SAT

[yenom]

Any SAT takers here? What is your score?

 

[Venom]

i took it a long time ago.

710V 630M

Looking back though, i think my math growth was stunted by being taught by INTPs my entire 8-12 grade. When ever i had a math related subject since, taught by XXTJs, i did awesome. I had an INTP for math stuff recently, and once again, did terrible.

point is, i hate this test, because that math score still haunts me even post college! (yes, many of the jobs ive applied to require you to put down SAT scores!)

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I think the scores are somewhat meaningless, since they have changed the standards a couple of times. The year that someone took the test would play a factor.

 

[Nyx]

on the new SAT

first time (didn't study):

Critical Reading: 790
Math: 600

second time (studied):

Critical Reading: 800

Math: 700


bleehhhhh this test=death.

 

[icmlite]

Math: 800
Verbal: 800
Critical Reading: 760

I didn't study, but I test well, so personally I don't think the SATs are really indicative of anything at all -_-. I am glad however that the colleges I applied to saw fit to look past my questionable work ethic and relatively low GPA to take a chance on a kid with a lot of heart and a strangely high SAT score. Maybe I'll end up with a real job after I graduate haha.

 

[redacted]

took it before it was out of 2400. got 780 math, 710 verbal. got 750 on the writing SAT2, so I guess that would convert to 2240 in the new test.

i've found that the further away from the average you are, the more the test means. i have a couple of friends that are incredibly smart -- i would consider them at least 2 SDs above average, and got in the 1100 range (on the old one).

most people i know that averaged above 700 per subject are pretty smart, though.

 

[millerm277]

2100 for me on the new test.

Math: 710
Verbal: 710
Writing: 680

Didn't study, only took it once, it was all I need.

 

[Snuggletron]

I think I got around 1540 on the new test. I took it since I thought I needed it for college if I were to transfer. I'm at a community college now so the scores didn't matter.

I hated taking this test, I ended up nearly christmas-treeing everything near then end. I was tired of sitting there for hours.

Can't remember my individual scores, I bombed the math part, though. That's for sure. 480s or something. Even if I try at math I'm lucky if I get anywhere around 'average'. Writing was my best at maybe 610(?) and Critical reading was ~average.

The SATs really tested my attention span above all. What a great test if all you care about are mathematical and linguistic ability.

 

[poppy]

I didn't study, but I test well, so personally I don't think the SATs are really indicative of anything at all -_-. I am glad however that the colleges I applied to saw fit to look past my questionable work ethic and relatively low GPA to take a chance on a kid with a lot of heart and a strangely high SAT score. Maybe I'll end up with a real job after I graduate haha.

That was me too (though my scores were a bit lower than yours). The fact that my college admission and financial aid were more or less dependent on a multiple choice test? Golden. Almost seems unfair really.

As for studying...why would you (plural you)? It isn't a test of learned knowledge so much as one of ability to make connections and see patterns. People who aren't inclined towards the particular brand of intelligence it tests are unlikely to do significantly better by engaging in traditional forms of study (ie memorization).

I think the SAT is one of those things. You either have it or you don't. I've known pretty intelligent people who test quite average. A lot of these were sensors, who I think are at a disadvantage when it comes to this kind of test (though there are plenty of sensors who do well, and intuitives who do poorly).

 

[Cimarron]

first time (didn't study):

second time (studied):

That was how I approached it, too. The studying in between raised my score by about 70 points per section. There were indeed a few tricks/maneuvers as a "type of problem" I didn't realize the test was looking for, and studying helped me identify a few of those when I saw them.

 

[Kingfisher]

i don't remember my scores, but i did pretty bad. it is a wonder i got in to college.
i do remember that i scored much higher on verbal than math.

 

[FDG]

I got 9999

 

[edcoaching]

The SAT was designed to predict how well people will do the first six months of college. I took it in 1977 when no one studied for it so cumulative 1340 was top 2% I got teh same score on GMAT and GRE, all by same company (I think).

Isabel Myers originally publised the MBTI with ETS, which publishes the PSAT and SAT. In 1963 she found that 82% of the merit scholarships went to Intuitives although the population is 75% S and posited that the bias was in the time limit on the test.

In the 1990's two researchers at Worchester Polytechnic acquired item-by-tem scores for 9000 students and their MBTI results. They found a 150-point bias against Sensing types and narrowed the cause (when students had taken the same college prep classes) to the guessing factor. You're penalized for guessing, N's trust their guesses, S's second-guess themselves and do worse when they start feeling uncertain...their results never got published because the SAT changed...

 

[Nyx]

That was how I approached it, too. The studying in between raised my score by about 70 points per section. There were indeed a few tricks/maneuvers as a "type of problem" I didn't realize the test was looking for, and studying helped me identify a few of those when I saw them.

Exactly. part of it is knowing what they look for... The whole test is just a game. I finished high school when I was 16 and took the SAT when I was 17 (that's why my math score was low the first time). Actually, I did not study for reading the second time either. I was lucky I read so much and have a natural aptitude for English because that section was a breeze, especially the vocabulary. I had to study for math the second time even though I had been 2 years ahead in school because I was really rusty with it and was much slower at solving problems (the math is actually quite easy though but math as a subject is not my strongest). I had a friend who was in AP Pre Calc with an A average when she took the SAT and got a 590 on math... go figure.

 

[Hands Mechanical]

Took it my senior year of high school in 2007 (new test). 2200: 760 reading, 760 math, 680 writing

All standardized tests are total crap.

 

[dorcus0]

Took it two years ago, junior year of high school. 2170: 720 reading, 800 math, 650 writing
Took it a year ago, senior year of high school. 2130: 740 reading, 700 math, 690 writing

(my math score went down since I put more effort into getting a score of 680 or more on the writing section. That, and math is particularly unforgiving of mistakes.)


That being said, the SAT is more a test of endurance than of anything else. Can you stay focused for hours on end and not make any mistakes?

 

[scantilyclad]

I did really well on the SAT. I took it junior year in high school. I don't remember the exact scores for each portion, but my combined score was 1490. (old SAT)

It doesn't really matter though. I got into some decent colleges, but I couldn't afford to go to them, so instead i chose to not go to college for 5 years. I go to community college now, and they don't care about my SAT scores. In fact, they were too old to use, and I had to take the accuplacer test. I bombed the math portion so badly, that i couldn't even get into college algebra. Not sure what happened there.

 

[Mole]

For those who don't know history, it is as if they were born yesterday.

And interestingly the history of SAT, along with the history of MBTI, shows both found their origins in Eugenics in the United States of America.

And Eugenics is a pseudo science that wages war on the weak.