It still amazes me how random schools are. With a 33 on the ACT and a 1420 on the SAT I still got a flaming rejection from Harvard. That's okay, I still made it through Stanford, and then University of Michigan Law School. I actually consider it quite an accomplishment to have made it into UM Law since I'm as white as they come, and being a white boy makes it harder to get into UMLAW then it is for a dumb boy to get into harvard.
<strong> I actually consider it quite an accomplishment to have made it into UM Law since I'm as white as they come, and being a white boy makes it harder to get into UMLAW then it is for a dumb boy to get into harvard.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not entirely true. Mostly white "legacy" applicants receive similar "plus points."
Assuming you're not a legacy, you're not from Michigan, you're not from one of Michigan's underrepresented counties, and you're not a minority- indeed- congratulations for getting in. I just don't think you can peg AA policies alone for your "surprise" acceptance.
The American system amazes me. It really does. The SAT, and the regurgitation-oriented education.
In Canberra, we do 5 classes a semester in year 11 and 12. 4 assigments per class. Two tests, a presentation and an essay. Most of the marks are obtained through original thought. The top 80% of your assignments are counted in a class. You do 3 majors (set of 4 classes) and one minor (set of 2 classes) minimum. Your best 3 majors and minor are counted in your final result, or University Admissions Index (UAI).
There is moderation amongst teachers to determine what classes and colleges (year 11 and 12) are smarter, combinded with an Australian Scaling Test (AST). All classes are adjusted to a mean of 65 and SD of 15.
It's a very fair system. I'm heading for a UAI of around 80, enough to do most subjects at the Australian National University (ANU).
<strong>I just don't understand why someone would say "I'm aiming for 1300." I mean, I never hear anybody say, "I'm aiming for mediocrity!" or "I'm aiming for a good, but not great score!" When I took the SAT, I aimed for 1600. I didn't get it, but still...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I was a bit miffed when I didn't get the 1600, because when I left the room I really felt I had it. . . Oh well, ancient history.
Here's my strategy for pre-standardized-test:
1) Before going to sleep, listen to some speed metal. The Album "Kill 'em All" is good here, because it's catchy and fast.
2) When you wake up listen to your favorite 3 songs from Kill 'Em All.
3) Have ice cream for breakfast.
4) Wear sunglasses into the test room, and take the test with sunglasses on.
It has never failed me. The speed metal really gets your head in the right place, the ice cream is tasty, and the sunglasses make you comfortable.
And Barto:
The Aussie system is very different. Having been a student on exchange to melbourne once, I can tell you for sure that it's very different. The US method of learning is fairly classical. It's based on propositional thinking, and everything associated with that. Personally I don't like it either, but I don't really see how the Aussie system is much better. There needs to be a level of objectivity in assessment of student performance. Of course the Holy Grail of testing is to have a universally understood standardized test, but until then we'll deal with the SAT and etc.
Another thought for you: The SAT and ACT aren't administered by the government. Surprise, huh?
Well, I took the SAT this morning. Just about hours of testing, while sniffling from a severe cold and a headache. I still was able to concentrate and I feel unsure about how I did. I could be anywhere from a 900 to 1600. I just do not know. Oh well, if I have to take it again I will.
One thing; this test was easier in the math sections than practice SAT's I have taken before. The verbal was about the same but the analogies were a bit more complicated.
Once again, who knows? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>Anyone got examples of these SAT tests? As I understand it you´ll need to take them to get accepted at most colleges?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looking at examples defeats the purpose and the spirit of the test. It is meant to test your aptitude. I consider studying and learning tricks cheating.
Since I´m well into my fourth year at Uni and have no ambition to seek into an american university I think it would be safe to point me to an example of a SAT test if there is any on the net
There must be so old ones somewhere <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
If it's cheating, why do the same organizations that produce and publish the tests create the study guides? It's not cheating to gain an advance understanding of what the test will be about and how the questions will be asked. This allows you to be adequately prepared so that you won't be distracted or overly anxious were you to come across sections you didn't understand.
<strong>If it's cheating, why do the same organizations that produce and publish the tests create the study guides? It's not cheating to gain an advance understanding of what the test will be about and how the questions will be asked. This allows you to be adequately prepared so that you won't be distracted or overly anxious were you to come across sections you didn't understand.
Do you think negatively about everything?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They make those study guides because they are a for-profit organization. Ethics need not apply. It is not in the spirit of the test to learn how the questions will be asked and to learn various tricks that can be exploited to artificially inflate your score. If you can't figure out how to answer the damn question without prior knowledge of how the question will be asked, you shouldn't be going to college in the first place.
They make those study guides because they are a for-profit organization. Ethics need not apply. It is not in the spirit of the test to learn how the questions will be asked and to learn various tricks that can be exploited to artificially inflate your score. If you can't figure out how to answer the damn question without prior knowledge of how the question will be asked, you shouldn't be going to college in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to agree with BR. The best way to prepare for the SATs is to have a good analytical mind and to have read avidly since childhood. Depressingly few people do, particularly on the second count, but those who do can walk in cold and walk out with 1580's. Everything else is band-aids, happily sold to you by the folks who have no interest in your welfare or that of society, but who make a healthy profit off of suburban insecurities.
<strong>I have to agree with BR. The best way to prepare for the SATs is to have a good analytical mind and to have read avidly since childhood.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed. This is exactly why 99% of high schoolers today have to resort to cheating by learning how to beat the test.
I would say that you are completely out of line. There is no way to cheat on the SAT because what the SAT does is cheat the test taker. I know for a fact that Steve Jobs (let us use Steve Jobs as an example here ) never took the SAT's and never graduated from a university, but look at him now. Taking SAT prep courses only aid your knowledge of what to expect on the SAT, it doesnt help you understand more vocabulary or more math. Every time I take a practice SAT I am just doing what I would have, had I walked "in cold" on a real SAT. I apply what I know to a sheet of paper and then my life is somewhat determined by how the results of this paper are.
Is that fair?
The SAT is a measure of "horsepower" so to speak, I think there is a spectrum of scores that should be considered. I would argue that if someone scores less than 1000 on the SAT they need to rethink college plans, if they score 1600 they should also reconsider college.
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
I would say that you are completely out of line. There is no way to cheat on the SAT because what the SAT does is cheat the test taker. I know for a fact that Steve Jobs (let us use Steve Jobs as an example here ) never took the SAT's and never graduated from a university, but look at him now. Taking SAT prep courses only aid your knowledge of what to expect on the SAT, it doesnt help you understand more vocabulary or more math. Every time I take a practice SAT I am just doing what I would have, had I walked "in cold" on a real SAT. I apply what I know to a sheet of paper and then my life is somewhat determined by how the results of this paper are.
Is that fair?
The SAT is a measure of "horsepower" so to speak, I think there is a spectrum of scores that should be considered. I would argue that if someone scores less than 1000 on the SAT they need to rethink college plans, if they score 1600 they should also reconsider college.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Semantics and flawed logic. The test cheats so obviously you can't cheat it!
Feh. If you are of reasonable intelligence, you should muster a decent score. Learning how to beat the test is cheating.
Comments
<strong> I actually consider it quite an accomplishment to have made it into UM Law since I'm as white as they come, and being a white boy makes it harder to get into UMLAW then it is for a dumb boy to get into harvard.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not entirely true. Mostly white "legacy" applicants receive similar "plus points."
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
In Canberra, we do 5 classes a semester in year 11 and 12. 4 assigments per class. Two tests, a presentation and an essay. Most of the marks are obtained through original thought. The top 80% of your assignments are counted in a class. You do 3 majors (set of 4 classes) and one minor (set of 2 classes) minimum. Your best 3 majors and minor are counted in your final result, or University Admissions Index (UAI).
There is moderation amongst teachers to determine what classes and colleges (year 11 and 12) are smarter, combinded with an Australian Scaling Test (AST). All classes are adjusted to a mean of 65 and SD of 15.
It's a very fair system. I'm heading for a UAI of around 80, enough to do most subjects at the Australian National University (ANU).
Barto
<strong>I just don't understand why someone would say "I'm aiming for 1300." I mean, I never hear anybody say, "I'm aiming for mediocrity!" or "I'm aiming for a good, but not great score!" When I took the SAT, I aimed for 1600. I didn't get it, but still...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I was a bit miffed when I didn't get the 1600, because when I left the room I really felt I had it. . . Oh well, ancient history.
Here's my strategy for pre-standardized-test:
1) Before going to sleep, listen to some speed metal. The Album "Kill 'em All" is good here, because it's catchy and fast.
2) When you wake up listen to your favorite 3 songs from Kill 'Em All.
3) Have ice cream for breakfast.
4) Wear sunglasses into the test room, and take the test with sunglasses on.
It has never failed me. The speed metal really gets your head in the right place, the ice cream is tasty, and the sunglasses make you comfortable.
And Barto:
The Aussie system is very different. Having been a student on exchange to melbourne once, I can tell you for sure that it's very different. The US method of learning is fairly classical. It's based on propositional thinking, and everything associated with that. Personally I don't like it either, but I don't really see how the Aussie system is much better. There needs to be a level of objectivity in assessment of student performance. Of course the Holy Grail of testing is to have a universally understood standardized test, but until then we'll deal with the SAT and etc.
Another thought for you: The SAT and ACT aren't administered by the government. Surprise, huh?
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>
One thing; this test was easier in the math sections than practice SAT's I have taken before. The verbal was about the same but the analogies were a bit more complicated.
Once again, who knows? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>Anyone got examples of these SAT tests? As I understand it you´ll need to take them to get accepted at most colleges?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looking at examples defeats the purpose and the spirit of the test. It is meant to test your aptitude. I consider studying and learning tricks cheating.
There must be so old ones somewhere <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Do you think negatively about everything?
<strong>If it's cheating, why do the same organizations that produce and publish the tests create the study guides? It's not cheating to gain an advance understanding of what the test will be about and how the questions will be asked. This allows you to be adequately prepared so that you won't be distracted or overly anxious were you to come across sections you didn't understand.
Do you think negatively about everything?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They make those study guides because they are a for-profit organization. Ethics need not apply. It is not in the spirit of the test to learn how the questions will be asked and to learn various tricks that can be exploited to artificially inflate your score. If you can't figure out how to answer the damn question without prior knowledge of how the question will be asked, you shouldn't be going to college in the first place.
<strong>
They make those study guides because they are a for-profit organization. Ethics need not apply. It is not in the spirit of the test to learn how the questions will be asked and to learn various tricks that can be exploited to artificially inflate your score. If you can't figure out how to answer the damn question without prior knowledge of how the question will be asked, you shouldn't be going to college in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
you have issues
<strong>I have to agree with BR. The best way to prepare for the SATs is to have a good analytical mind and to have read avidly since childhood.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed. This is exactly why 99% of high schoolers today have to resort to cheating by learning how to beat the test.
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>
Indeed. This is exactly why 99% of high schoolers today have to resort to cheating by learning how to beat the test.
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would say that you are completely out of line. There is no way to cheat on the SAT because what the SAT does is cheat the test taker. I know for a fact that Steve Jobs (let us use Steve Jobs as an example here
Is that fair?
The SAT is a measure of "horsepower" so to speak, I think there is a spectrum of scores that should be considered. I would argue that if someone scores less than 1000 on the SAT they need to rethink college plans, if they score 1600 they should also reconsider college.
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
<strong>
I would say that you are completely out of line. There is no way to cheat on the SAT because what the SAT does is cheat the test taker. I know for a fact that Steve Jobs (let us use Steve Jobs as an example here
Is that fair?
The SAT is a measure of "horsepower" so to speak, I think there is a spectrum of scores that should be considered. I would argue that if someone scores less than 1000 on the SAT they need to rethink college plans, if they score 1600 they should also reconsider college.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Semantics and flawed logic. The test cheats so obviously you can't cheat it!
Feh. If you are of reasonable intelligence, you should muster a decent score. Learning how to beat the test is cheating.
<strong>
Semantics and flawed logic. The test cheats so obviously you can't cheat it!
Feh. If you are of reasonable intelligence, you should muster a decent score. Learning how to beat the test is cheating.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Learning how to beat and learning how to take are totally different.