Should SAT Scores Be Eliminated from College Admissions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter elfboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Iq
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of SAT scores in college admissions, particularly debating whether they should be eliminated. Participants explore the implications of SATs and IQ tests on academic performance, intelligence measurement, and the potential consequences of removing standardized testing from the admissions process.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that IQ and SAT scores are reliable predictors of potential and complex reasoning ability, suggesting that removing SATs could lead to negative outcomes such as longer graduation times and increased academic probation.
  • Others challenge the validity of SATs and IQ tests, questioning whether changing the name of the SAT makes it an IQ test and expressing skepticism about the tests' ability to measure intelligence accurately.
  • There are claims that drawing conclusions from IQ test results, which are not fully understood, could be considered unwise, although some argue that consistent results indicate that the tests measure some property, even if that property is not well-defined.
  • Participants discuss the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information, with some asserting that it is not reliable in serious contexts, while others suggest that it may be more accurate than traditional academic sources in certain cases.
  • There is a mention of studies indicating that IQ tests were originally designed to identify children needing extra education, and that the creator of these tests did not believe intelligence was fixed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the validity and implications of SAT and IQ testing, with no clear consensus reached. Disagreement exists regarding the reliability of these tests and the consequences of their potential removal from the admissions process.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on assumptions about the nature of intelligence and the effectiveness of standardized testing, while the discussion includes references to studies and opinions that may not be universally accepted or verified.

elfboy
Messages
92
Reaction score
1
IQ & SAT scores are a reliable predicator of potential, complex reasoning ability says experts

Efforts to do away with SATs in college admissions process results in longer graduation times, more academic probation, and diminished learning environmental for more mentally capable students.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
elfboy said:
IQ & SAT scores are a reliable predicator of potential, complex reasoning ability says experts

Efforts to do away with SATs in college admissions process results in longer graduation times, more academic probation, and diminished learning environmental for more mentally capable students.

Source?
 
elfboy said:
Efforts to do away with SATs in college admissions process results in longer graduation times, more academic probation, and diminished learning environmental for more mentally capable students.

Sounds like the College Board wrote that...

I think IQ tests are stupid.
 
jhae2.718 said:
I think IQ tests are stupid.

They are not stupid, they measure something. If ruler gives consistent results, it is not stupid.

We just don't know what they measure.
 
Borek said:
They are not stupid, they measure something. If ruler gives consistent results, it is not stupid.

We just don't know what they measure.

If we do not know what these tests measure other than how well you do on iq questions, then isn't it stupid to take the tests and infer conclusions from the results?
 
Oerg said:
If we do not know what these tests measure other than how well you do on iq questions, then isn't it stupid to take the tests and infer conclusions from the results?

Drawing conclusions from results we don't understand is stupid, it doesn't mean result is stupid.

Note: I am not defending IQ tests, all I am saying is if they give consistent results they do measure some property of the object tested. Properties are not stupid - in the worst case they are useless.
 
Borek said:
Drawing conclusions from results we don't understand is stupid, it doesn't mean result is stupid.

Note: I am not defending IQ tests, all I am saying is if they give consistent results they do measure some property of the object tested. Properties are not stupid - in the worst case they are useless.


"Stupid" and "useless" are synonymous words among the general, less educated population. :biggrin:
 
I would be willing to venture a guess that IQ test results are correlated with success in certain fields, but not in others. IQ tests are very limited on what kind of intelligence they test.
 
  • #10
Newai said:
"Stupid" and "useless" are synonymous words among the general, less educated population. :biggrin:

Flanders:
"Ignorant" and "stupid" don't mean the same thing...

Homer:
Well they do to me!
 
  • #11
Chi Meson said:
Flanders:
"Ignorant" and "stupid" don't mean the same thing...

Homer:
Well they do to me!

That's.

Perfect.
 
  • #12
Chi Meson said:
Flanders:
"Ignorant" and "stupid" don't mean the same thing...

Homer:
Well they do to me!

\two thumbs up
 
  • #13
Proton Soup said:
i'm not sure changing the name of the SAT automagically makes it an IQ test now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT

Is Wikipedia considered a reliable source now?
 
  • #14
Geezer said:
Is Wikipedia considered a reliable source now?

Not in any serious context.
 
  • #15
jhae2.718 said:
Not in any serious context.

Care to wager a gentleman's bet of exactly ZERO dollars that Wikipedia is more accurate on average than the collective knowledge-base of all Ivy League academics?

Should you accept the wager, please don't expect me to prove it. The studies to confirm or disconfirm will come in time; and the purpose of posts such as this one is to encourage qualified academics to conduct the relevant studies.

TEST:
What is the average semimajor-axis distance between the planets and the SUN, expressed in AU?

Is the best answer to be found in textbooks or upon Wikipedia?Raphie

RELATED:
"Here Comes Everybody" by Clay Shirky
 
  • #16
Geezer said:
Is Wikipedia considered a reliable source now?

you have some reason to think it tests IQ and not academic preparedness?
 
  • #17
Borek said:
Properties are not stupid - in the worst case they are useless.

Actually, Borek, in the worst case, "properties" lead to genocide. But who's to quibble?

- RF

P.S. Stephen Pinkerton's "The Blank Slate" is well worth a read for those interested in how knowledge can be misused.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Raphie said:
Care to wager a gentleman's bet of exactly ZERO dollars that Wikipedia is more accurate on average than the collective knowledge-base of all Ivy League academics?

Should you accept the wager, please don't expect me to prove it. The studies to confirm or disconfirm will come in time; and the purpose of posts such as this one is to encourage qualified academics to conduct the relevant studies.

TEST:
What is the average semimajor-axis distance between the planets and the SUN, expressed in AU?

Is the best answer to be found in textbooks or upon Wikipedia?Raphie

RELATED:
"Here Comes Everybody" by Clay Shirky

There was a study published in Nature that found Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica had a similar level of scientific errors.

However, in a more serious context, the standard is papers in peer-reviewed journals, as well as, perhaps, conference papers. I use Wikipedia for casual fact-checking all the time, but I wouldn't ever cite something from Wikipedia.

The accuracy of Wikipedia, however, is not the subject of this thread. In order to avoid further derailment, I will refrain from further comments on Wikipedia.
 
  • #19
jhae2.718 said:
There was a study published in Nature that found Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica had a similar level of scientific errors.

However, in a more serious context...

Would you mind sourcing this (as I find it quite interesting...) in more specific manner before becoming "serious" in regards to subsequent statements?

And... just for fun, care to comment on how those findings might reflect upon "societal IQ" versus, for instance, "individual IQ"?

- RF
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Most evidence shows that even schizophrenia does not significantly alter the IQ of the patient from the premorbid to morbid state.

"...their innate IQ is not necessarily impaired, but their ability to demonstrate their IQ is impaired."

Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, Surviving Schizophrenia.
 
  • #21
IQ tests were originally designed to identify children who need extra education, ie those 'low intelligence'. The guy who devised them did not believe intelligence was a fixed quantity.
 
  • #22
Raphie said:
Would you mind sourcing this (as I find it quite interesting...) in more specific manner before becoming "serious" in regards to subsequent statements?

And... just for fun, care to comment on how those findings might reflect upon "societal IQ" versus, for instance, "individual IQ"?

- RF

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/pdf/438900a.pdf"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
jhae2.718 said:
There was a study published in Nature that found Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica had a similar level of scientific errors.

Links to that study were posted here on PF some time in the last year.

Since then, a couple of studies have shown Wikipedia is slightly more accurate than Britannica, which is huge, considering the fact that Wikipedia covers many times more content than Britannica.

The accuracy of Wikipedia, however, is not the subject of this thread. In order to avoid further derailment, I will refrain from further comments on Wikipedia.

I think it's noteworthy of the effect of a collective/societal IQ, provided the knowledge is well-written, well-organized, and easily accessible, but only if the appropriate controls exist to ensure that false/bad information is quickly detected and reverted.

jhae2.718 said:
Not in any serious context.

For this statement to be taken seriously, one would have to prove that, currently, Britannica is significantly more accurate than Wikipedia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm" .

Wikipedia is doing a much better job of things these days than it did during its first few years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Admissions Why do Colleges Want "Well Rounded" Students?
  • · Replies 92 ·
4
Replies
92
Views
8K
Admissions Continuing formal education after an abrupt stop
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Admissions Opening the door to an Astrophysics PhD after a 5 year gap
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Schools Admission to graduate schools like MIT,Princeton(for physics,maths)
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
14K
Programs Grad prospects of a current International Senior in HS
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Schools Which college is better for physics and computer science: Brown or Northwestern?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Admissions What is a respectable GPA to graduate admissions?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Admissions How Does Applying to U.S. Colleges Differ for International Students?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Schools Going to grad school after military service? GRE scores and NUPOC.
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Programs How to continue after a major academic failure
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K