> If you can't find the time to do your normal tests for GPA, you won't find time to study for the SAT either.
That is just nonsense. Lets say that you have 20 hours to study per year, like a couple of weekends that are calmer etc, you can spend those on SAT and you got basically the full benefits of studying for that test since studying more isn't very beneficial. But 20 hours to study per year wont budge your GPA much at all. Close to every kid can find 20 hours to study per year, I'm pretty sure.
Or do you think that people can either study all the time, or study none of the time, no in-between at all?
Edit:
> it's only theoretical that someone who isn't used to a studying environment can somehow have the foresight to invest their few hours on this particular exam.
Not at all, I never studied for anything in high school and got shit grades. But I spent a weekend to study for a SAT once, got good on that, and got into college that way. This isn't theoretical at all, it happens all the time. It is very different to do something for a very short time, or keeping that up for 4 years straight.
Have you ever met kids who aren't good at studying? Do you think they somehow get their shit together just for this one test, because they read somewhere that it's judged fairly and a great investment of time? Teenagers will somehow know that 20 hours, that's where Jensson's return curve breaks?
People who study a lot study a lot for the SAT, people who study little study little for the SAT, and in between people do an in between amount of SAT. That somehow seems like a good starting point, which we'll probably be stuck on given evidence will be hard to come by.
FWIW there were kids in my kid's class who had three tutors and studied every day over the summer holiday (the test is right after). They would have stopped if it was so obvious the benefits stop past some level. Just as there will be people who think it's a great idea to put 1000 hours into it, there's going to be people who think they'll just show up on the day and see how it goes.
Edit: seems this wasn't a direct descendent of the the thread I thought it was, about the UK 11+, but the point is the same.
> Have you ever met kids who aren't good at studying? Do you think they somehow get their shit together just for this one test, because they read somewhere that it's judged fairly and a great investment of time? Teenagers will somehow know that 20 hours, that's where Jensson's return curve breaks?
I was one of those kids. I never had a stable home, I have 5 siblings with many parents, I moved between different parents, lived on the floor with mom and siblings at one of her friends homes for a few months etc. But mustering up the energy to put in effort for one test is still possible, doing that for everything, no way.
Kids aren't stupid, they have spent years doing things, reading things, it isn't hard to find out information about college, SAT etc. A bad home doesn't mean you are stupid even though you make it sound like it does.
Yes, but do you think that's what normally happens? I would suggest that what normally happens in your situation is that no studying gets done and you bomb the test.
I also know people who've been in your situation, and that's what I see more often than not.
I can understand if you think that's what the SATs are for though, a kind of lifeline for kids in bad situations. I just have reservations about it actually working enough of the time to not simply be another opportunity hoarding play by wealthier people.
I don't get you here, poor people are in much greater need of lifelines than rich people, removing the lifeline from poor people just because rich people also use it is just horrible.
The main effect of removing it is that disenfranchised smart kids don't get into college, replaced by dumb kids with stable homes who spent a ton of time studying yet were too dumb to score well on SAT. Colleges are already full of such kids, and so is the job market, we don't need more of them.
That is just nonsense. Lets say that you have 20 hours to study per year, like a couple of weekends that are calmer etc, you can spend those on SAT and you got basically the full benefits of studying for that test since studying more isn't very beneficial. But 20 hours to study per year wont budge your GPA much at all. Close to every kid can find 20 hours to study per year, I'm pretty sure.
Or do you think that people can either study all the time, or study none of the time, no in-between at all?
Edit:
> it's only theoretical that someone who isn't used to a studying environment can somehow have the foresight to invest their few hours on this particular exam.
Not at all, I never studied for anything in high school and got shit grades. But I spent a weekend to study for a SAT once, got good on that, and got into college that way. This isn't theoretical at all, it happens all the time. It is very different to do something for a very short time, or keeping that up for 4 years straight.