Talk:SAT

src: i.ytimg.com

Video Talk:SAT

Added content

I added some more content. Stuff someone should add soon:

• links to more statistics
• sample questions
• comparision with PSAT, etc

Also, I feel there should be a rebuttal of some of the criticism (for example, IIRC, Asians score slightly higher than whites on the test) but I'm unsure how to do this in a NPOV style.

I keep switching the "five column grid" phrase in the SAT Reasoning Test section to "four column grid," because that's what actually is. I have proof: [[http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/prep_one/spr/prac/prac01.html SAT Student-Produced Responses]] Whoever is switching it back should stop.

Hm. Sorry, for some reason I kept thinking you were changing the one referring to the usual five-column grid. Hope you weren't discouraged or anything. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

'k, I may have goofed on that one. Like the posters say, given the %&^#@ that's ongoing in that country it's too hard to tell. Kwantus 14:01, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

What are the SAT subject tests (SAT II) for?

What is a perfect score on the SAT I? \

Hi I'm new here... I have an idea though. Maybe the bit about the Asians scoring slightly higher than white should be taken off of here. That's ethnocentrism/prejudice. Thanks!

Oh and sorry I don't have any info on the SAT s but I will take them soon

Maps Talk:SAT

New SAT

OK, since the New SAT has officially been administered for the first time (I took it yesterday, yay!), I think it's time to update the information to reflect this as the primary area of information (currently, it pretty much sums up the old version and then briefly comments on the new one). Any objections?--User:naryathegreat(t) 20:45, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I support this move. We shouldn't remove info on the old version, though; just add more on the new one. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

src: www.nydailynews.com

English SATs

My mistake, there is some information on the disambiguation page. Still, maybe it should be more prominent?

I don't even see a disambiguation page? Can someone re-add this ASAP.

src: i.ytimg.com

2006 SAT Scoring error

I added the news about the error under the history section, but it could probably be added to a different part, or maybe be made into a new section. I'm not sure if I put it in the best place. If anyone wants to do anything about it, here's a news article with some of the information:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002860011_satfallout12.html

src: storage.googleapis.com

Incorrect?

"The "old" SAT had an incredibly high ceiling. In any given year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. If one makes the reasonable assumption that all of the very brightest people in that U.S. age group, which numbers 3 million, took the test, then a score above 1580 has a rarity of about one in 400 thousand., equivalent to the 99.9997 percentile. [3]"

The source that is cited here refers to the SAT before what is now know known as the "old" SAT...the one that was replaced in 1995. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to affirm about either the pre- or post-1995 test the claim that "a score above 1580 has a rarity of about one in 400 thousand." Deleted the section.

I don't see how this claim (7 in a million to get 1580) could be possibly be correct. A friend took it in 1977 and got 1590. I met or heard of several people with similar or better. To me this speaks of 1 in 900 or 1 in 5000, not 1 in 100,000. Otherwise where did all the super smart people of these generations come from? It wasn't just some pathetic coterie of 7 people, but thousands and tens of thousands. (The friend is a professor of math at a top place, but as I said, there are thousands and tens of thousands.)

src: i.ytimg.com

University of California's conversion chart

This conversion chart either has changed or is flawed. They do not use the composite for the ACT instead, "[T]he University multiplies the sum of your converted math, reading and science scores by two-thirds, then adds the converted English/writing score." the article is misleading. I would use the one by The Princeton Review found here [1]. Zginder 2008-04-17T22:10Z (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what conversion chart you're talking about. Are you referring to the conversion from ACT scores to U. of California entrance scores? I'm not sure how this information would be relevant to the SAT article. Erjwiki (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Universities are colleges, correct?

There's an editor who just reverted my attempt to include universities as colleges. It's been my understanding that universities are one of several categories of colleges, just as there are state colleges and community colleges. When people talk about going to college, they include universities in that discussion. Therefore, can we accept the wording "universities and other colleges" rather than the non-inclusive, error-prone "colleges and universities," which makes the error of removing universities from the category of colleges? Awaiting comment, please. Thank you. Thayve Sintar (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

WP:RS question

Is any NY Times best-seller automatically considered a reliable source? The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

Addition to Gender Association and Organization of Perception Section

Hello, I am part of a group for my University's Education class working on adding culture gaps to certain Wikipedia pages. I plan on adding more information to the gender association topic under perception by illuminating the idea of stereotype threat. Also, I will be reorganizing the structure to the Perception Section. Thank you and I will be looking forward to getting your feedback.

src: i.ytimg.com

Misleading statistics in "association with socioeconomic status"

The NY Times article cited, which claims to explain 95% of the variance in SAT scores by attributing it to SES, uses extremely sloppy and misleading statistics. The correlation in that article is taken at the means of each income level, without factoring in the variance at each level. The true correlation which accounts for variance at each level (assuming it's equal to the average variance in SAT scores, which is as decent a starting point as any) is far less, most certainly below .4 and probably somewhere in the neighborhood of .1. I don't think such a misleading statistic should be included in this article. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.186.51.155 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

We can't rely on original research or personal opinions by Wikipedia editors so you'll need to cite reliable sources that support these assertions. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not original research, it's an observation which is directly confirmed in the NYT article by its authors. Assumptions about what the true variance is are certainly speculation, and I'm not saying we should include those assumptions. But the information currently stated in the Wikipedia article is simply incorrect - whoever put it there did not carefully read or understand the source they cited. 37.186.51.155 (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The real problem is including a poorly described and non-peer reviewed study in an encyclopedia article. But I think that I've addressed your concern by simply removing the r-squared value from the article; it's attributing way too much precision to this study given its many limitations and potential issues. ElKevbo (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia