    Most of my friends and I who get amazing grades, take APs and are known around the school as the best students we get poor SAT scores (I got a 970 from 1600 for the PSAT) while I have friends who do poorly in classes, failing many and don't try at all got really high scores (3 of my friends who are failing almost all their classes, don't study or work or do anything got between 1100-1200 on the PSAT just solely because they guessed well)

    One of my friends said "come on tell me what you got, you know how bad I am at school yet I got a 1150, I bet you did so much better"

    And i just… I absolutely hate the SATs because they don't really show your potential? I probably won't get in my dream college if I don't score well on the SATs even though I have a high GPA, I'm in AP classes, I'm in NHS, I volunteer, work etc. And I studied so much for the PSATs and they are supposed to show what your score will be like for the actual thing (I'm taking the actual SATs in April)

    For me personally I'm actually good at test taking, I work out the questions I know I can do then work through harder questions at the end, but even that isn't allowed because we have a certain time for each section and will get a 0 on the SATs if we go back to any past or future sections so I have to figure out a problem in 30 seconds and move on or worry about one problem and leave other problems unanswered.

  45. Video says the Test is made easier for students that live in certain cultures but why asians get the highest score? Does the United States want to give their country to asians??

  46. Many years ago, I was a college counselor in an inner city catholic high school. I was able to place several students with low SAT scores into some very good schools who had great support programs for all students. The students did well and most graduated. It was obvious to me that good study skills and support was responsible, as well as the desire of the students to do well.

  47. Watching this after the new SAT Adversity Score was unveiled. I understand that it's trying to level the playing field with score disparities, but idk if it's going to fix the test. Something like this is easy to misuse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *