Talk:SAT: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SAT article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 300 days

	SAT is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 23, 2005 Peer review Reviewed April 11, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 27, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Education B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for SAT: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-02-09 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Update : Update with more research from neuroscience and artificial intelligence

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 23, 2013 and June 23, 2014.

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

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)

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 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

"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.)

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)

I see that some article content has been cited to the Answer Sheet column in the Washington Post, described on its own website as "The Post's new education blog."^[1] That blog has been caught in spin and incomplete documentation of its factual statements by other bloggers before,^[2] so I have been aware for a while, as a regular reader of that blog, that I have to fact-check anything it says very carefully. Statements by one person, an employee of a test-prep company, have been cited in the article as statements by "some experts" on the SAT, but those statements are contrary to the great bulk of better sources by more informed scholars about the SAT. It would be worthwhile here to discuss reliable sources and due weight for an article about a topic that is the subject of considerable scholarly study (and also the subject of much commercial interest) to ensure that this article upholds Wikipedia policies. I think we can do a lot better than the Answer Sheet blog for sourcing this article. What sources do other participants in the editing of this article suggest? I have a source list in user space here on Wikipedia that includes quite a few scholarly and popular sources that discuss the SAT test.

Thanks to the editor who suggested discussing this issue on the article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is fascinating. Here we have two Wikipedians (WeijiBaikeBianji and Victor Chmara) who are essentially saying "no, no, no, someone who takes the test for a living is not an expert, I'm the expert." Next WeijiBaikeBianji's discourse went to "Washington Post? Never heard of it." Finally, he launches a completely nonsensical attack on the Washington Post based on nothing. These Wikipedians need to leave their bias at the door.--TDJankins (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course mischaracterizing my argument. Perhaps there should be some nationally standardized test of reading proficiency. Part of advanced reading proficiency is source evaluation and treating factual claims differently depending on how extraordinary they are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a nonexhaustive set of links to recently published scientific journal articles and education policy articles about SAT testing in college admission. There are many other publications on this topic--the selection factor here is a link that any Wikipedian can follow to check the article text directly. I'll gradually format these bare links into references to add to the article here. I should point out that I am intentionally omitting the many research articles that can be found at the College Board website's subsection on research, but I have provided a link to that subsection by an edit to this article's External links section. There are also quite a few printed books on this topic that I have been gathering quotations from for this article and other articles. Gradually this article can become referenced to better sources more appropriate for an encyclopedia article on a higher education topic.

* [2]

* [3]

* [4]

* [5]

* [6]

* [7]

* [8]

* [9]

* [10]

* [11]

* [12]

* [13]

* [14]

* [15]

Enjoy your reading. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source links above were posted in September 2014, I've found other sources about the SAT in book chapters and review articles, and I wonder if any of the several other editors who are active here have been reading any of the sources and can suggest good sources for an update and improvement of this article. I've been involved in the recent promotion of the English language article here on Wikipedia to good article status, and one helpful part of the process of article improvement for that article was looking up authoritative sources and having multiple editors looking at those sources as the article editing proceeded. This article here could be a lot better if it cited and used better sources. Who would like to join in on improving this article to good article status? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the SAT many times does not make you an expert on its psychometric properties anymore than driving a car for many years makes you an auto engineer. There's a big academic literature on what the SAT measures, so citing the scatterbrained ideas of this random guy published in some blog as if it were legitimate expert opinion makes no sense in light of Wikipedia's content policies.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In an online community, I encountered today a discussion among researchers on standardized tests (among other topics) mentioning some useful guides to the literature on the SAT. One of those guides, an article by Hambrick and Chabris in Slate points to some good research sources. We should check the article we are working on here to see how well the article reflects those reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Slate points to some good sources, and it would be helpful for further edits to this article here on Wikipedia to read the Slate article and check its sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting in 2015 more foreigners will take the SAT than americans.The new exam will look for correct english..competition is tough as foreigners know english grammar better than natives as foreigners have studied the books while natives learn english in the streets.Another new part will be combining math and english-Word problems where the answer is not just a number but HOW you did it.Youll need to write clearly about the steps you took to get that answer..Im on a team that CREATES the SAT and grades it afterwards.The top universites will offer more scholarships in 2015.Cant talk about math or history or geography only english grammar my speciality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.122.132 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
  • Oops! 24.211.136.174 (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• • "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)[reply]

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

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. 24.211.136.174 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about transgenders - transgenders(unknown gender) , transgenders(now female) and transgenders(now male)  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.65.175 (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a source about this issue? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a joke by the anonymous poster. What does assessment of scholastic achievement have to do with gender or transgenders? One either knows the material or one doesn't. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing the previous peer reviews of this article from years ago (linked to from this article talk page) and the (failed) featured article nomination for this article to get a sense of what improvements to the article were most desired by previous reviewers, based on possibly much earlier states of the article. I've enjoyed updating IQ classification and (with the help of other editors) English language to good article status, so I'm reasonably familiar with the current good article criteria. I would like to help this article reach good article status, and I hope other editors here will join in on checking sources, which is always one of the crucial steps in improving article quality. Better sources make better articles. Below I'll list a variety of sources that can serve as background reading while we find the best sources for new edits to article text and for guiding restructuring the article's organization and emphasis. Feel free to comment here with sources that you find particularly helpful that fit the Wikipedia reliable sources guideline.

• Ceja, M. A. (2010). "Educational Opportunity and Latino/Chicano College Choice: New Findings, and Theoretical Perspectives". In Peterson, Penelope; Baker, Eva; McGaw, Barry (eds.). International Encyclopedia of Education (Third ed.). Academic Press. pp. 610–615. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00131-7. ISBN 978-0-08-044894-7. Retrieved 2 July 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• Haney, Walter M.; Clarke, Michael J. (2007). "Chapter 11: Cheating on Tests: Prevalence, Detection, and Implications for Online Testing". In Anderman, Eric M.; Murdock, Tamera B. (eds.). Psychology of Academic Cheating. Academic Press. pp. 255–287. doi:10.1016/B978-012372541-7/50015-2. ISBN 978-0-12-372541-7. Retrieved 2 July 2015. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• Liu, Jinghua; Harris, Deborah J.; Schmidt, Amy (2006). "Chapter 33: Statistical Procedures Used in College Admissions Testing". In Rao, C. R.; Sinharay, S. (eds.). Handbook of Statistics. Vol. 26: Psychometrics. Elsevier. pp. 1057–1091. doi:10.1016/S0169-7161(06)26033-4. ISBN 978-0-444-52103-3. Retrieved 2 July 2015. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• Sedlacek, W. E. (2010). "Noncognitive Measures for Higher Education Admissions". In Peterson, Penelope; Baker, Eva; McGaw, Barry (eds.). International Encyclopedia of Education (Third ed.). Academic Press. pp. 845–849. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00177-9. ISBN 978-0-08-044894-7. Retrieved 2 July 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• Zaromb, F. M.; Burrus, J.; Roberts, R. D. (2012). "Test Behavior". In Ramachandran, V. S. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second ed.). Academic Press. pp. 604–610. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-375000-6.00362-1. ISBN 978-0-08-096180-4. Retrieved 2 July 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• Zwick, R. (2010). "Admissions Testing". In Peterson, Penelope; Baker, Eva; McGaw, Barry (eds.). International Encyclopedia of Education (Third ed.). Academic Press. pp. 7–14. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00230-X. ISBN 978-0-08-044894-7. Retrieved 2 July 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• article by Hambrick and Chabris in Slate

• [http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Kuncel-report.pdf Evaluation and Discussion of Student Athlete Testing Data

at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]

• [http://www.seoscholars.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SEO-Scholars-SAT-Study-3-31-14.pdf Comparison of Seo Scholars and

National Test-Takers’ SAT Scores, 2009-2013]

• Contextual Factors Associated With the Validity of SAT Scores and High School GPA for Predicting First-Year College Grades

• SAT Performance: Understanding the Contributions of Cognitive/Learning and Social/Personality Factors

• Is the SAT the Root of all Evil? Reviewing the Evidence on Admission Policies and Diversity in Higher Education

• Recasting Non-Cognitive Factors in College Readiness as What They Truly Are: Non-Academic Factors

• [16]

• [17]

• [18]

• [19]

• [20]

• [21]

• [22]

I'll be adding some other sources during further updates to this talk page section. Feel free to add in others. Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]