Why are American SATs so shit? British A-Levels and other European secondary education standards (or even the International Baccalaureate) are far more superior, yet the SAT is still used in admissions tests for almost all American Universities.
Would any Yanks like to explain this strange phenomenon?
>test that is highly g-loaded
>bad
Good schools just increase the cutoff you need. If you want to get into Ivy-level schools your SAT will probably need to be very close to the maximum score.
Then they start looking at number/score of AP courses and extracurriculars.
sage because the only two good unis in britain have their own entrance exams anyways
>Best universities on the planet use SAT
>SAT is shit.
Pick one dumb ass. If your A-levels were so good then we'd use them, we don't so they aren't. QED.
Euros use a level exams as a filter
American uses higher level courses as a filter
>"yet the SAT is still used in admissions tests for almost all American Universities."
>somehow that implies American unis are the best
(btw, they're not :^)
yes, that does theoretically work, but by making the tests harder you can still separate students' abilities while lowering the hurdle that is moving on from high school to uni.
Are you retarded? It's the other way around, they're the best so they pick the best admissions test. I can't believe I justc had to spell that out for you.
>by making the tests harder you can still separate students' abilities
That's what AP tests are for. They're pretty much an unwritten requirement for getting into any good school now.
>while lowering the hurdle that is moving on from high school to uni
Why the fuck would any school want to do this? Universities love being exclusive, just look at Oxbridge.
>That's what AP tests are for. They're pretty much an unwritten requirement for getting into any good school now.
Was not aware that you have other tests on top of SATs. Fair enough.
>Why the fuck would any school want to do this? Universities love being exclusive, just look at Oxbridge.
So the school does not have to spend time at the beginning teaching students things they should already know. Instead they learn them and are tested on them as a part of the applications process.
>So the school does not have to spend time at the beginning teaching students things they should already know
That just means they stay longer in school, which means more tuition being paid. Why do you think Harvard doesn't accept any AP credits, even though most of their entry-level coursework isn't that much more difficult than that of a decent state school?
>far more superior
Thank you OP, I didn't need to read any further to know that you didn't have anything useful to say.
Superior smart person uses "far more superior."
First of all why would we use some other country's test for our citizens to get into our universities
Second of all the SAT/ACT is just meant to put students on a scale so schools can wade through the shitters in admissions easier.
>(btw they're not :^)
Fantastic high quality bait
>was not aware there were other tests
Its literally in the requirements of all Ivies to take SAT II Subject tests, whcih test individual subjects such as Physics or World History.
I forgot one caveat to top of the top schools requiring SAT II's: at Cornell only 2/7 undergrad colleges require SAT II's, those being the College of Arts and Sciences and the Engineering College. This is because every other school is specialized and very focused on the individual student fitting there. Ironically all the other colleges are probably the best in their specialized area (except for the Business school's applied economics and management half) while the other two schools are only top 10/15 in the nation.
The American education system has to cater to a wide variety of cultures, economic strata, and a huge population. The brightest are held back by standards set to make the dumbest pass. The 12-year sentence leaves kids uneducated enough to require an additional 4 years of subjugation to reach work-competent levels. This involves amassing a huge debt to assure those kids have to continue working for nothing. It's basically, "keep the slaves dumb."
The American education system is not about education. It's about day care and putting on appearances.
Because here in America we don't learn anything in high school
>the brightest are held back by the dumbest
Unless they go to a shit school that doesn't offer multiple levels of a course then this isn't true.
I stand by what I said. I'm nt implying a school slows down for the dumbest. I mean nationwide textbooks are written for the masses to get tested equally. Gifted students can go only as far as the books will allow them, unless they have initiative and/or mentors to carry then farther.
pommiecucks BTFO
Then read the higher level material you twat
Unwillingness is no excuse
Idiot doesn't realise that the post immediately before his says exactly that.
You are correct sir.
It's because they are shit but everybody has to deal with the same shit
Both are very old tests that are hard to cheat at and have established reputations
SAT scores are highly correlated with income of students parents, which determines if student could get SAT tutors/attend secondary schools that prep students to do well on the SATs.
I believe those statistics, but I don't think it's because people spend money on preparing for the SAT. People just don't really do that.
It probably has something to do with rich kids having parents that feel like they can afford to encourage their kids to go to college, causing them to try harder in school, causing them to do better on things like AP tests and the SATs
What about Khan Academy?
Yeah I can see that.
Easy to say when you have a roof over your head and available internet access. But in general yes that helps.
Considering how bad the education system is here SATs are considered hard here.
Remember that all Americans are basically self-educated because our primary and secondary schools are shitty government-run daycare. So all you really need is a simple test to spot the people that aren't irreparably mentally stunted.
>thinking secondary education anything is good.
Comparing SAT to A level is like comparing counting and reciting the alphabet both are elementary and produce a steady stream of brainlets.