ACT? SAT? IDK!

I don't think these tests are necessarily fair because I know many people who spent many hours ( and dollars) studying for these tests only to be disappointed, but I do think they have a purpose and the emphasis placed on them is worth it, because as studies show, the higher scores are correlated with better college performance. Even though some people can ace the test with no studying while others prepare for days on end get a high score, the fact is, is that the ACT is a decent and standardized predictor which goes farther than GPA's which really are judged differently in every school district. So far, I'd say my own scores did a good job of predicting success, but we will see how that turns out in a few years! haha.

I also do not think these tests are extremely fair. I think it is a way to gauge if an individual is extremely bright and intelligent, but at the same time some people are horrible test takers. Preparation plays a huge role, but for some people these tests really do seem to stump them. If one scores an amazing score on these tests, it is clear that individual is most likely pretty intelligent. But if a person scores rather low, I wouldn't count that person out as far as his or her intelligence goes.

I'm glad you addressed this topic because I think the idea of a test being able to predict success (in college in this case) is interesting. I do think that in some ways the ACT/SAT is a useful tool for colleges in assessing the future success of potential students, however, they shouldn't rely solely on this score. I feel like this debate is similar to the IQ test debate we had in our previous discussion class.
The ACT/SAT, in my opinion, isn't a clear reflection of one's intelligence. Maybe a a student just isn't a good test taker. They could have anxiety and not deal with the time limit well, etc. Additionally, if it was a clear representation, why would one's score be able to fluctuate? I know many who retook the ACT and had a difference as big as 6. To me, this gives a hint that this test isn't reflecting one's true intelligence.

I feel that it is ridiculous and unfair how much emphasis is put on the ACT/SAT for entry to college. I took the test multiple times and went to preparation classes to do well on it. The out come did not reflect the type of student I was in high and am today. My score was a lot lower then what I should of received. I feel that everyone tests differently and that reflects the outcome of the score. Like we discussed in class about the IQ test being to deciding factor for a job, I believe that it shouldn't be and either should the ACT/SAT. There is so much about people and the type of student they are then a one time test.

Unfortunately, these tests are not the greatest things out there, I believe. But there is really no way around it. Students need to realize that these standardized tests will not go away and is pretty much the staple for America. Since there is no way around it students need to prepare but a majority of them will not. I didn't study for the ACT just because I felt that I had should already know everything that I would be tested on. I think people that study for the ACT don't represent their collegiate ways that they will put forward. You need to work on classes overall in the big picture and not just have a cram session for one big test. I've come to the realization that high school is nothing like college obviously and I need to plan accordingly.

I took the ACT once, got a 24, and have a 4.0 gpa. So my score did not really predict college success for me. My score has made me question if I really am smart or just a hard worker. I got A's in all my science classes in high school and was recognized by my teachers as being an outstanding student, but on the science portion of the ACT I did not know a SINGLE answer. I have done well in my college science courses so far, so this is why I feel like the ACT, at least for me, has not been a good predictor for success. Another complaint I have to make about it, is the writing portion I didn't score very well on because there was a certain format that you were supposed to write in, which they didn't tell you! Your last paragraph was supposed to address a counter argument, and the whole thing was supposed to be like 5 paragraphs. All they said was write about this. Anyone who had taken practice tests would have known but I winged it, so whatever. I've gotten A's on all my college papers and passed the AP English/Writing exam in 10th grade with a 4 so screw the ACT's score on my writing.

I truly believe, and so do many of my friends and family that the ACT tests your ability to take a test. While I think that it can tell a person how they interpret the way things are written,(other than the math section), there are many factors that add into the test. For me, I panic when I know I am taking a test. Often times, I can do the work by myself but when put on the spot I worry about whether I am remembering something right. That is a testing flaw on my part and I feel that because of this I miss points on things I would never miss if not under pressure. The fact the test can be taken more than once and only the best score needs to be sent out also tells the school nothing. I know a girl who had one of the highest ACT scores of the class, but only because she would prep and keep taking the test until she at least beat a 31. I think this shows a good character of persistence and desire to do well, but I do not see how it reflects her intelligence.

I completely agree with you. I did not want to take the ACT because I'm a horrible test taker and I knew that this wouldn't prove my potential for collegiate success. I didn't study for the test and I only took it once. I scored a 26. That is not very high, it's more in the average range. I didn't honestly care though because I didn't want my college acceptance to be based on how able I was to take tests. I do hope the standardized testing system for college admittance changes in years to come. I do know that a lot of schools nowadays place a lot more emphasis on a person being well-rounded than a person having above a 4.0 in high school, but not being involved in anything. I also agree with you that the grades you got in high school should be taken into account more. Some students take very challenging classes in high school and excel in them. Then when they go to take the ACT, they don't do well. That's not fair in my opinion.

I agree with you as well as many of the other comments that the ACT measures ones ability to take a test. The ACT does not measure work ethic it simply measures general intelligence. I think that the ACT is ranked fourth overall in terms of weight when applying to college behind community involvement/extra-curricular activities, gpa, and coarse difficulty.

I can only comment on the ACT, because I only took the SAT subject tests (math and chemistry). I think that the ACT caters to students that are better in math and science. The English and Reading sections on the ACT, in my opinion, are fairly easy compared to the other sections of the test. I am a math and science person, not an English person either, so I'm not biased. I feel like most of the English and Reading section can be figured out if you are literate in English. The math section, however, is much less intuitive. You either know how to do math, or you don't. For instance, I took the ACT for a program through my school in 7th grade. I did atrociously on the math section, I think I got a 16 or 17 on it. On the other sections, however, I scored in the low to mid 20s. When I took the test my junior year of high school, I scored a 35 on math, and in the mid to high 20s on the rest. My math score went up 18 points, while the rest when up maybe 4 or 5. If someone is not a math person, they won't necessarily score well on the ACT, but they could be amazing in other subjects. I think admittance to science and engineering majors should rely heavier than others on the ACT.

I would have to say that although someone is not good at taking a test, it still measures to some degree how well you will do in the coming years. If so much emphasis is placed on a test, then its probably a good idea to prepare for that test. That being said, I think less emphasis should be placed around the results of the test, like doing well in challenging classes through out high school. I think this should be one of the main components because if a student doesn't take school seriously in high school and work hard, then why would they deserve acceptance into a good college? The kids who do challenge themselves and work hard should always have first priority in my opinion.

This is a really controversial topic Dalton that affects so many students every year. I agree that often these one time tests may not be completely accurate at predicting how well a student will do in college but it may be the best measure we have currently.

The ACT and SAT have been around for a long time and plenty of research has gone into designing these tests. The reason they are so widely used is because the are a form of standardized testing that is the same for everyone.

If colleges went by your method, not only would it be more time consuming and costly, but it would be difficult to compare the courses across different programs. A person earning an A in organic chem in Alabama may be different from someone earning the same grade in the same class in a top school in Minnesota.

Fortunately your ACT score is just one of many criteria schools look at. A very low score is a red flag and a person might need high recommendations in other areas to make up for it.

And you are right, someone who works their butt off to get a good score might also be willing to work that hard when in college.

I think like most people, these test are bullshit. Yeah they can tell how intelligent someone is but it is stating how intelligent one is when they are under stress and a short amount of time. I think that if they want these test to be truly accurate they need to allow everyone as much time as needed to complete the test. I got a 28 on the ACT and didn't get into two of my top schools because my ACT was not high enough. It wasn't that I didn't know the information, it was the fact that I simply didn't have enough time. In the real world people are not told to answer 50 questions in 50 minutes. If you are truly smart you will be able to get something done when you have the correct amount of time. These test don't measure someone's intelligence, they don't account for how much time one can spend studying to get the correct answer. I think that this system is flawed and it needs to be corrected. Look at GPA's!!!!!!!!