Talk:SAT/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Somebody who studied intelligence/developmental psychology, please fix awful race section

A lot of people I'm sure, high schools students and parents, read this article. Therefore a section that presents a single, rather uncommon, opinion as the main explanation for the testing gap needs to go. Completely absent are the decades of accumulated science on intelligence that shed light on this issue, and the corresponding mainstream opinion in both the scientific and testing communities.

Signed, 174.99.73.54 (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to suggest? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and removed the section. The idea of racial bias deserves to be covered in this article, but I agree that the section is problematic and should be entirely rewritten. 107.6.114.110 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've readded it. This article is about educational testing not IQ testing, so literature on intelligence or psychology is rather irrelevant. Also I think you are wrong in your idea about which views are common and uncommon. If you have better sources, please suggest them and we will add them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The section is indeed terrible and misrepresents sources. It's a fallacy to think that there is some deep difference between IQ and achievement tests. The SAT correlates with IQ tests like two IQ tests correlate with each other. From a psychometric perspective, the SAT is just another IQ test, measuring g plus some other abilities.

The article currently claims that "questions that are labeled as difficult on the SAT tend to be more correctly answered by black students whereas white students tend to answer them incorrectly." This is a misrepresentation of a study that found that the black-white gap was smaller on certain difficult items than on certain easy items in a particular year. IIRC, someone from the College Board responded to this, pointing out that this is just random fluctuation and data from other years show an opposite pattern.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Jencks 1998 describes very well why it is a problem to assume or suggest that the SAT is an intelligence test, for several reasons. He doesn't even go into the question of G. I removed a bunch of statements that were poorly written or poorly sourced, ubt I left that particular statement about difficulty of questions because the source looks reliable and I didnt have a chance to check whether it supports the statement. If you have the source and it doesnt support the fact then please remove it. However don't remove it if your doubt is not based on a reliable source. Also since I completely rewrote the section (albeit in a short time and somewhat improvisationally) pleaee be specific about whether you are referring to the version criticized by the OP or mine.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The current source (Crain 2003) for the question difficulty sentence is available here. The writing of this part of the paragraph really needs to be improved; it doesn't make it clear that the results are supported only for verbal questions and refer to students of similar overall ability. I think a better source is Jaschik (2010) already linked in the article (available here). It cites two studies: Freedle from 2003, to which the Crain article refers, and Santelices/Wilson from 2010, which found similar results in a study using different years of data. Unfortunately neither study is readily accessible. The article should also include mention that the College Board and ETS have disputed the results of both studies (for example: here and the Jaschik article). Erjwiki (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I should be able to use my friendly local academic library and the Wikipedia Library resources to dive deeper into the sources on the SAT. (Indeed, I already have, and I am still reading and digesting the sources.) This is one of the most disputed issues surrounding the SAT, so sourcing the section correctly, just like sourcing the whole article correctly, should help a lot to improve the article. I'll keep an eye on the latest edits and continue reading the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Still bad, but I improved it a whole lot just now.
N.B: there are most likely many explanations for the achievement gap. You shouldn't say it is "unknown" just because a single explanation has not been pinpointed as the true one and then proceed to bring out such single explanations as possible candidates. Also, the focus on African Americans in that section was undeserved—large gaps also exist with Hispanics and Native Americans. 24.211.136.174 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, I'll lay out my points more explicitly so you can respond to them:

• The biggest problem with your version of the section is that it is phrased in absolutes. The gap is "because of" X. Or it is "caused by" Y. This is not only an oversimplification but is a misleading way to think about issues in the social sciences. Scholars who write about such issues are much more careful by suggesting that causes "may contribute" to the effects. Effects like racial disparities can (and in fact do) have multiple causes. Read the article by Jencks more carefully.

• Saying that the causes for the gaps are "unknown" is misleading. It is true that the causes are not known 100% down pat, but in the social sciences, as well as in any science, we do not use "unknown" unless there is truly a paucity of plausible evidence. Here is there a great deal of very plausible evidence, as is made clear by the rest of the paragraph and the sources.

• The focus on African-Americans in the section is undeserved as they are significantly outnumbered by Hispanics in the U.S. It is true that most of the sources references are about African-Americans in particular, so it would be a good idea to go find more sources.

• There are multiple problems in flow. For example, why would you put "There is no evidence that SAT scores systematically underestimate performance in minority students" after "Some researchers who believe that there are biologically based difference in intelligence between racial groups have argued that since SAT correlates with performance on IQ tests, the SAT discrepancy supports their view"? It is neither a point in favor or against that view. Doesn't it belong right at the beginning of the paragraph so that notions about testing bias against particular minorities can be left at the door?

• There are multiple problems in logic. Take the second sentence I quoted in the previous point. How would the SAT correlating with performance on IQ tests, taken by itself, support the view that there are biologically-based differences in intelligence between racial groups? What if IQ test results were independent of the test-taker's innate traits? So you need to pull in another piece of evidence to complete the inference, namely evidence that IQ test results are related to the test-taker's innate traits in the same way that SAT scores are related to IQ tests.

• There are multiple irrelevant pieces of information. The bit about differences in college performance between students of different races with the same SAT scores—what has that got to do with the issue at hand, namely what causes SAT scores to be different in the first place? I understand you may be trying to use it to show that white students are "generally advantaged outside of the educational environment", but here we focus on SAT scores apart from all other measures of academic performance. Such a discrepancy only shows that white students may have an advantage that adds to different academic performance outside the SAT.

24.211.136.174 (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I will respond point by point, overall I dont think your version is bad:
• I agree that we can tone down the absolutes, and better describe the complex multicausality that underlies the observations.
• I agree that we can describe that some of the causes are known.
• In Wikipedia we summarize the literature - so if the literature focuses on African-Americans and dedicate less resources to describing the Latino gap then so will Wikipedia. If you can find additional sources describing also the Latino gap then feel free to add them.
• I agree the flow can be improved - the section grew kind of piecemeal from a section that seemed to have been written entirely by a proponent of the biological differences perspective.
• The problem here is that this only correlates for those who believe that IQ measures innate ability. That is why it should appear close to where that viewpoint is described. Hopefully this can be improved by improving the flow.
• I disagree that this information is irrelevant. I think it is highly relevant, and so do those who have written about it in relation to the SAT gap - it is a key piece in Jencks argument. It shows that what the SAT is measuring is not equally predictive for the future performance all groups - which is an important thing for readers to know about the racial gap.
  • Sure, but putting it in that paragraph suggests that it can used to explain the gap or undermine one of the explanations, which it can't, making it irrelevant. It should be put in a different paragraph with the subtopic "How predictive is the SAT for different racial groups?". 24.211.136.174 (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not a bad idea.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Finally you removed all information about stereotype threat which I will also reinsert, as this is central in the literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops! 24.211.136.174 (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The argument for stereotype threat has been supported also by findings that in some studies Black students have had a slight advantage on the questions that are labeled as difficult on the SAT" is very weak on logic. Why would that support the stereotype threat in particular? Likely what you're trying to say is, "well, neither of the previous explanations (biological differences and educational differences) would seem to be able to explain such a finding, so the explanation for the achievement gap would need to involve the stereotype threat". But this is a massive leap in logic that is also specious. What if educational differences produced weaker basics in particular, explaining the larger gap with easy-difficulty question? What if there are some other explanations not considered?

No, what I am really trying to do is make sure that these papers which are frequently cited in the literature are included in the review.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but you need to reconstruct their logic more clearly. "Researchers suggest that this reflect that minority test takers have to study to learn difficult vocabulary, whereas white test takers are more likely to learn it through their environment" is also very weak on logic. Why on earth would that result in higher scores for more difficult verbal questions? Someone could easily argue that just the opposite would be true - if minority students have to study to learn difficult vocabulary, then on average they would have to do worse. There is no chance prose like this would pass peer review.

Yeah, I did that and added it to the "no bias" section, since the studies actually do argue that there is a bias in the vocabulary part of the SAT where white students are more likely to learn certain words without studying because they are used in their home environment.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Sure it relates to bias, but that evidence doesn't prove what you claim that it does. In fact, it suggests the opposite. Again, what I'm saying is, it is completely absurd to say "white students are more likely to learn certain difficult words" --------> "blacks students do better on difficult words". I also fail to see how it is a point in favor of systematic bias. 24.211.136.174 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You dont seem to have read the articles cited or understand their argument. It is perfectly clear that the pattern observed can be explained by differences in how vocabulary is learned. These articles are key in the debate about a possible inherent bias, and need to be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I have not read the articles. That's not good, you're right, but it doesn't matter in this case. What matters is what is in the prose. Please try to offer more than just brute claims—some kind of logic, some kind of explanation. 24.211.136.174 (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean, again, think about it yourself: if you had to study much harder for a test than someone else, wouldn't it make it more likely that the other person would do better? Maybe not, but something is definitely missing, and this would be obvious to everyone. I agree with you that the articles should be included—look to see if the missing logical link is somewhere inside those articles. 24.211.136.174 (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Much better. Cheers! 24.211.136.174 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• • "which suggests that whites are generally advantages outside the educational environment" is extremely vague. If you put it back, please explain exactly what you mean. 24.211.136.174 (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Done.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, I've been looking at the revisions and I'm afraid that the section has again taken a turn for the worse. You once again put the stuff about college students underperforming along with the stuff about racial bias, which I thought we already agreed was not directly connected and definitely belongs in a different paragraph. You also don't seem to understand some of my points on basic logic and keep trying to inject your own erroneous inferences. I understand English is not your first language so I don't blame you. However, I do not have time to explain everything to do in great convincing detail, so if you don't trust me on this go find someone more experienced than you with writing English prose (preferably someone who speaks English as a first language) to make this into a coherent and logical section. This is a complex and intricate issue that deserves expert attention and nothing less. 24.211.136.174 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am actually quite happy with the section as it is now - including your contributions. Your petty condescension I will ignore, since I am confident that I am fully able to produce and comprehend scholarly writing in English at a professional level. You do not seem to be an expert in this topic yourself, given your failure to recognize the relevance of the Freedly study and its replication. I am not going to accept you simply trying to enforce your version. If you dont have time or interest in collaborating and explaining your arguments to your clleagues, then you will not be able to have influence on the article - that is an aspect of how wikipedia works. Simply trying to dismiss me will not work. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not condensation, it is frustration. I understand you are emotionally invested in this issue since you have spent a great deal of time on it. But I have grown up in the United States and attended college here, where I had my papers repeatedly trashed by my professors based on poor organization and logical mistakes much the ones you display. I am not trying to be condensating, I am just saying there is an underlying problem here that I cannot address. You would have to find someone to explain the problems to you in detail. 24.211.136.174 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Condensation? You claim to speak English natively and to have attended a good college yet you cannot discern between condensation and condescension? I happen to actually teach students at a good college in the US, and I also habitually trash their writing for poor organization and logical mistakes. It is not uncommon to see students do what you are doing now. Namely to try to blame their own inability to understand a text or its argument on the writer. Sure, a good writer faced with such objections will work to make the language so clear that even a college student can understand it, and that is exactly what I have been doing here. But until you have actually read Freedle, Crain and Santelices & Wilson you cannot make the claim that I am not adequately explaining the argument. What you can claim is that you dont understand the argument. I will give it another shot to try and explain it to you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Not being able to discern a difference between two words doesn't follow from making a mistake on the fly, especially in a heated argument. 24.211.136.174 (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Making the same mistake twice in a paragraph suggests a more profound problem. You have also repeatedly written "disavantages" instead of "disadvantaged". So maybe focus on your own language problems instead of mine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, I've made a number of changes which I've explained in the edit summaries. If you choose to revert any of them, please respond directly to the summary rather than simply state "it's in the source". I am not denying that akin information is found in the source—I am criticizing how that information is adapted into the section in terms of organization and logic. 24.211.136.174 (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Abolition

Where is the section that address the opposition to done away with it all together because TV Tropes article as follows...

-Removed copyright violation Kitsunelaine (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So all in all, they are singly handedly holding the education system back and thus need to be taken down.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like a response because I feel most would agree with my statement.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Any changes you'd like to propose or make need to be supported by Reliable Sources. Certainly no wiki like tvtropes.org (assuming that's what you're talking about) qualifies. In any event, numerous criticisms of the SAT are already discussed in the Perception section. Rwessel (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But does the criticism involve abolition attempts?--106.69.219.127 (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The section SAT#Dropping SAT quotes a Richard C. Atkinson, who seems to supports exactly your point. Rwessel (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What about stardedise test, are there any attempts to abolish them as well?--106.69.219.127 (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an article talk page, and is not a forum for discussion of the topic, rather it's for discussing the article about the topic. So it is reasonable to discuss here whether the debate about the use of the SAT has been properly covered in the article (taking into account neutrality and the due weight the various points of view deserve), but this is *not* the place for having that debate. Rwessel (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

And a large portion of Standardized test discusses those issues there. Rwessel (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources available that do call for its abolition, including those that state the SAT is a scam, hoax, fraud, etc. You could tap any number of those.--2602:306:39D4:BB90:693C:A7F6:7489:E9C6 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Outdated Article?

This article is probably outdated. New SAT is already being administered and this article still holds information for Old SAT that was last administered January 2016 testing date. 219.91.163.146 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Doubles

Security in the SAT room must be more serious.Old ID cards from 5 years earlier.Cousins and look alikes taking the test.Scholarships are in play.The room moderators as I am one in Spain must check the IDs online.Not unheard of is the look alike a cousin ..Having a beard or dyed hair musnt be alllowed.Recent ID cards too.Toefl SAT even the british cambridge exams are not secure.In Spain weve seen sports players using doubles to get into anmerican universites.I sdont mean tennis doubles...I mean a pro test taker.So many study hard to escape poverty with SAT and it isnt fair that another pays for the score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.193.163 (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

200 to 800

Maybe I just can't dig it out of here - has the 200 to 800 scoring always been in place? If not, when was it implemented? Thanks. Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the 200 to 800 scale has been used since the 1926 test. The 1926 portion of the history section should probably mention that. Erjwiki (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Hi there, I'm not sure that this is a useful section. Its quite long, and given the controversy over the validity of stereotype threat in the literature, might be better off being reduced or summarized. Further, evidence released from the College Board suggests that the SAT predicts female performance better than male performance, which suggests that the 'error' introduced into scoring by stereotype threat is minimal or nonexistent. If anyone has any thoughts on this please let me know. Thank you.Publius Obsequium (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Association with gender

"Greater male variability has been found in both body weight, height, and cognitive abilities across cultures"

Those are biological characteristics, so that's an association with sex, not gender. 208.127.199.222 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

Myths, misconceptions, and unknowns

This article by Meredith Frey contains a wealth of information of relevance to this topic. Nerd271 (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

"Logical quotations"

@ElKevbo: Yes, I read it, and no, I do not agree with it. It sounds like something straight out of a sales department or an advertiser. Whoever wrote that wanted us to conform, hence the obviously self-promotional language. Nerd271 (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: Wikipedians as a group have come to the consensus that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, including WP:TQ, should be generally followed. Stylistic standards and some degree of conformity are important to promote consistency and high quality across all articles. If you disagree with the logical quotations guideline, you should take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Mysteryman blue 22:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Discontinuation of the SAT Essay

I've read recently that the SAT essay has been discontinued. Someone should add that.

https://blog.collegeboard.org/January-2021-sat-subject-test-and-essay-faq --Synecdochetic (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• CB-SAT-logo-RGB-160926.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Brookings graph makes no sense

"Given the distribution for Asians, for example, many could score higher than 800 if the test allowed them to. (See figure below.)[136]

Distributions of SAT Math Scores by Race or Ethnicity.png"

The percentages add up to over 100, and to different numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.152.85 (talk • contribs)

No, you have to add for each score groups. Then they all add to 100% (up to rounding). I choose a slightly bar chart to represent the same data from the Brookings Institution in order to highlight the distribution of each racial or ethnic group. Nerd271 (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This page reads like promotional material rather than an actual article containing factual information.

It seems like the SAT can do no wrong if you were to read this article, and has no issues whatsoever, and perfectly predicts outcomes of nearly all students. It's amazing that a test taken only once could do such an amazing feat. /s 66.69.219.227 (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I was about to write that, at least some of the sections should be combined, and there should definitely be a section for criticism. I think a lot of that section can come from the criticism of the college board article, because that is super convoluted. Also there is a mountain of new info and criticism after the pandemic. Ultimatescapegoat (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This page reads like a blatant advertisement maintained by the test's owner. I've added the advertisement tag.--Guillermo Sanders (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

I concur. The written test in the US should not be the primary target for this lemma, but rather the disambiguation page for all things "SAT". The english Wikipedia should not be US-centered. --Makkonen (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Somebody forgot to sign. Nerd271 (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

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.)

Somebody forgot to sign. Nerd271 (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The 7 in a million seems credible. But I can't access the source for the old sentence referring to 7 out of 1 million, so I'll be bold and put in a new sentence with a secondary source. Erjwiki (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to split off history section

As noted by another editor recently, this article is getting very long: as of this writing, it requires more than 200 kilobytes and 15,000 words.

I thought that the SAT#History section would be a good candidate to split off per WP:SPLIT into a new article History of the SAT. As it is, the history section is already long enough for an article and will continue to get longer (until the time comes that the SAT is no longer relevant). Erjwiki (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. ElKevbo (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Erjwiki and ElKevbo: Good idea. I added a counter for the section sizes. Nerd271 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)