I got a 2020 on the SAT. Then, a year later, MY BROTHER GOT A 2230!!! AAAUUGGH!
ICH ÄRGERE MICH!!!

PSAT isn't that big of a deal.. lol i got a 2000 on the SAT

i didnt take the SAT i took the ACT, but on the PSAT i got in the 94% percentile! -highfives myself-

i got my PPSAT scores. 97 percentile in math! 83ish in english....

PPSAT? They have that? Woah...

Why in the world is the PSAT a big deal?

PSAT is how they judge if you are eligible for a national merit scholarship. the PPSAT is for sophomores so they can prepare to take the PSAT so they can prepare to take the SAT. so before i took the actualy test, i was taking a practice test for a practice test for a practice test

oh, and virtual high fives to all of the people above me!

I get my results back on the 15th :-S If all goes well it'll be the last time I get tertiary education results

Congrats on the good results in your PSATs (whatever they are)! I know the feeling of getting beaten by your younger sibling too :-( but I tell myself it's because they learned from my experience :-P

Ouch baum! That's always the worst!

I got 2170 on my SAT I, and I'm proud to say I didn't study! I recently got 41P on my MCATs, top 99.8-99.9%, baby!

And wow, PPSAT? Americans take this shit too seriously...

Wow, nice MCAT score...you shoudn't have too much trouble getting into med school!

The fact that there is a PPSAT is a very strong sign that the SAT system is seriously flawed. If you really need two practice tests before the real test, then the SAT clearly isn't a measure of what you've learned/know/skills you have. It is a measure of how well you can take the SAT. A load of bologna if you ask me.

Crisp that's great. I took the PSAT's, got everything in the top 99% I believe, and only made it to the first stage of the National Merit Scholarship - there's like 3 rounds of cuts at least. Took my SAT's and got a 2260 :) Still didn't get me to an Ivy though :(

yes, the funny thing is it isn't even controlled by the state, it's a private (not-for-profit) organization - it's top twelve executives earn over 300,000 dollars per year - that makes huge amounts of money every time someone takes a test, and they also sell test-prep books and courses. It's just a matter of time before we start seeing PPPSATs.

Curiously, it advertises itself as a measure of how well prepared you are for the university, but at the same time, it's an aptitude test, a measure of your INNATE ability not unlike an IQ test. To make matters worse, it has not proven to be an accurate reflection of success in higher education.

As a side note, I'm really feeling old. When I took it there were only two sections and the max score was 1600... I was baffled by these 2000+ scores you all are reporting.

EH, I was like 98 percentile on the PSAT. haven't taken the SAT, even though I'm a Senior. Don't plan on going to a university for a few more years.

Community College, here I come!

I was 97th percentile (for sophomores) in CR, 96th in Writing, and 63rd in Math. :( I am pretty sure that A there was a really really high curve this year for the test though and also I think that the PSAT is significantly harder than the SAT because even though a bunch of my friends got in the 97th, 98th, and 99th percentiles when compared with Juniors they still only had like 217's while on the SAT they have 2200/2300.

Oh and I definitely agree that the SAT system is flawed. I don't know what form it will take but I think (or atleast dearly hope) that it will be abolished in the next 10 years or so because it's just too easy at this point (there should be no way that a kid can get a perfect or near-perfect score on a standardized test imo). They just need to make the reading and math alot harder.

Why should there be no reason for someone to get a near perfect or perfect score. The test is designed to measure what s student has learned and is scaled towards the top of the test being what is considered something only an honors valedictorian would know, but any top honor student should be able to come in those higher percentiles.

It's not like this is for anything except getting into college and any college grad had better be able to ace the high school SATs and ACTs.

@McBry, what part of the SAT and ACT is "innate ability"? IQ Tests present similar problems repeatedly and judge if you pick up on the similarities and solve them. When I took the SAT and ACT some 25+ years ago, I don't recall repeated logic problems to see if one could learn from the prior ones and move on. It was just a "what do you know" test no different than an amalgam test of all the subjects I took throughout the first three years of high school.

@ Draug because then there's no room to judge the higher percentiles. If the max score is 2400, and 50,000 kids have it (exaggeration, I know), then how do you know which of the 50k are better? Obviously you can look at transcripts and stuff but wouldn't it be better if the really really smart people got 2200's on a 2400 scale, and then the *ridiculously* smart people got in the high 2300's? It just seems smarter to me.

The thing is, you are provided exagerated evidence as to how many got those extreme scores. The number of kids who get near perfect scores is probably an insignificant number and the colleges use those scores PLUS transcripts PLUS extracurricular/community activities to make their decisions. ACT and SAT scores are onyl a small part of their decision making tools.

@jman

Your argument doesn't hold water. If that many students had a perfect score, then a 2400 wouldn't be 99.98 percentile. That's what the percentile means. Now, if 2400 was the 80 percentile, I agree we'd have a problem, but that isn't the case.

In any case, this argument is moot, because the SAT is broken either way.

The evidence showing that the SAT is not a good test is overwhelming. The most obvious proof is that you can take a class that will raise your score. If the SAT measured innate ability, by definition education wouldn't improve your score.

Draug, I was just talking about the SAT, the ACT is quite different. It really is more logic than knowledge. The math sections don't use anything of higher level than basic geometry. The vocab is a little more knowledge based, but actually a lot of question types measure knowledge of correct sentence structure and application of logic. Yes, there are other criteria applied to admissions.

@pastoralan - " If the SAT measured innate ability, by definition education wouldn't improve your score."

LOL! That's *exactly* what the SAT is supposed to measure. Therefore education *should* improve the score. Geez!

@Draug

But, studying for the SATs shouldn't raise your score on the SAT. *That* is where it is seriously flawed. Plus, the fact that there isn't a good correlation between SAT scores and college performance. And the race and income discrepancies. And the shoddy grading methods for the written portion. And...

no, the problem, Draug is that they CLAIM the exam measures innate ability and that there should not be a significant improvement between two times you take the test. Of course, they contradict that idea by selling study materials. But yes, in the past, there have been controversies when they tried to annul a score when someone showed great improvement.

What would you make of the fact that i know 13 year olds who have scored in the 85-90 percentile on the ACT? that is, they are in 7th grade, havent skipped classes or grades, and still get that score? isnt that measuring innate ability?

I would say anecdotal evidence like that is not helpful. Even if it was true, that would not indicate innate ability as that 7th grader could have easily studied more on their own.