|
Post your SAT I and SAT II scores! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Omegasox |
| 1300 is good if you ask me. That's what got me a bunch of scholarships. But that might just be because I live in Amish country. :( |
|
|
| occrider |
760 English
680 Math
If I'm so good at English why the am I so poor at articulation? |
|
|
| dartman |
1190
540 math
650 english
i thought i did pretty good on them but after reading this thread.... |
|
|
| alphawav |
!!!!!!!!!!!SATs SUCK HAIRY ASS DICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
don't give the SAT ******S ANY $$$! hahahahaha |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
I
English 550
Math 690
II
Spanish 740
History 770
Math IC 680 ( sucks super dick BUT there was this question involving the NON metric system- whatever you call your ing American system- and that toally broke my concentration cause I had no clue)
TOEFL 647 and 5.0 on the essay....... |
|
|
| 'mju:zik |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
710 Math
780 Math IIC SATII
|
lol were you drunk for your SAT 1?? The one you got a higher score in is a harder test.
Never took SAT II because I was going t oart school......
math 800
verbal 680
this was a few years ago tho....the test gets easier every year. |
|
|
| Konijn Island |
1280: 700V; 580M
qualifier: took 'em one time, no prep course and absolutely no studying...
(also no SAT II's 'cause I was a bit-time slacker and the mediocre college I went to didn't require them--i did fairly well on the GRE tho)
btw, standardized tests are utter bull and are a measure of absolutely nothing of substance :whip: |
|
|
| jinxed84 |
never took the SAT's (going to the army)
took the PSAT twice though 1180 both times. i think i may have actually got the same verbal and math scores both times. /shrug at least im consistent
anyone taken the ASVABS or AFAST?
asvabs i got a 94/100 with 124/130 GT
AFAST i got a 112 i think (anything between 90 and 172 is passing, yeah its a wierd test. yay or nay type of thing) |
|
|
| 'mju:zik |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Konijn Island standardized tests are utter bull and are a measure of absolutely nothing of substance :whip: |
what are you talking about? they measure your ability to study for a test lol
soooo much is known about the test (SAT) how could u not do well??? every single part of the math is outlined and all you need to know is how to work problems and do it quickly. verbal is mainly vocab which is memorization. so the test obviously measures a. your comitment to studyin, b. your ability to memorize the information you need to study, and c. the speed at which you do this. if the test ment nothing it wouldn't be used as an asessment tool. |
|
|
| Konijn Island |
| quote: | Originally posted by 'mju:zik
what are you talking about? they measure your ability to study for a test lol
soooo much is known about the test (SAT) how could u not do well??? every single part of the math is outlined and all you need to know is how to work problems and do it quickly. verbal is mainly vocab which is memorization. so the test obviously measures a. your comitment to studyin, b. your ability to memorize the information you need to study, and c. the speed at which you do this. if the test ment nothing it wouldn't be used as an asessment tool. |
i said it measures nothing of substance dude--if you consider the ability to "memorize" facts, perform rote excercises quickly, devote 'x' amount of time to preparation, and, most likely, have your mommy and daddy pay for a prep course or a tutor, then by all means the test is of critical importance.
if, however, you consider creativity, originality of thought, and an analytical mind to be measures of distinction, then standarized tests measure absolutely nothing.
Standardized tests, and the billion-dollar test-prep industry they buttress, are simply a means of allowing academic evaluators to be intellectually lazy; that is, to substitute an in-depth evaluation of a particular candidate/applicant with a meaningless and arbitrary number.
If you think that "sooo much" is known about the tricks of the test, I can all but guarantee that you didn't attend an overcrowded or underperforming public school, because in the vast majority of those schools (and, by extension. the majority of American schools in general) these tricks of the trade aren't readily available.
I have seen this firsthand. I attended a specialized magnet high school in New York City (i got in by, you guessed it, performing well on a standardized test) while my brother attended a ty neighborhood high school in Brooklyn. Despite seriously slacking off for four years, I still had resources and support networks at my disposal that my brother and his peers couldn't imagine even though they ostensibly worked harder than me. Standardized tests and "tracking" programs at the elementary and junior high school levels are just smoke and mirrors to distract from the structural problems and inequalities of American schools.
On a final note, I currently teach a fancy university on the east coast where the average SAT scores are among the highest in the nation. Comparing these students to others i've worked with in public university systems, I can assure you that the difference in student caliber is not a function of test scores... |
|
|
| SuperFarStucker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Konijn Island
i said it measures nothing of substance dude--if you consider the ability to "memorize" facts, perform rote excercises quickly, devote 'x' amount of time to preparation, and, most likely, have your mommy and daddy pay for a prep course or a tutor, then by all means the test is of critical importance.
if, however, you consider creativity, originality of thought, and an analytical mind to be measures of distinction, then standarized tests measure absolutely nothing.
Standardized tests, and the billion-dollar test-prep industry they buttress, are simply a means of allowing academic evaluators to be intellectually lazy; that is, to substitute an in-depth evaluation of a particular candidate/applicant with a meaningless and arbitrary number.
If you think that "sooo much" is known about the tricks of the test, I can all but guarantee that you didn't attend an overcrowded or underperforming public school, because in the vast majority of those schools (and, by extension. the majority of American schools in general) these tricks of the trade aren't readily available.
I have seen this firsthand. I attended a specialized magnet high school in New York City (i got in by, you guessed it, performing well on a standardized test) while my brother attended a ty neighborhood high school in Brooklyn. Despite seriously slacking off for four years, I still had resources and support networks at my disposal that my brother and his peers couldn't imagine even though they ostensibly worked harder than me. Standardized tests and "tracking" programs at the elementary and junior high school levels are just smoke and mirrors to distract from the structural problems and inequalities of American schools.
On a final note, I currently teach a fancy university on the east coast where the average SAT scores are among the highest in the nation. Comparing these students to others i've worked with in public university systems, I can assure you that the difference in student caliber is not a function of test scores... |
The very nature of creativity/originally of thought makes it difficult to objectively measure, so perhaps there should just not be any tests at all eh? I'll cede to the point that standardized tests are the "easy" way out for educators, but for the most part, people are driven to take the "easy way" out in all things, so it shouldn't be overtly surprising to anyone.
I attend an "underperforming" public school as you would say, and you are correct, no attempt to undermine the decieving difficulty of these tests (that is to say, they aren't difficult at all if you know the "strategies" (or lack thereof) employed in them). However, one with the perogative to get a decent score on such a test can easily access material which will provide the in's and out's of such things for virtually no charge at their local library...
It's interesting that your able to draw such conclusions due to your position within the education community, and I suppose you would know better than I about the situation due to it. However, I always percieved such tests as a binary measure of something quite a bit different then they claim.
That being said I am taking my SAT's on october 11th and I fully expect to ring in a 1300+ on them based on some preliminary "research" i've done on it (about 10 hours). |
|
|
|
|
