SAT

The SAT ( ) is a standardized test widely used for college admissions in the United States. Since its debut in 1926, its name and scoring have changed several times. For much of its history, it was called the Scholastic Aptitude Test and had two components, Verbal and Mathematical, each of which was scored on a range from 200 to 800. Later it was called the Scholastic Assessment Test, then the SAT I: Reasoning Test, then the SAT Reasoning Test, then simply the SAT.

SAT

Logo since 2017
Type	Computer-based standardized test
Administrator	College Board, Educational Testing Service
Skills tested	Writing, critical reading, mathematics
Purpose	Admission to undergraduate programs of universities or colleges
Year started	1926; 98 years ago (1926)
Duration	2 hours 14 minutes
Score range	Test scored on scale of 200–800, (in 10-point increments), on each of two sections (total 400–1600). Essay scored on scale of 2–8, in 1-point increments, on each of three criteria.
Offered	7 times annually
Regions	Worldwide
Languages	English
Annual number of test takers	Over 1.9 million high school graduates in the class of 2023
Prerequisites	No official prerequisite. Intended for high school students. Fluency in English assumed.
Fee	US$60.00 to US$108.00, depending on country.
Used by	Most universities and colleges offering undergraduate programs in the U.S.
Website	sat.collegeboard.org

The SAT is wholly owned, developed, and published by the College Board, a private, not-for-profit organization in the United States. It is administered on behalf of the College Board by the Educational Testing Service, another non-profit organization which until shortly before the 2016 redesign of the SAT developed the test and maintained a repository of items (test questions) as well. The test is intended to assess students' readiness for college. Originally designed not to be aligned with high school curricula, several adjustments were made for the version of the SAT introduced in 2016. College Board president (David Coleman) added that he wanted to make the test reflect more closely what students learn in high school with the new (Common Core standards), which have been (adopted) by the District of Columbia and many states.

Many students prepare for the SAT using books, classes, online courses, and tutoring, which are offered by a variety of companies and organizations. One of the best known such companies is Kaplan, Inc., which has offered SAT preparation courses since 1946. Starting with the 2015–16 school year, the College Board began working with Khan Academy to provide free online SAT preparation courses.

Historically, starting around 1937, the tests offered under the SAT banner also included optional subject-specific (SAT Subject Tests), which were called SAT Achievement Tests until 1993 and then were called SAT II: Subject Tests until 2005; these were discontinued after June 2021. After June 2021, with some exceptions, the SAT no longer has an essay section.

In the past, the test was taken using paper forms that were filled in using a (number 2 pencil) and were scored (except for hand-written response sections) using (Scantron)-type (optical mark recognition) technology. Starting in March 2023 for international test-takers and March 2024 for those within the U.S., the testing is administered using a computer program called Bluebook running on a laptop or tablet computer brought by the student or provided at the testing site. The test was also made adaptive, customizing the questions that are presented to the student based on how they perform on questions asked earlier in the test, and shortened from three hours to two hours and 14 minutes.

While a considerable amount of research has been done on the SAT, many questions and misconceptions remain. Outside of college admissions, the SAT is also used by researchers studying human intelligence in general and intellectual precociousness in particular, and by some employers in the recruitment process.

Function

U.S. states in blue had more seniors in the class of 2006 who took the SAT than the ACT while those in red had more seniors taking the ACT than the SAT.

U.S. states in blue had more seniors in the class of 2022 who took the SAT than the ACT while those in red had more seniors taking the ACT than the SAT.

The SAT is typically taken by high school juniors and seniors. The College Board states that the SAT is intended to measure literacy, numeracy and writing skills that are needed for academic success in college. They state that the SAT assesses how well the test-takers analyze and solve problems—skills they learned in school that they will need in college.

The College Board also claims that the SAT, in combination with high school grade point average (GPA), provides a better indicator of success in college than high school grades alone, as measured by college freshman GPA. Various studies conducted over the lifetime of the SAT show a statistically significant increase in correlation of high school grades and college freshman grades when the SAT is factored in. The predictive validity and powers of the SAT are topics of research in psychometrics.

The SAT is a norm-referenced test intended to yield scores that follow a bell curve distribution among test-takers. To achieve this distribution, test designers include challenging multiple-choice questions with plausible but incorrect options, known as "distractors", exclude questions that a majority of students answer correctly, and impose tight time constraints during the examination.

There are substantial differences in funding, curricula, grading, and difficulty among U.S. secondary schools due to U.S. federalism, local control, and the prevalence of private, distance, and home schooled students. SAT (and ACT) scores are intended to supplement the secondary school record and help admission officers put local data—such as course work, grades, and class rank—in a national perspective.

Historically, the SAT was more widely used by students living in coastal states and the ACT was more widely used by students in the Midwest and South; in recent years, however, an increasing number of students on the East and West coasts have been taking the ACT. Since 2007, all four-year colleges and universities in the United States that require a test as part of an application for admission will accept either the SAT or ACT, and as of Fall 2022, more than 1400 four-year colleges and universities did not require any standardized test scores at all for admission, though some of them were planning to apply this policy only temporarily due to the coronavirus pandemic.

SAT test-takers are given two hours and 14 minutes to complete the test (plus a 10-minute break between the Reading and Writing section and the Math section), and as of 2024^[update] the test costs US$60.00, plus additional fees for late test registration, registration by phone, registration changes, rapid delivery of results, delivery of results to more than four institutions, result deliveries ordered more than nine days after the test, and testing administered outside the United States, as applicable, and fee waivers are offered to low-income students within the U.S. and its territories. Scores on the SAT range from 400 to 1600, combining test results from two 200-to-800-point sections: the Mathematics section and the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing section. Although taking the SAT, or its competitor the ACT, is required for freshman entry to many colleges and universities in the United States, during the late 2010s, many institutions made these entrance exams optional, but this did not stop the students from attempting to achieve high scores as they and their parents are skeptical of what "optional" means in this context. In fact, the test-taking population was increasing steadily. And while this may have resulted in a long-term decline in scores, experts cautioned against using this to gauge the scholastic levels of the entire U.S. population.

Structure

The SAT has two main sections, namely Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (EBRW, normally known as the "English" portion of the test) and the Math section. These are both further broken down into four sections: Reading, Writing and Language, Math (no calculator), and Math (calculator allowed). Until the summer of 2021, the test taker was also optionally able to write an essay which, in that case, is the fifth test section. (The essay was dropped after June 2021, except in a few states and school districts.) The total time for the scored portion of the SAT is two hours and 14 minutes. Some test takers who are not taking the essay may also have a fifth section, which is used, at least in part, for the pretesting of questions that may appear on future administrations of the SAT. (These questions are not included in the computation of the SAT score.)

Two section scores result from taking the SAT: Evidence-Based Reading and Writing, and Math. Section scores are reported on a scale of 200 to 800, and each section score is a multiple of ten. A total score for the SAT is calculated by adding the two section scores, resulting in total scores that range from 400 to 1600. In addition to the two section scores, three "test" scores on a scale of 10 to 40 are reported, one for each of Reading, Writing and Language, and Math, with increment of 1 for Reading / Writing and Language, and 0.5 for Math. There are also two cross-test scores that each range from 10 to 40 points: Analysis in History/Social Studies and Analysis in Science. The essay, if taken, was scored separately from the two section scores. Two people score each essay by each awarding 1 to 4 points in each of three categories: Reading, Analysis, and Writing. These two scores from the different examiners are then combined to give a total score from 2 to 8 points per category. Though sometimes people quote their essay score out of 24, the College Board themselves do not combine the different categories to give one essay score, instead giving a score for each category.

There is no penalty or negative marking for guessing on the SAT: scores are based on the number of questions answered correctly. The optional essay was last featured in the June 2021 administration. College Board said it discontinued the essay section because "there are other ways for students to demonstrate their mastery of essay writing," including the test's reading and writing portion. It also acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic had played a role in the change, accelerating 'a process already underway'.

Reading Test

The Reading Test of the SAT contains one section of 52 questions and a time limit of 65 minutes. All questions are multiple-choice and based on reading passages. Tables, graphs, and charts may accompany some passages, but no math is required to correctly answer the corresponding questions. There are five passages (up to two of which may be a pair of smaller passages) on the Reading Test and ten or eleven questions per passage or passage pair. SAT Reading passages draw from three main fields: history, social studies, and science. Each SAT Reading Test always includes: one passage from U.S. or world literature; one passage from either a U.S. founding document or a related text; one passage about economics, psychology, sociology, or another social science; and, two science passages. Answers to all of the questions are based only on the content stated in or implied by the passage or passage pair.

The Reading Test contributes (with the Writing and Language Test) to two subscores, each ranging from 1 to 15 points:

• Command of Evidence
• Words in Context

Writing and Language Test

The Writing and Language Test of the SAT is made up of one section with 44 multiple-choice questions and a time limit of 35 minutes. As with the Reading Test, all questions are based on reading passages which may be accompanied by tables, graphs, and charts. The test taker will be asked to read the passages and suggest corrections or improvements for the contents underlined. Reading passages on this test range in content from topic arguments to nonfiction narratives in a variety of subjects. The skills being evaluated include: increasing the clarity of argument; improving word choice; improving analysis of topics in social studies and science; changing sentence or word structure to increase organizational quality and impact of writing; and, fixing or improving sentence structure, word usage, and punctuation.

The Writing and Language Test reports two subscores, each ranging from 1 to 15 points:

• Expression of Ideas
• Standard English Conventions

Mathematics

An example of an SAT "grid-in" math question and the correctly gridded answer

The mathematics portion of the SAT is divided into two sections: Math Test – No Calculator and Math Test – Calculator. In total, the SAT math test is 80 minutes long and includes 58 questions: 45 multiple choice questions and 13 grid-in questions. The multiple choice questions have four possible answers; the grid-in questions are free response and require the test taker to provide an answer.

• The Math Test – No Calculator section has 20 questions (15 multiple choice and 5 grid-in) and lasts 25 minutes.
• The Math Test – Calculator section has 38 questions (30 multiple choice and 8 grid-in) and lasts 55 minutes.

Several scores are provided to the test taker for the math test. A subscore (on a scale of 1 to 15) is reported for each of three categories of math content:

• "Heart of Algebra" (linear equations, systems of linear equations, and linear functions)
• "Problem Solving and Data Analysis" (statistics, modeling, and problem-solving skills)
• "Passport to Advanced Math" (non-linear expressions, radicals, exponentials and other topics that form the basis of more advanced math).

A test score for the math test is reported on a scale of 10 to 40, with an increment of 0.5, and a section score (equal to the test score multiplied by 20) is reported on a scale of 200 to 800.

Calculator use

All scientific and most graphing calculators, including (Computer Algebra System) (CAS) calculators, are permitted on the SAT Math – Calculator section only. However, with the change to the Digital SAT during 2023 and 2024, a graphing calculator may be used throughout the entire test and is accessible through the test application program. All four-function calculators are allowed as well; however, these devices are not recommended. Mobile phone and smartphone calculators, calculators with typewriter-like (QWERTY) keyboards, laptops and other portable computers, and calculators capable of accessing the Internet are not permitted.

Research was conducted by the College Board to study the effect of calculator use on SAT I: Reasoning Test math scores. The study found that performance on the math section was associated with the extent of calculator use: those using calculators on about one third to one half of the items averaged higher scores than those using calculators more or less frequently. However, the effect was "more likely to have been the result of able students using calculators differently than less able students rather than calculator use per se." There is some evidence that the frequent use of a calculator in school outside of the testing situation has a positive effect on test performance compared to those who do not use calculators in school.

Style of questions

Most of the questions on the SAT, except for the grid-in math responses, are multiple choice; all multiple-choice questions have four answer choices, one of which is correct. Thirteen of the questions on the math portion of the SAT (about 22% of all the math questions) are not multiple choice. They instead require the test taker to bubble in a number in a four-column grid.

All questions on each section of the SAT are weighted equally. For each correct answer, one raw point is added. No points are deducted for incorrect answers. The final score is derived from the raw score; the precise conversion chart varies between test administrations.

Section	Average score 2023 (200–800)	Time (minutes)	Content
Mathematics	508	25 + 55 = 80	Number and operations; algebra and functions; geometry; statistics, probability, and data analysis
Evidence-Based Reading and Writing	520	65 + 35 = 100	Vocabulary, Critical reading, sentence-level reading, Grammar, usage, and diction

Logistics

Frequency

The SAT is offered seven times a year in the United States: in August, October, November, December, March, May, and June. For international students SAT is offered four times a year: in October, December, March and May (2020 exception: To cover worldwide May cancelation, an additional September exam was introduced, and August was made available to international test-takers as well). The test is typically offered on the first Saturday of the month for the October, November, December, May, and June administrations. The test was taken by 1,913,742 high school graduates in the class of 2023.

Candidates wishing to take the test may register online at the College Board's website or by mail at least three weeks before the test date.

Fees

As of 2022, the SAT costs US$60.00, plus additional fees if testing outside the United States. The College Board makes fee waivers available for low-income students. Additional fees apply for late registration, standby testing, registration changes, scores by telephone, and extra score reports (beyond the four provided for free).

Accommodation for candidates with disabilities

Students with verifiable disabilities, including physical and learning disabilities, are eligible to take the SAT with accommodations. The standard time increase for students requiring additional time due to learning disabilities or physical handicaps is time + 50%; time + 100% is also offered.

Change from paper-based to digital

In January 2022, College Board announced that the SAT would change from paper-based to digital (computer-based). International (non-U.S.) testing centers began using the digital format on March 11, 2023. The December 2023 SAT was the last SAT test offered on paper. The switch to the digital format occurred on March 9, 2024, in the U.S. The digital SAT takes about an hour less to do than the paper-based test (two hours vs. three). It is administered in an official test center, as before, but the students use their own testing devices (a portable computer or tablet). If a student cannot bring his or her own device, one can be requested from College Board. Before the test, College Board's "Bluebook" app must have been successfully installed on the testing device.

The new test is a adaptive, meaning that students have two modules per section (reading/writing and math), with the second module being adaptive to the demonstrated level based on the results from the first module. On the reading and writing sections, the questions will have shorter passages for each question. On the math sections, the word problems will be more concise. Students have a ten minute break after the first two English modules and before the two math modules. A timer is built into the testing software and will automatically begin once the student finishes the second English module. New tools such as a question flagger, a timer, and an integrated graphing calculator are included in the new test as well.

Scaled scores and percentiles

Students receive their online score reports approximately two to three weeks after test administration (longer for mailed, paper scores). Included in the report is the total score (the sum of the two section scores, with each section graded on a scale of 200–800) and three subscores (in reading, writing, and analysis, each on a scale of 2–8) for the optional essay. Students may also receive, for an additional fee, various score verification services, including (for select test administrations) the Question and Answer Service, which provides the test questions, the student's answers, the correct answers, and the type and difficulty of each question.

In addition, students receive two percentile scores, each of which is defined by the College Board as the percentage of students in a comparison group with equal or lower test scores. One of the percentiles, called the "Nationally Representative Sample Percentile", uses as a comparison group all 11th and 12th graders in the United States, regardless of whether or not they took the SAT. This percentile is theoretical and is derived using methods of statistical inference. The second percentile, called the "SAT User Percentile", uses actual scores from a comparison group of recent United States students that took the SAT. For example, for the school year 2019–2020, the SAT User Percentile was based on the test scores of students in the graduating classes of 2018 and 2019 who took the SAT (specifically, the 2016 revision) during high school. Students receive both types of percentiles for their total score as well as their section scores.

Percentiles for total scores (2022)

Percentiles for total scores (2022)

Score, 400–1600 scale	SAT User	Nationally representative sample
1600	99+	99+
1550	99	99+
1500	98	99
1450	96	99
1400	93	97
1350	90	94
1300	86	91
1250	81	86
1200	75	81
1150	68	74
1100	60	67
1050	51	58
1000	43	48
950	35	38
900	27	29
850	19	21
800	13	14
750	7	8
700	3	4
650	1	1
640–400	1-	1-

Percentiles for total scores (2006)

The following chart summarizes the original percentiles used for the version of the SAT administered in March 2005 through January 2016. These percentiles used students in the graduating class of 2006 as the comparison group.

Percentile	Score 400–1600 scale, (official, 2006)	Score, 600–2400 scale (official, 2006)
99.93/99.98*	1600	2400
99.5	≥1540	≥2280
99	≥1480	≥2200
98	≥1450	≥2140
97	≥1420	≥2100
93	≥1340	≥1990
88	≥1280	≥1900
81	≥1220	≥1800
72	≥1150	≥1700
61	≥1090	≥1600
48	≥1010	≥1500
36	≥950	≥1400
24	≥870	≥1300
15	≥810	≥1200
8	≥730	≥1090
4	≥650	≥990
2	≥590	≥890
* The percentile of the perfect score was 99.98 on the 2400 scale and 99.93 on the 1600 scale.

Percentiles for total scores (1984)

Percentiles for total scores (1984)

Score (1984)	Percentile
1600	99.9995
1550	99.983
1500	99.89
1450	99.64
1400	99.10
1350	98.14
1300	96.55
1250	94.28
1200	91.05
1150	86.93
1100	81.62
1050	75.31
1000	67.81
950	59.64
900	50.88
850	41.98
800	33.34
750	25.35
700	18.26
650	12.37
600	7.58
550	3.97
500	1.53
450	0.29
400	0.002

Percentiles for verbal and math scores (1969–70)

Score, 200–800 scale	Verbal SAT User	Verbal, nationally representative sample	Math SAT User, Boys	Math SAT User, Girls
800	99+	99+	99+	99+
750	99+	99+	99	99+
700	98	99+	95	99
650	95	98	89	96
600	89	95	78	89
550	79	90	65	79
500	66	82	48	63
450	50	72	33	46
400	33	58	20	29
350	18	44	11	16
300	7	28	4	6
250	2	14	1	1
200	1−	4	1−	1−

The mean verbal score was 461 for students staking the SAT, 383 for the sample of all students.

The mathematical scores for 1969–70 were broken out by gender rather than reported as a whole; the mean math score for boys was 415, for girls 378. The differences for the nationally sampled population for math (not shown in table) were similar to those for the verbal section.

Ceilings and trends

The version of the SAT administered before April 1995 had a very high ceiling. For example, in the 1985–1986 school year, only 9 students out of 1.7 million test takers obtained a score of 1600.

In 2015 the average score for the Class of 2015 was 1490 out of a maximum 2400. That was down 7 points from the previous class's mark and was the lowest composite score of the past decade.

SAT–ACT score comparisons

The College Board and ACT, Inc., conducted a joint study of students who took both the SAT and the ACT between September 2004 (for the ACT) or March 2005 (for the SAT) and June 2006. Tables were provided to concord scores for students taking the SAT after January 2005 and before March 2016. In May 2016, the College Board released concordance tables to concord scores on the SAT used from March 2005 through January 2016 to the SAT used since March 2016, as well as tables to concord scores on the SAT used since March 2016 to the ACT.

In 2018, the College Board, in partnership with the ACT, introduced a new concordance table to better compare how a student would fare one test to another. This is now considered the official concordance to be used by college professionals and is replacing the one from 2016. The new concordance no longer features the old SAT (out of 2,400), just the new SAT (out of 1,600) and the ACT (out of 36).

As of 2018, the most appropriate corresponding SAT score point for the given ACT score is also shown in the table below.

ACT Composite Score	SAT Total Score Range	SAT Total Score
36	1570–1600	1590
35	1530–1560	1540
34	1490–1520	1500
33	1450–1480	1460
32	1420–1440	1430
31	1390–1410	1400
30	1360–1380	1370
29	1330–1350	1340
28	1300–1320	1310
27	1260–1290	1280
26	1230–1250	1240
25	1200–1220	1210
24	1160–1190	1180
23	1130–1150	1140
22	1100–1120	1110
21	1060–1090	1080
20	1030–1050	1040
19	990–1020	1010
18	960–980	970
17	920–950	930
16	880–910	890
15	830–870	850
14	780–820	800
13	730–770	760
12	690–720	710
11	650–680	670
10	620–640	630
9	590–610	590

Elucidation

Preparation

Pioneered by Stanley Kaplan in 1946 with a 64-hour course, SAT preparation has become a highly lucrative field. Many companies and organizations offer test preparation in the form of books, classes, online courses, and tutoring. The test preparation industry began almost simultaneously with the introduction of university entrance exams in the U.S. and flourished from the start. Test-preparation scams are a genuine problem for parents and students. In general, East Asian Americans, especially Korean Americans, are the most likely to take private SAT preparation courses while African Americans typically rely more one-on-one tutoring for remedial learning.

Nevertheless, the College Board maintains that the SAT is essentially uncoachable and research by the College Board and the National Association of College Admission Counseling suggests that tutoring courses result in an average increase of about 20 points on the math section and 10 points on the verbal section. Indeed, researchers have shown time and again that preparation courses tend to offer at best a modest boost to test scores. Like IQ scores, which are a strong correlate, SAT scores tend to be stable over time, meaning SAT preparation courses offer only a limited advantage. An early meta-analysis (from 1983) found similar results and noted "the size of the coaching effect estimated from the matched or randomized studies (10 points) seems too small to be practically important." Statisticians Ben Domingue and Derek C. Briggs examined data from the Education Longitudinal Survey of 2002 and found that the effects of coaching were only statistically significant for mathematics; moreover, coaching had a greater effect on certain students than others, especially those who have taken rigorous courses and those of high socioeconomic status. A 2012 systematic literature review estimated a coaching effect of 23 and 32 points for the math and verbal tests, respectively. A 2016 meta-analysis estimated the effect size to be 0.09 and 0.16 for the verbal and math sections respectively, although there was a large degree of heterogeneity. Meanwhile, a 2011 study found that the effects of one-on-one tutoring to be minimal among all ethnic groups. Public misunderstanding of how to prepare for the SAT continues to be exploited by the preparation industry.

While there is a link between family background and taking an SAT preparation course, not all students benefit equally from such an investment. In fact, any average gains in SAT scores due to such courses are primarily due to improvements among East Asian Americans. When this group is broken down even further, Korean Americans are more likely to take SAT prep courses than Chinese Americans, taking full advantage of their Church communities and ethnic economy.

The College Board announced a partnership with the non-profit organization Khan Academy to offer free test-preparation materials starting in the 2015–16 academic year to help level the playing field for students from low-income families. Students may also bypass costly preparation programs using the more affordable official guide from the College Board and with solid studying habits.

The College Board also offers a test called the Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (), and there is some evidence that taking the PSAT at least once can help students do better on the SAT; moreover, like the case for the SAT, top scorers on the PSAT could earn scholarships. According to cognitive scientist Sian Beilock, 'choking', or substandard performance on important occasions, such as taking the SAT, can be prevented by doing plenty of practice questions and proctored exams to improve procedural memory, making use of the booklet to write down intermediate steps to avoid overloading working memory, and writing a diary entry about one's anxieties on the day of the exam to enhance self-empathy and positive self-image.Sleep hygiene is important as the quality of sleep during the days leading to the exam can improve performance. Moreover, it has been shown that later class times (8:30 am rather than 7:30am), which better suits the shifted circadian rhythm of teenagers, can raise SAT scores enough to change the tier of the colleges and universities student might be admitted to.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large number of American colleges and universities decided to make standardized test scores optional for prospective students. Nevertheless, many students still chose to take the SAT and to enroll in preparation programs, which continued to be profitable.

Predictive validity and powers

In 2009, education researchers Richard C. Atkinson and Saul Geiser from the University of California (UC) system argued that high school GPA is better than the SAT at predicting college grades regardless of high school type or quality. In its 2020 report, the UC academic senate found that the SAT was better than high school GPA at predicting first year GPA, and just as good as high school GPA at predicting undergraduate GPA, first year retention, and graduation. This predictive validity was found to hold across demographic groups, with the report noting that standardized test scores were actually "better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income." A series of College Board reports point to similar predictive validity across demographic groups.

But a month after the UC academic senate report, Saul Geiser disputed the UC academic senate's findings, saying "that the Senate claims are 'spurious', based on a fundamental error of omitting student demographics in the prediction model". Indicating when high school GPA is combined with demographics in the prediction, the SAT is less reliable. (Li Cai), a UCLA professor who directs the (National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing), indicated that the UC Academic Senate did include student demographics by using a different and simpler model for the public to understand and that the discriminatory impacts of the SAT are compensated during the admissions process. (Jesse Rothstein), a UC Berkeley professor of public policy and economics, countered Li's claim, mentioning that the UC academic senate "got a lot of things wrong about the SAT", overstates the value of the SAT, and "no basis for its conclusion that UC admissions 'compensate' for test score gaps between groups." However, by analyzing their own institutional data, Brown, Yale, and Dartmouth universities reached the conclusion that SAT scores are more reliable predictors of collegiate success than GPA. Furthermore, the scores allow them to identify more potentially qualified students from disadvantaged backgrounds than they otherwise would. At the University of Texas at Austin, students who declined to submit SAT scores when such scores were optional performed more poorly than their peers who did. These results were replicated by a study conducted by the non-profit organization Opportunity Insights analyzing data from Ivy League institutions (Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Yale University) plus Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Chicago. A 2009 study found that SAT or ACT scores along with high-school GPAs are strong predictors of cumulative university GPAs. In particular, those with standardized test scores in the 50th percentile or better had a two-thirds chance of having a cumulative university GPA in the top half. A 2010 meta-analysis by researchers from the University of Minnesota offered evidence that standardized admissions tests such as the SAT predicted not only freshman GPA but also overall collegiate GPA. A 2012 study from the same university using a multi-institutional data set revealed that even after controlling for socioeconomic status and high-school GPA, SAT scores were still as capable of predicting freshman GPA among university or college students. A 2019 study with a sample size of around a quarter of a million students suggests that together, SAT scores and high-school GPA offer an excellent predictor of freshman collegiate GPA and second-year retention. In 2018, psychologists Oren R. Shewach, Kyle D. McNeal, Nathan R. Kuncel, and Paul R. Sackett showed that both high-school GPA and SAT scores predict enrollment in advanced collegiate courses, even after controlling for Advanced Placement credits.

Education economist Jesse M. Rothstein indicated in 2005 that high-school average SAT scores were better at predicting freshman university GPAs compared to individual SAT scores. In other words, a student's SAT scores were not as informative with regards to future academic success as his or her high school's average. In contrast, individual high-school GPAs were a better predictor of collegiate success than average high-school GPAs. Furthermore, an admissions officer who failed to take average SAT scores into account would risk overestimating the future performance of a student from a low-scoring school and underestimating that of a student from a high-scoring school.

While the SAT is correlated with intelligence and as such estimates individual differences, it does not have anything to say about "effective cognitive performance" or what intelligent people do. Nor does it measure non-cognitive traits associated with academic success such as positive attitudes or conscientiousness. Psychometricians Thomas R. Coyle and David R. Pillow showed in 2008 that the SAT predicts college GPA even after removing the general factor of intelligence (g), with which it is highly correlated.

Like other standardized tests such as the ACT or the GRE, the SAT is a traditional method for assessing the academic aptitude of students who have had vastly different educational experiences and as such is focused on the common materials that the students could reasonably be expected to have encountered throughout the course of study. As such the mathematics section contains no materials above the precalculus level, for instance. Psychologist Raymond Cattell referred to this as testing for "historical" rather than "current" crystallized intelligence. Psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman further noted that the SAT can only measure a snapshot of a person's performance at a particular moment in time. Educational psychologists Jonathan Wai, David Lubinski, and Camilla Benbow observed that one way to increase the predictive validity of the SAT is by assessing the student's spatial reasoning ability, as the SAT at present does not contain any questions to that effect. Spatial reasoning skills are important for success in STEM. A 2006 study led by psychometrician Robert Sternberg found that the ability of SAT scores and high-school GPAs to predict collegiate performance could further be enhanced by additional assessments of analytical, creative, and practical thinking.

Experimental psychologist Meredith Frey noted that while advances in education research and neuroscience can help incrementally improve the ability to predict scholastic achievement in the future, the SAT or other standardized tests likely will remain a valuable tool to build upon. In a 2014 op-ed for The New York Times, psychologist John D. Mayer called the predictive powers of the SAT "an astonishing achievement" and cautioned against making it and other standardized tests optional.Research by psychometricians David Lubinsky, Camilla Benbow, and their colleagues has shown that the SAT could even predict life outcomes beyond university.

Difficulty and relative weight

The SAT rigorously assesses students' mental stamina, memory, speed, accuracy, and capacity for abstract and analytical reasoning. For American universities and colleges, standardized test scores are the most important factor in admissions, second only to high-school GPAs. By international standards, however, the SAT is not that difficult. For example, South Korea's College Scholastic Ability Test ((CSAT)) and Finland's (Matriculation Examination) are both longer, tougher, and count for more towards the admissibility of a student to university. In many countries around the world, exams, including university entrance exams, are the sole deciding factor of admission; school grades are simply irrelevant. In China and India, doing well on the Gaokao or the (IIT-JEE), respectively, enhances the social status of the students and their families.

In an article from 2012, educational psychologist Jonathan Wai argued that the SAT was too easy to be useful to the most competitive of colleges and universities, whose applicants typically had brilliant high-school GPAs and standardized test scores. Admissions officers therefore had the burden of differentiating the top scorers from one another, not knowing whether or not the students' perfect or near-perfect scores truly reflected their scholastic aptitudes. He suggested that the College Board make the SAT more difficult, which would raise the measurement ceiling of the test, allowing the top schools to identify the best and brightest among the applicants. At that time, the College Board was already working on making the SAT tougher. The changes were announced in 2014 and implemented in 2016.

After realizing the June 2018 test was easier than usual, the College Board made adjustments resulting in lower-than-expected scores, prompting complaints from the students, though some understood this was to ensure fairness. In its analysis of the incident, the Princeton Review supported the idea of curving grades, but pointed out that the test was incapable of distinguishing students in the 86th percentile (650 points) or higher in mathematics. The Princeton Review also noted that this particular curve was unusual in that it offered no cushion against careless or last-minute mistakes for high-achieving students. The Review posted a similar blog post for the SAT of August 2019, when a similar incident happened and the College Board responded in the same manner, noting, "A student who misses two questions on an easier test should not get as good a score as a student who misses two questions on a hard test. Equating takes care of that issue." It also cautioned students against retaking the SAT immediately, for they might be disappointed again, and recommended that instead, they give themselves some "leeway" before trying again.

Recognition

The College Board claims that outside of the United States, the SAT is considered for university admissions in approximately 70 countries, as of the 2023-24 academic year.

Association with general cognitive ability

In a 2000 study, psychometrician Ann M. Gallagher and her colleagues found that only the top students made use of intuitive reasoning in solving problems encountered on the mathematics section of the SAT. Cognitive psychologists Brenda Hannon and Mary McNaughton-Cassill discovered that having a good working memory, the ability of (knowledge integration), and low levels of test anxiety predicts high performance on the SAT.

Frey and Detterman (2004) investigated associations of SAT scores with intelligence test scores. Using an estimate of general mental ability, or g, based on the (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery), they found SAT scores to be highly correlated with g (r=.82 in their sample, .857 when adjusted for non-linearity) in their sample taken from a 1979 national probability survey. Additionally, they investigated the correlation between SAT results, using the revised and recentered form of the test, and scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices, a test of (fluid intelligence) (reasoning), this time using a non-random sample. They found that the correlation of SAT results with scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices was .483, they estimated that this correlation would have been about 0.72 were it not for the restriction of ability range in the sample. They also noted that there appeared to be a (ceiling effect) on the Raven's scores which may have suppressed the correlation. Beaujean and colleagues (2006) have reached similar conclusions to those reached by Frey and Detterman. Because the SAT is strongly correlated with general intelligence, it can be used as a proxy to measure intelligence, especially when the time-consuming traditional methods of assessment are unavailable.

Psychometrician Linda Gottfredson noted that the SAT is effective at identifying intellectually gifted college-bound students.

For decades many critics have accused designers of the verbal SAT of cultural bias as an explanation for the disparity in scores between poorer and wealthier test-takers, with the biggest critics coming from the University of California system. A famous example of this perceived bias in the SAT I was the (oarsman)–regatta analogy question, which is no longer part of the exam. The object of the question was to find the pair of terms that had the relationship most similar to the relationship between "runner" and "marathon". The correct answer was "oarsman" and "regatta". The choice of the correct answer was thought to have presupposed students' familiarity with rowing, a sport popular with the wealthy. However, for psychometricians, analogy questions are a useful tool to gauge the mental abilities of students, for, even if the meaning of two words are unclear, a student with sufficiently strong analytical thinking skills should still be able to identify their relationships. Analogy questions were removed in 2005. In their place are questions that provide more contextual information should the students be ignorant of the relevant definition of a word, making it easier for them to guess the correct answer.

Association with college or university majors and rankings

In 2010, physicists Stephen Hsu and James Schombert of the University of Oregon examined five years of student records at their school and discovered that the academic standing of students majoring in mathematics or physics (but not biology, English, sociology, or history) was strongly dependent on SAT mathematics scores. Students with SAT mathematics scores below 600 were highly unlikely to excel as a mathematics or physics major. Nevertheless, they found no such patterns between the SAT verbal, or combined SAT verbal and mathematics and the other aforementioned subjects.

In 2015, educational psychologist Jonathan Wai of Duke University analyzed average test scores from the (Army General Classification Test) in 1946 (10,000 students), the Selective Service College Qualification Test in 1952 (38,420), (Project Talent) in the early 1970s (400,000), the (Graduate Record Examination) between 2002 and 2005 (over 1.2 million), and the SAT Math and Verbal in 2014 (1.6 million). Wai identified one consistent pattern: those with the highest test scores tended to pick the physical sciences and engineering as their majors while those with the lowest were more likely to choose education and agriculture. (See figure below.)

A 2020 paper by Laura H. Gunn and her colleagues examining data from 1389 institutions across the United States unveiled strong positive correlations between the average SAT percentiles of incoming students and the shares of graduates majoring in STEM and the social sciences. On the other hand, they found negative correlations between the former and the shares of graduates in psychology, theology, law enforcement, recreation and fitness.

Various researchers have established that average SAT or ACT scores and college ranking in the U.S. News & World Report are highly correlated, almost 0.9. Between the 1980s and the 2010s, the U.S. population grew while universities and colleges did not expand their capacities as substantially. As a result, admissions rates fell considerably, meaning it has become more difficult to get admitted to a school whose alumni include one's parents. On top of that, high-scoring students nowadays are much more likely to leave their hometowns in pursuit of higher education at prestigious institutions. Consequently, standardized tests, such as the SAT, are a more reliable measure of selectivity than admissions rates. Still, when Michael J. Petrilli and Pedro Enamorado analyzed the SAT composite scores (math and verbal) of incoming freshman classes of 1985 and 2016 of the top universities and liberal arts colleges in the United States, they found that the median scores of new students increased by 93 points for their sample, from 1216 to 1309. In particular, fourteen institutions saw an increase of at least 150 points, including the University of Notre-Dame (from 1290 to 1440, or 150 points) and Elon College (from 952 to 1192, or 240 points).

Association with types of schooling

While there seems to be evidence that private schools tend to produce students who do better on standardized tests such as the ACT or the SAT, Keven Duncan and Jonathan Sandy showed, using data from the (National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth), that when student characteristics, such as age, race, and sex (7%), family background (45%), school quality (26%), and other factors were taken into account, the advantage of private schools diminished by 78%. The researchers concluded that students attending private schools already had the attributes associated with high scores on their own.

Association with educational and societal standings and outcomes

Research from the University of California system published in 2001 analyzing data of their undergraduates between Fall 1996 through Fall 1999, inclusive, found that the SAT II was the single best predictor of collegiate success in the sense of freshman GPA, followed by high-school GPA, and finally the SAT I. After controlling for family income and parental education, the already low ability of the SAT to measure aptitude and college readiness fell sharply while the more substantial aptitude and college readiness measuring abilities of high school GPA and the SAT II each remained undiminished (and even slightly increased). The University of California system required both the SAT I and the SAT II from applicants to the UC system during the four academic years of the study. This analysis is heavily publicized but is contradicted by many studies.

There is evidence that the SAT is correlated with societal and educational outcomes, including finishing a four-year university program. A 2012 paper from psychologists at the University of Minnesota analyzing multi-institutional data sets suggested that the SAT maintained its ability to predict collegiate performance even after controlling for socioeconomic status (as measured by the combination of parental educational attainment and income) and high-school GPA. This means that SAT scores were not merely a proxy for measuring socioeconomic status, the researchers concluded. This finding has been replicated and shown to hold across racial or ethnic groups and for both sexes. Moreover, the Minnesota researchers found that the socioeconomic status distributions of the student bodies of the schools examined reflected those of their respective applicant pools. Because of what it measures, a person's SAT scores cannot be separated from their socioeconomic background. However, the correlation between SAT scores and parental income or socioeconomic status should not be taken to mean causation. It could be that high scorers have intelligent parents who work cognitively demanding jobs and as such earn higher salaries. In addition, the correlation is only significant between biological families, not adoptive ones, suggesting that this might be due to (genetic heritage), not economic wealth.

In 2007, Rebecca Zwick and Jennifer Greif Green observed that a typical analysis did not take into account that heterogeneity of the high schools attended by the students in terms of not just the socioeconomic statuses of the student bodies but also the standards of grading. Zwick and Greif Green proceeded to show that when these were accounted for, the correlation between family socioeconomic status and classroom grades and rank increased whereas that between socioeconomic status and SAT scores fell. They concluded that school grades and SAT scores were similarly associated with family income.

According to the College Board, in 2019, 56% of the test takers had parents with a university degree, 27% parents with no more than a high-school diploma, and about 9% who did not graduate from high school. (8% did not respond to the question.)

Association with family structures

One of the proposed partial explanations for the gap between Asian- and European-American students in educational achievement, as measured for example by the SAT, is the general tendency of Asians to come from stable two-parent households. In their 2018 analysis of data from the (National Longitudinal Surveys) of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, economists Adam Blandin, Christopher Herrington, and Aaron Steelman concluded that family structure played an important role in determining educational outcomes in general and SAT scores in particular. Families with only one parent who has no degrees were designated 1L, with two parents but no degrees 2L, and two parents with at least one degree between them 2H. Children from 2H families held a significant advantage of those from 1L families, and this gap grew between 1990 and 2010. Because the median SAT composite scores (verbal and mathematics) for 2H families grew by 20 points while those of 1L families fell by one point, the gap between them increased by 21 points, or a fifth of one standard deviation.

Sex differences

In performance

Sex and race differences exist in SAT scores

In 2013, the American College Testing Board released a report stating that boys outperformed girls on the mathematics section of the test, a significant gap that has persisted for over 35 years. As of 2015, boys on average earned 32 points more than girls on the SAT mathematics section. Among those scoring in the 700–800 range, the male-to-female ratio was 1.6:1. In 2014, psychologist Stephen Ceci and his collaborators found boys did better than girls across the percentiles. For example, a girl scoring in the top 10% of her sex would only be in the top 20% among the boys. In 2010, psychologist Jonathan Wai and his colleagues showed, by analyzing data from three decades involving 1.6 million intellectually gifted seventh graders from the Duke University Talent Identification Program (TIP), that in the 1980s the gender gap in the mathematics section of the SAT among students scoring in the top 0.01% was 13.5:1 in favor of boys but dropped to 3.8:1 by the 1990s. The dramatic sex ratio from the 1980s replicates a different study using a sample from Johns Hopkins University. This ratio is similar to that observed for the ACT mathematics and science scores between the early 1990s and the late 2000s. It remained largely unaltered at the end of the 2000s. Sex differences in SAT mathematics scores began making themselves apparent at the level of 400 points and above. In the late 2000s, for every female who scored a perfect 800 on the SAT mathematics test, there were two males.

Some researchers point to evidence in support of (greater male variability) in verbal and quantitative reasoning skills. Greater male variability has been found in body weight, height, and cognitive abilities across cultures, leading to a larger number of males in the lowest and highest distributions of testing. Consequently, a higher number of males are found in both the upper and lower extremes of the performance distributions of the mathematics sections of standardized tests such as the SAT, resulting in the observed gender discrepancy. Paradoxically, this is at odds with the tendency of girls to have higher classroom scores than boys, proving that they do not lack scholastic aptitude. However, boys tend to do better on standardized test questions not directly related to the curriculum.

On the other hand, Wai and his colleagues found that both sexes in the top 5% appeared to be more or less at parity when it comes to the verbal section of the SAT, though girls have gained a slight but noticeable edge over boys starting in the mid-1980s. Psychologist David Lubinski, who conducted longitudinal studies of seventh graders who scored exceptionally high on the SAT, found a similar result. Girls generally had better verbal reasoning skills and boys mathematical skills. This reflects other research on the cognitive ability of the general population rather than just the 95th percentile and up.

Although aspects of testing such as stereotype threat are a concern, research on the predictive validity of the SAT has demonstrated that it tends to be a more accurate predictor of female GPA in university as compared to male GPA.

In strategizing

SAT mathematics questions can be answered intuitively or algorithmically.

Mathematical problems on the SAT can be broadly categorized into two groups: conventional and unconventional. Conventional problems can be handled routinely via familiar formulas or algorithms while unconventional ones require more creative thought in order to make unusual use of familiar methods of solution or to come up with the specific insights necessary for solving those problems. In 2000, ETS psychometrician Ann M. Gallagher and her colleagues analyzed how students handled disclosed SAT mathematics questions in self-reports. They found that for both sexes, the most favored approach was to use formulas or algorithms learned in class. When that failed, however, males were more likely than females to identify the suitable methods of solution. Previous research suggested that males were more likely to explore unusual paths to solution whereas females tended to stick to what they had learned in class and that females were more likely to identify the appropriate approaches if such required nothing more than mastery of classroom materials.

In confidence

Older versions of the SAT did ask students how confident they were in their mathematical aptitude and verbal reasoning ability, specifically, whether or not they believed they were in the top 10%. Devin G. Pope analyzed data of over four million test takers from the late 1990s to the early 2000s and found that high scorers were more likely to be confident they were in the top 10%, with the top scorers reporting the highest levels of confidence. But there were some noticeable gaps between the sexes. Men tended to be much more confident in their mathematical aptitude than women. For example, among those who scored 700 on the mathematics section, 67% of men answered they believed they were in the top 10% whereas only 56% of women did the same. Women, on the other hand, were slightly more confident in their verbal reasoning ability than men.

In glucose metabolism

Cognitive neuroscientists (Richard Haier) and (Camilla Persson Benbow) employed positron emission tomography (PET) scans to investigate the rate of glucose metabolism among students who have taken the SAT. They found that among men, those with higher SAT mathematics scores exhibited higher rates of glucose metabolism in the temporal lobes than those with lower scores, contradicting the brain-efficiency hypothesis. This trend, however, was not found among women, for whom the researchers could not find any cortical regions associated with mathematical reasoning. Both sexes scored the same on average in their sample and had the same rates of cortical glucose metabolism overall. According to Haier and Benbow, this is evidence for the structural differences of the brain between the sexes.

Association with race and ethnicity

SAT Verbal average scores by race or ethnicity from 1986–87 to 2004–05

SAT Math average scores by race or ethnicity from 1986–87 to 2004–05

A 2001 meta-analysis of the results of 6,246,729 participants tested for cognitive ability or aptitude found a difference in average scores between black and white students of around 1.0 (standard deviation), with comparable results for the SAT (2.4 million test takers). Similarly, on average, Hispanic and Amerindian students perform on the order of one standard deviation lower on the SAT than white and Asian students. Mathematics appears to be the more difficult part of the exam. In 1996, the black-white gap in the mathematics section was 0.91 standard deviations, but by 2020, it fell to 0.79. In 2013, Asian Americans as a group scored 0.38 standard deviations higher than whites in the mathematics section.

Some researchers believe that the difference in scores is closely related to the overall achievement gap in American society between students of different racial groups. This gap may be explainable in part by the fact that students of disadvantaged racial groups tend to go to schools that provide lower educational quality. This view is supported by evidence that the black-white gap is higher in cities and neighborhoods that are more racially segregated. Other research cites poorer minority proficiency in key coursework relevant to the SAT (English and math), as well as peer pressure against students who try to focus on their schoolwork ("acting white"). Cultural issues are also evident among black students in wealthier households, with high achieving parents. John Ogbu, a Nigerian-American professor of anthropology, concluded that instead of looking to their parents as role models, black youth chose other models like rappers and did not make an effort to be good students.

One set of studies has reported differential item functioning, namely, that some test questions function differently based on the racial group of the test taker, reflecting differences in ability to understand certain test questions or to acquire the knowledge required to answer them between groups. In 2003, Freedle published data showing that black students have had a slight advantage on the verbal questions that are labeled as difficult on the SAT, whereas white and Asian students tended to have a slight advantage on questions labeled as easy. Freedle argued that these findings suggest that "easy" test items use vocabulary that is easier to understand for white middle class students than for minorities, who often use a different language in the home environment, whereas the difficult items use complex language learned only through lectures and textbooks, giving both student groups equal opportunities to acquiring it. The study was severely criticized by the ETS board, but the findings were replicated in a subsequent study by Santelices and Wilson in 2010.

There is no evidence that SAT scores systematically underestimate future performance of minority students. However, the predictive validity of the SAT has been shown to depend on the dominant ethnic and racial composition of the college. Some studies have also shown that African-American students under-perform in college relative to their white peers with the same SAT scores; researchers have argued that this is likely because white students tend to benefit from social advantages outside of the educational environment (for example, high parental involvement in their education, inclusion in campus academic activities, positive bias from same-race teachers and peers) which result in better grades.

(Christopher Jencks) concludes that as a group, African Americans have been harmed by the introduction of standardized entrance exams such as the SAT. This, according to him, is not because the tests themselves are flawed, but because of labeling bias and selection bias; the tests measure the skills that African Americans are less likely to develop in their socialization, rather than the skills they are more likely to develop. Furthermore, standardized entrance exams are often labeled as tests of general ability, rather than of certain aspects of ability. Thus, a situation is produced in which African-American ability is consistently underestimated within the education and workplace environments, contributing in turn to selection bias against them which exacerbates underachievement.

2003 SAT scores by race and ethnicity

Among the major racial or ethnic groups of the United States, gaps in SAT mathematics scores are the greatest at the tails, with Hispanic and Latino Americans being the most likely to score at the lowest range and Asian Americans the highest. In addition, there is some evidence suggesting that if the test contains more questions of both the easy and difficult varieties, which would increase the variability of the scores, the gaps would be even wider. Given the distribution for Asians, for example, many could score higher than 800 if the test allowed them to. (See figure below.)

2020 was the year in which education worldwide was (disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic) and indeed, the performance of students in the United States on standardized tests, such as the SAT, suffered. Yet the gaps persisted. According to the College Board, in 2020, while 83% of Asian students met the benchmark of college readiness in reading and writing and 80% in mathematics, only 44% and 21% of black students did those respective categories. Among whites, 79% met the benchmark for reading and writing and 59% did mathematics. For Hispanics and Latinos, the numbers were 53% and 30%, respectively. (See figure below.)

Test-taking population

A U.S. Navy sailor taking the SAT aboard the U.S.S Kitty Hawk (CV-63) in 2004

By analyzing data from the National Center for Education Statistics, economists Ember Smith and Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institution deduced that the number of students taking the SAT increased at a rate faster than population and high-school graduation growth rates between 2000 and 2020. The increase was especially pronounced among Hispanics and Latinos. Even among whites, whose number of high-school graduates was shrinking, the number of SAT takers rose. In 2015, for example, 1.7 million students took the SAT, up from 1.6 million in 2013. But in 2019, a record-breaking 2.2 million students took the exam, compared to 2.1 million in 2018, another record-breaking year. The rise in the number of students taking the SAT was due in part to many school districts offering to administer the SAT during school days often at no further costs to the students. Some require students to take the SAT, regardless of whether or not they are going to college. However, in 2021, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the optional status of the SAT at many colleges and universities, only 1.5 million students took the test. But as testing centers reopened, ambitious students chose to take the SAT or the ACT to make themselves stand out from the competition regardless of the admissions policies of their preferred schools. Among the class of 2023, 1.9 million students took the test.

Psychologists (Jean Twenge), W. Keith Campbell, and Ryne A. Sherman analyzed vocabulary test scores on the U.S. General Social Survey (${\displaystyle n=29,912}$) and found that after correcting for education, the use of sophisticated vocabulary has declined between the mid-1970s and the mid-2010s across all levels of education, from below high school to graduate school. However, they cautioned against the use of SAT verbal scores to track the decline for while the College Board reported that SAT verbal scores had been decreasing, these scores were an imperfect measure of the vocabulary level of the nation as a whole because the test-taking demographic has changed and because more students took the SAT in the 2010s than in the 1970s, meaning there were more with limited ability who took it. However, as the frequency of reading for pleasure and the level of reading comprehension among American high-school students continue to decline, students who take the SAT might struggle to do well, even if reforms have been introduced to shorten the duration of the test and to reduce the number of questions associated with a given passage in the verbal portion of the test.

Use in non-collegiate contexts

By high-IQ societies

Certain (high IQ societies), like Mensa, (Intertel), the (Prometheus Society) and the (Triple Nine Society), use scores from certain years as one of their admission tests. For instance, Intertel accepts scores (verbal and math combined) of at least 1300 on tests taken through January 1994; the Triple Nine Society accepts scores of 1450 or greater on SAT tests taken before April 1995, and scores of at least 1520 on tests taken between April 1995 and February 2005. Mensa accepts qualifying SAT scores earned on or before January 31, 1994.

By researchers

Because it is strongly correlated with general intelligence, the SAT has often been used as a proxy to measure intelligence by researchers, especially since 2004. In particular, scientists studying mathematically gifted individuals have been using the mathematics section of the SAT to identify subjects for their research.

A growing body of research indicates that SAT scores can predict individual success decades into the future, for example in terms of income and occupational achievements. A longitudinal study published in 2005 by educational psychologists Jonathan Wai, David Lubinski, and Camilla Benbow suggests that among the intellectually precocious (the top 1%), those with higher scores in the mathematics section of the SAT at the age of 12 were more likely to earn a PhD in the STEM fields, to have a publication, to register a patent, or to secure university tenure. Wai further showed that an individual's academic ability, as measured by the average SAT or ACT scores of the institution attended, predicted individual differences in income, even among the richest people of all, and being a member of the 'American elite', namely Fortune 500 CEOs, billionaires, federal judges, and members of Congress. Wai concluded that the American elite was also the cognitive elite. Gregory Park, Lubinski, and Benbow gave statistical evidence that intellectually gifted adolescents, as identified by SAT scores, could be expected to accomplish great feats of creativity in the future, both in the arts and in STEM.

The SAT is sometimes given to students at age 12 or 13 by organizations such as the (Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth) (SMPY), Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth, and the Duke University (Talent Identification Program) (TIP) to select, study, and mentor students of exceptional ability, that is, those in the top one percent. Among SMPY participants, those within the top quartile, as indicated by the SAT composite score (mathematics and verbal), were markedly more likely to have a doctoral degree, to have at least one publication in STEM, to earn income in the 95th percentile, to have at least one literary publication, or to register at least one patent than those in the bottom quartile. Duke TIP participants generally picked career tracks in STEM should they be stronger in mathematics, as indicated by SAT mathematics scores, or the humanities if they possessed greater verbal ability, as indicated by SAT verbal scores. For comparison, the bottom SMPY quartile is five times more likely than the average American to have a patent. Meanwhile, as of 2016, the shares doctorates among SMPY participants was 44% and Duke TIP 37%, compared to two percent among the general U.S. population. Consequently, the notion that beyond a certain point, differences in cognitive ability as measured by standardized tests such as the SAT cease to matter is gainsaid by the evidence.

In the 2010 paper which showed that the sex gap in SAT mathematics scores had dropped dramatically between the early 1980s and the early 1990s but had persisted for the next two decades or so, Wai and his colleagues argued that "sex differences in abilities in the extreme right tail should not be dismissed as no longer part of the explanation for the dearth of women in math-intensive fields of science."

By employers

Cognitive ability is correlated with job training outcomes and job performance. As such, some employers rely on SAT scores to assess the suitability of a prospective recruit, especially if the person has limited work experience. There is nothing new about this practice. Major companies and corporations have spent princely sums on learning how to avoid hiring errors and have decided that standardized test scores are a valuable tool in deciding whether or not a person is fit for the job. In some cases, a company might need to hire someone to handle proprietary materials of its own making, such as computer software. But since the ability to work with such materials cannot be assessed via external certification, it makes sense for such a firm to rely on something that is a proxy of measuring general intelligence. In other cases, a firm may not care about academic background but needs to assess a prospective recruit's quantitative reasoning ability, and what makes standardized test scores necessary. Several companies, especially those considered to be the most prestigious in industries such as investment banking and management consulting such as Goldman Sachs and , have been reported to ask prospective job candidates about their SAT scores.

Nevertheless, some other top employers, such as Google, have eschewed the use of SAT or other standardized test scores unless the potential employee is a recent graduate. Google's (Laszlo Bock) explained to The New York Times, "We found that they don’t predict anything." Educational psychologist Jonathan Wai suggested this might be due to the inability of the SAT to differentiate the intellectual capacities of those at the extreme right end of the distribution of intelligence. Wai told The New York Times, "Today the SAT is actually too easy, and that's why Google doesn't see a correlation. Every single person they get through the door is a super-high scorer."

Perception

Math–verbal achievement gap

In 2002, New York Times columnist Richard Rothstein argued that the U.S. math averages on the SAT and ACT continued their decade-long rise over national verbal averages on the tests while the averages of verbal portions on the same tests were floundering.

Optional SAT

During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a movement to drop achievement scores. After some time, the countries, states, and provinces that reintroduced them agreed that academic standards had dropped, students had studied less, and had taken their education less seriously. Testing requirements were reinstated in some places after research concluded that these high-stakes tests produced benefits that outweighed the costs. However, in a 2001 speech to the (American Council on Education), Richard C. Atkinson, the president of the University of California, urged the dropping of aptitude tests such as the SAT I but not achievement tests such as the SAT II as a college admissions requirement. Atkinson's critique of the predictive validity and powers of the SAT has been contested by the University of California academic senate. In April 2020, the academic senate, which consisted of faculty members, voted 51–0 to restore the requirement of standardized test scores, but the governing board overruled the academic senate and did not reinstate the test requirement anyway. Because of the size of the Californian population, this decision might have an impact on U.S. higher education at large; schools looking to admit Californian students could have a harder time.

During the 2010s, over 1,230 American universities and colleges opted to stop requiring the SAT and the ACT for admissions, according to FairTest, an activist group opposing standardized entrance exams. Most, however, were small colleges, with the notable exceptions of the University of California system and the University of Chicago. Also on the list are institutions catering to niche students, such as religious colleges, arts and music conservatories, or nursing schools, and the majority of institutions in the Northeastern United States. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, around 1,600 institutions decided to waive the requirement of the SAT or the ACT for admissions because it was challenging both to administer and to take these tests, resulting in many cancellations. Some schools chose to make them optional on a temporary basis only, either for just one year, as in the case of Princeton University, or three, like the . Others dropped the requirement completely. Some schools extended their moratorium on standardized entrance exams in 2021. This did not stop highly ambitious students from taking them, however, as many parents and teenagers were skeptical of the "optional" status of university entrance exams and wanted to make their applications more likely to catch the attention of admission officers. This led to complaints of registration sites crashing in the summer of 2020. On the other hand, the number of students applying to the more competitive of schools that had made SAT and ACT scores optional increased dramatically because the students thought they stood a chance. Ivy League institutions saw double-digit increases in the number of applications, as high as 51% in the case of Columbia University, while their admission rates, already in the single digits, fell, e.g. from 4.9% in 2020 to just 3.4% in 2021 at Harvard University. At the same time, interest in lower-status schools that did the same thing dropped precipitously; the college application process remains driven primarily by the preference for elite schools. 44% of students who used the (Common Application)—accepted by over 900 colleges and universities as of 2021—submitted SAT or ACT scores in the 2020–21 academic year, down from 77% in 2019–20. Those who did submit their test scores tended to hail from high-income families, to have at least one university-educated parent, and to be white or Asian.

Despite the fallout from (Operation Varsity Blues), which found many wealthy parents illegally intervening to raise their children's standardized test scores, the SAT and the ACT remain popular among American parents and college-bound seniors, who are skeptical of the process of "holistic admissions" because they think it is rather opaque, as schools try to access characteristics not easily discerned via a number, hence the growth in the number of test takers attempting to make themselves more competitive even if this parallels an increase in the number of schools declaring it optional. While holistic admissions might seem like a plausible alternative, the process of applying can be rather stressful for students and parents, and many get upset once they learn that someone else got into the school that rejected them despite having lower SAT scores and GPAs. Holistic admissions notwithstanding, when merit-based scholarships are considered, standardized test scores might be the tiebreakers, as these are highly competitive. Scholarships and financial aid could help students and their parents significantly cut the cost of higher education, especially in times of economic hardship. Moreover, the most selective of schools might have no better options than using standardized test scores in order to quickly prune the number of applications worth considering, for holistic admissions consume valuable time and other resources.

Following the 2023 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States against race-based admissions as a form of affirmative action, a number of schools have signaled their intent to continue pursuing ethnic diversity. One way for them to adapt to the new legal reality is to drop the requirement of standardized testing, making it more difficult for potential plaintiffs (Asian Americans in the twin cases of SFFA v. Harvard and (SFFA v UNC)) to find concrete evidence for their allegations of discrimination.

On one hand, making the SAT and the ACT optional for admissions enables schools to attract a larger pool of applicants of a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. On the other hand, letters of recommendation are not a good indicator of collegiate performance, and grade inflation is a genuine problem. If standardized tests were taken out of the picture, school grades would become more important, thereby incentivizing grade inflation. In fact, grades in American high schools have been inflating by noticeable amounts due to pressure from parents, creating an apparent oversupply of high achievers that makes actual high-performing students struggle to stand out, especially if they are from low-income families. Schools that made the SAT optional therefore lost an objective measure of academic aptitude and readiness, and they will have to formulate a new methodology for admissions or to develop their own entrance exams. Given that the selectivity of a school a student applies to is correlated with the resources of his or her high school—measured in terms of the availability of rigorous courses, such as AP classes, and the socioeconomic statuses of the student body—, making the SAT optional might exacerbate social inequities. Furthermore, since the costs of attending institutions of higher learning in the United States are high, eliminating the SAT requirement could make said institutions more likely to admit under-performing students, who might have to be removed for their low academic standing and who might be saddled with debt after attending. Another criticism of making the SAT optional is that subjective measures of an applicant's suitability, such as application essays, could become more important, making it easier for the rich to gain admissions at the expense of the poor because their school counselors are more capable of writing good letters of recommendation and they can afford to hire external help to boost their applications.

It was due to these concerns that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) decided to reinstate its SAT requirement in 2022. Many other universities across the U.S. followed suit in 2024. However, the University of North Carolina system will only require SAT or ACT scores from applicants whose high-school GPA is below 2.8 while the University of California system will continue to be test-blind.

Writing section

In 2005, MIT Writing Director (Les Perelman) plotted essay length versus essay score on the new SAT from released essays and found a high correlation between them. After studying over 50 graded essays, he found that longer essays consistently produced higher scores. In fact, he argues that by simply gauging the length of an essay without reading it, the given score of an essay could likely be determined correctly over 90% of the time. He also discovered that several of these essays were full of factual errors; the College Board does not claim to grade for factual accuracy.

Perelman, along with the National Council of Teachers of English, also criticized the 25-minute writing section of the test for damaging standards of writing teaching in the classroom. They say that writing teachers training their students for the SAT will not focus on revision, depth, accuracy, but will instead produce long, formulaic, and wordy pieces. "You're getting teachers to train students to be bad writers", concluded Perelman.

On January 19, 2021, the College Board announced that the SAT would no longer offer the optional essay section after the June 2021 administration.

History

Historical average SAT scores of college-bound seniors.

The College Board, the not-for-profit organization that owns the SAT, was organized at the beginning of the 20th century to provide uniform entrance exams for its member colleges, whose matriculating students often came from boarding and private day schools found in the Northeastern United States. The exams were essay-based, graded by hand, and required several days for the student to take them. By the early 1920s, the increasing interest in intelligence tests as a means of selection convinced the College Board to form a commission to produce such a test for college admission purposes. The leader of the commission was (Carl Brigham), a psychologist at Princeton University, who originally saw the value of these types of tests through the lens of eugenic thought.

On June 23, 1926, the first SAT, then known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test, was administered to 8,040 students, 60% of whom were male, many of whom were applying to Yale University (26%) and Smith College (27%). In 1934, (James Conant) and (Henry Chauncey) used the SAT as a means to identify recipients, besides those from the traditional northeastern private schools, for scholarships to Harvard University. By 1942, the College Board suspended the use of the essay exams, replacing them with the SAT, due in part to the success of Harvard's SAT program as well as because of the constraints from the onset of World War II. At this time, the SAT was standardized so that a test score received by a student in one year could be directly compared to a score received by a student in another year. Test scores ranged from 200 to 800 on each of two test sections (verbal and math) and the same reference group of students was used to standardize the SAT until 1995.

Logo as of 2013

After the war, due to several factors including the formation of the Educational Testing Service, the use of the SAT increased rapidly: by 1951, about 80,000 SATs were taken, rising to about 1.5 million in 1971. During this time, changes made to the content of the SAT were relatively minor, and included the introduction of sentence completion questions and "quantitative comparison" math questions as well as changes in the timing of the test. In 1994, however, the SAT was substantially changed in an attempt to make the test more closely reflect the work done by students in school and the skills that they would need in college. Among other changes, antonym questions were removed from the verbal section, and (free response questions) were added to the math section along with the use of calculators. In 1995, after nearly forty years of declining scores, the SAT was recalibrated by the addition of approximately 100 points to each score to compensate for the decline in what constituted an average score.

In 2005, the SAT was changed again, in part due to criticism of the test by the University of California system, which said that the test was not closely enough aligned to high school curricula. Along with the elimination of analogies from the verbal section and quantitative comparison items from the math section, a new writing section with an essay was added. The changes introduced an additional section score, increasing the maximum SAT score to 2400.

In early 2016, the SAT would change again in the interest of alignment with typical high school curricula. The changes included making the essay optional (and returning the maximum score to 1600), changing all multiple-choice questions from having five answer options to four, and the removal of penalty for wrong answers (rights-only scoring). The essay was completely removed from the SAT by mid-2021, in the interest of reducing demands on students in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Name changes

Old SAT logo

The SAT has been renamed several times since its introduction in 1926. It was originally known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test. In 1990, a commission set up by the College Board to review the proposed changes to the SAT program recommended that the meaning of the initialism SAT be changed to "Scholastic Assessment Test" because a "test that integrates measures of achievement as well as developed ability can no longer be accurately described as a test of aptitude". In 1993, the College Board changed the name of the test to SAT I: Reasoning Test; at the same time, the name of the (SAT Achievement Tests) was changed to SAT II: Subject Tests. The Reasoning Test and Subject Tests were to be collectively known as the Scholastic Assessment Tests. According to the president of the College Board at the time, the name change was meant "to correct the impression among some people that the SAT measures something that is innate and impervious to change regardless of effort or instruction." The new SAT debuted in March 1994, and was referred to as the Scholastic Assessment Test by major news organizations. However, in 1997, the College Board announced that the SAT could not properly be called the Scholastic Assessment Test, and that the letters SAT (did not stand for anything). In 2004, the Roman numeral in SAT I: Reasoning Test was dropped, making SAT Reasoning Test the name of the SAT. The "Reasoning Test" portion of the name was eliminated following the exam's 2016 redesign; it is now simply called the SAT.

Reuse of old SAT exams

The College Board has been accused of completely reusing old SAT papers previously given in the United States. The recycling of questions from previous exams has been exploited to allow for cheating on exams and impugned the validity of some students' test scores. Test preparation companies in Asia have been found to provide test questions to students within hours of a new SAT exam's administration.

On August 25, 2018, the SAT test given in the United States was discovered to be a recycled October 2017 international SAT test given in China. The leaked PDF file was on the internet before the August 25, 2018, exam.

See also

• ACT (test), a college entrance exam, competitor to the SAT
• College admissions in the United States
• (List of admissions tests)
• (SAT Subject Tests)
• (Mathematics education in the United States)

Notes

1. In 2020, the SAT was also offered on an additional September date due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Depending on the author, there might be a negative sign. This comes from the fact that the higher the rank, the smaller the number of that rank.
3. Known as the SAT Subject Tests since 2005, discontinued in 2021.

References

1. "How the SAT is Structured". College Board. from the original on March 6, 2024. Retrieved March 10, 2024.
2. Goldberg, Emma (September 27, 2020). "Put Down Your No. 2 Pencils. But Not Your Face Mask". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. from the original on December 4, 2020. Retrieved December 4, 2020.
3. "2023 SAT Suite of Assessments Annual Report" (PDF). College Board. (PDF) from the original on October 11, 2023. Retrieved October 24, 2023.
4. "Fees And Costs". The College Board. from the original on October 10, 2014. Retrieved October 13, 2014.
5. "Frequently Asked Questions About ETS". ETS. from the original on July 15, 2014. Retrieved June 6, 2014.
6. "'Massive' breach exposes hundreds of questions for upcoming SAT exams". Reuters. from the original on July 19, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017.
7. Baird, Katherine (2012). Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. "And a separate process that began in 1926 was complete by 1942: the much easier SAT—a test not aligned to any particular curriculum and thus better suited to a nation where high school students did not take a common curriculum—replaced the old college boards as the nations's college entrance exam. This broke the once tight link between academic coursework and college admission, a break that remains to this day."
8. Lewin, Tamar (March 5, 2014). "A New SAT Aims to Realign With Schoolwork". The New York Times. from the original on May 13, 2014. Retrieved May 14, 2014. He said he also wanted to make the test reflect more closely what students did in high school and, perhaps most important, rein in the intense coaching and tutoring on how to take the test that often gave affluent students an advantage.
9. Balf, Todd (March 5, 2014). "The Story Behind the SAT Overhaul". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. from the original on June 16, 2017. Retrieved June 21, 2017.
10. "College Board Will No Longer Offer SAT Subject Tests or SAT with Essay". College Board Blog. from the original on August 21, 2023. Retrieved February 14, 2021.
11. Hartocollis, Anemona; Taylor, Kate; Saul, Stephanie (January 20, 2021). "Retooling During Pandemic, the SAT Will Drop Essay and Subject Tests". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on December 28, 2021. Retrieved February 14, 2021.
12. Sorensen, Tiffany. "The Optional SAT Essay: What to Know". U.S. News. Retrieved October 2, 2023.
13. Thompson, Carolyn (January 25, 2022). "In major overhaul, SAT exam will soon be taken digitally". PBS Newshour. from the original on January 25, 2022. Retrieved January 25, 2022.
14. Goldstein, Dana (March 8, 2024). "No More No. 2 Pencils: The SAT Goes Fully Digital". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 8, 2024. Retrieved March 10, 2024.
15. "What is Digital SAT Adaptive Testing?". College Board Blog. August 14, 2023. Archived from the original on March 21, 2024.
16. Frey, Meredith C. (December 2019). "What We Know, Are Still Getting Wrong, and Have Yet to Learn about the Relationships among the SAT, Intelligence and Achievement". Journal of Intelligence. 7 (4): 26. doi:10.3390/jintelligence7040026. PMC 6963451. PMID 31810191.
17. Hambrick, David C.; Chabris, Christopher (April 14, 2014). "Yes, IQ Really Matters". Science. Slate. from the original on August 31, 2021. Retrieved August 31, 2021.
18. O'Boyle, Michael W. (2005). "Some current findings on brain characteristics of the mathematically gifted adolescent" (PDF). International Education Journal. 6 (2). Shannon Research Press: 247–251. ISSN 1443-1475. (PDF) from the original on August 26, 2021. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
19. Haier, Richard (2018). "Chapter 11: A View from the Brain". In Sternberg, Robert (ed.). The Nature of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN . from the original on August 21, 2023. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
20. Lubinsky, David (2018). "Chapter 15: Individual Differences at the Top". In Sternberg, Robert (ed.). The Nature of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN . from the original on August 21, 2023. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
21. Weber, Rebecca L. (May 18, 2004). . Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on August 26, 2021. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
22. Treu, Zachary (February 26, 2014). "Your SAT and ACT scores could make a difference in your job future". Nation. PBS Newshour. from the original on August 26, 2021. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
23. Dewan, Shaila (March 29, 2014). "How Businesses Use Your SATs". The New York Times. from the original on February 12, 2021. Retrieved February 14, 2021.
24. "SAT Registration". College Board. December 2, 2015. from the original on August 28, 2016. Retrieved August 16, 2016. "Most students take the SAT spring of junior year or fall of senior year."
25. (PDF). The College Board. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 6, 2009. Retrieved October 13, 2014.
26. Atkinson, Richard; Geiser, Saul (May 4, 2015). "The Big Problem With the New SAT". The New York Times. from the original on November 1, 2015. Retrieved January 29, 2016.
27. Korbin, L. (2006). SAT Program Handbook. A Comprehensive Guide to the SAT Program for School Counselors and Admissions Officers, 1, 33+. Retrieved January 24, 2006, from College Board Preparation Database.
28. Honawar, Vaishali; Klein, Alyson (August 30, 2006). "ACT Scores Improve; More on East Coast Taking the SAT's Rival". Education Week. from the original on May 30, 2015. Retrieved May 29, 2015.
29. Slatalla, Michelle (November 4, 2007). "ACT vs. SAT". The New York Times. from the original on September 27, 2017. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
30. "Colleges and Universities That Do Not Use SAT/ACT Scores for Admitting Substantial Numbers of Students Into Bachelor Degree Programs". fairtest.org. The National Center for Fair & Open Testing. from the original on September 28, 2017. Retrieved September 26, 2017.
31. Marklein, Mary Beth (March 18, 2007). "All four-year U.S. colleges now accept ACT test". USA Today. from the original on May 30, 2015. Retrieved May 29, 2015.
32. https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/sat/whats-on-the-test/structure
33. "SAT Registration Fees". College Board. May 15, 2015. from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved January 7, 2017.
34. https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/sat/scores/send-scores-to-colleges/sending-scores
35. https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/sat/scores/send-scores-to-colleges/rush-reporting
36. O'Shaughnessy, Lynn (July 26, 2009). "The Other Side of 'Test Optional'". The New York Times. p. 6. from the original on November 19, 2018. Retrieved June 22, 2011.
37. Capuzzi Simon, Cecilia (November 1, 2015). "The Test-Optional Surge". The New York Times. from the original on August 12, 2019. Retrieved August 12, 2019.
38. Farmer, Angela; Wai, Jonathan (September 21, 2020). "Many colleges have gone test-optional – here's how that could change the way students are admitted". The Conversation. from the original on September 23, 2020. Retrieved February 2, 2020.
39. Strauss, Valerie. "A record number of colleges drop SAT/ACT admissions requirement amid growing disenchantment with standardized tests". The Washington Post. from the original on August 21, 2023. Retrieved February 2, 2021.
40. Selingo, Jeffrey (September 16, 2020). "The SAT and the ACT Will Probably Survive the Pandemic—Thanks to Students". The Atlantic. from the original on February 3, 2021. Retrieved February 2, 2021.
41. Quintana, Chris (December 29, 2020). "Colleges say SAT, ACT score is optional for application during COVID-19, but families don't believe them". USA Today. from the original on January 26, 2021. Retrieved February 5, 2021.
42. Quilantan, Bianca (January 18, 2021). "Access to college admissions tests — and lucrative scholarships — imperiled by the pandemic". Politico. from the original on August 31, 2021. Retrieved August 31, 2021.
43. Hobbs, Tawnell D. (September 24, 2019). "SAT Scores Fall as More Students Take the Test". The Wall Street Journal. from the original on November 28, 2020. Retrieved February 2, 2021.
44. Anderson, Nick (September 3, 2015). "SAT scores at lowest level in 10 years, fueling worries about high schools". The Washington Post. from the original on September 5, 2015. Retrieved September 17, 2020.
45. Twenge, Jean; Campbell, W. Keith; Sherman, Ryne A. (2019). "Declines in vocabulary among American adults within levels of educational attainment, 1974–2016". Intelligence. 76 (101377): 101377. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.101377. S2CID 200037032. from the original on September 5, 2021. Retrieved January 31, 2021.
46. "Score Structure". CollegeBoard. May 14, 2015. from the original on March 18, 2016. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
47. "The SAT and SAT Subject Tests Educator Guide" (PDF). College Board. (PDF) from the original on October 18, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017.
48. "SAT Essay". CollegeBoard. December 3, 2014. from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
49. "SAT Reading Test". College Board. May 12, 2015. from the original on August 16, 2017. Retrieved August 16, 2017.
50. "SAT Writing and Language Test". College Board. May 12, 2015. from the original on August 20, 2017. Retrieved August 19, 2017.
51. "SAT Math Test". The College Board. May 12, 2015. from the original on March 18, 2016. Retrieved April 5, 2016.
52. "Score Structure – SAT Suite of Assessments". The College Board. May 14, 2015. from the original on March 18, 2016. Retrieved April 5, 2016.
53. "PSAT/NMSQT Understanding Scores 2015 – SAT Suite of Assessments" (PDF). The College Board. (PDF) from the original on April 7, 2016. Retrieved April 6, 2016.
54. "SAT Study Guide for Students – SAT Suite of Assessments". The College Board. July 15, 2015. from the original on April 23, 2016. Retrieved April 7, 2016.
55. https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/cb-calculator-policies-mathematics-science.pdf. {{}}: Missing or empty |title= ()
56. "SAT Calculator Policy". The College Board. January 13, 2016. from the original on March 18, 2016. Retrieved April 2, 2016.
57. https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/co-acceptable-calculator-list-sat.pdf. {{}}: Missing or empty |title= ()
58. Scheuneman, Janice; Camara, Wayne. . The College Board. Archived from the original on April 3, 2016. Retrieved April 3, 2016.
59. "Should graphing calculators be allowed on important tests?" (PDF). Texas Instruments. (PDF) from the original on April 22, 2016. Retrieved April 2, 2016.
60. "About The SAT Math Test" (PDF). College Board. (PDF) from the original on August 25, 2017. Retrieved August 24, 2017.
61. "College Board Test Tips". College Board. from the original on November 24, 2009. Retrieved September 9, 2008.
62. "SAT Dates And Deadlines". College Board. May 15, 2015. from the original on July 23, 2017. Retrieved July 22, 2017.
63. "SAT International Registration". College Board. May 15, 2015. from the original on July 21, 2017. Retrieved July 22, 2017.
64. Robinson, Ashley. "When Will the SAT Go Digital?". from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 18, 2023.
65. "Digital SAT – SAT Suite | College Board". from the original on April 14, 2023. Retrieved April 18, 2023.
66. "Bluebook". bluebook.app.collegeboard.org. from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 18, 2023.
67. "FAQ - Digital SAT Suite | College Board". satsuite.collegeboard.org. Retrieved December 5, 2023.
68. "Getting SAT Scores". The College Board. January 11, 2016. from the original on April 24, 2019. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
69. "Understanding SAT Scores" (PDF). The College Board. (PDF) from the original on April 17, 2019. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
70. "Verifying SAT Scores". The College Board. January 11, 2016. from the original on April 24, 2019. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
71. (PDF). College Board. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 14, 2007. Retrieved May 29, 2007.
72. (PDF). College Board. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 14, 2007. Retrieved May 29, 2007.
73. "The Fifth Norming of the Mega Test". from the original on May 16, 2019. Retrieved May 25, 2019.
74. Your College Board ATP Report. College Entrance Examination Board. 1971. pp. 7, 9–10.
75. "No Mistake, These Five Kids Have All the Answers: They Scored Perfect 1600s on Their Sat Exams". People. People (Meredith Corporation). from the original on June 23, 2022. Retrieved June 23, 2022.
76. ACT and SAT® Concordance Tables (PDF). College Board. September 30, 2009. (PDF) from the original on April 26, 2017. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
77. "ACT-SAT Concordance Tables" (PDF). ACT, Inc. (PDF) from the original on November 21, 2016. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
78. "Higher Education Concordance Information". College Board. May 15, 2015. from the original on March 19, 2017. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
79. "Guide to the 2018 ACT/SAT Concordance" (PDF). CollegeBoard. 2018. (PDF) from the original on May 9, 2019. Retrieved June 2, 2019.
80. "Guide to the 2018 ACT/SAT Concordance" (PDF). College Board and ACT, Inc. (PDF) from the original on March 3, 2022. Retrieved November 26, 2021.
81. Kaplan, Stanley (2001). Test Pilot: How I Broke Testing Barriers for Millions of Students and Caused a Sonic Boom in the Business of Education. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 30–33. ISBN .
82. Research and Markets ltd. "2009 Worldwide Exam Preparation & Tutoring Industry Report". researchandmarkets.com. from the original on July 2, 2010. Retrieved June 12, 2009.
83. Gross, Natalie (November 10, 2016). "Can a free SAT prep class ever be as good as pricey in-person ones?". The Washington Post. from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved August 25, 2021.
84. Montgomery, Paul; Lilly, Jane (2012). "Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Preparatory Courses on University Entrance Examinations in High School-Age Students". International Journal of Social Welfare. 21 (1): 3–12. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00812.x.
85. Carlton, Sue (March 31, 2021). . Crime. Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on August 27, 2021. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
86. Byun, Soo-yong; Park, Hyunjoon (July 29, 2011). "The Academic Success of East Asian American Youth: The Role of Shadow Education". Sociology of Education. 85 (1): 40–60. doi:10.1177/0038040711417009. PMC 3806291. PMID 24163483.
87. Allen Grove. "SAT Prep – Are SAT Prep Courses Worth the Cost?". About.com Education. from the original on July 7, 2011. Retrieved November 27, 2010.
88. Becker, Betsy Jane (Autumn 1990). "Coaching for the Scholastic Aptitude Test: Further Synthesis and Appraisal". Review of Educational Research. 90 (3). American Educational Research Association: 373–417. doi:10.3102/00346543060003373. JSTOR 1170759. from the original on October 28, 2021. Retrieved October 28, 2021 – via JSTOR.
89. Powers, Donald E.; Rock, Donald A. (Summer 1999). "Effects of Coaching on SAT I: Reasoning Test Scores". Journal of Educational Measurement. 36 (2). National Council on Measurement in Education: 93–118. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1999.tb00549.x. JSTOR 1435274. from the original on October 28, 2021. Retrieved October 28, 2021 – via JSTOR.
90. Wai, Jonathan; Brown, Matt; Chabris, Christopher (2019). "No one likes the SAT. It's still the fairest thing about admissions". The Washington Post. from the original on November 17, 2020. Retrieved February 15, 2021.
91. Hambrick, David Z. (December 16, 2011). "The SAT Is a Good Intelligence Test". The New York Times. from the original on February 26, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2021.
92. DerSimonian, Rebecca; Laird, Nan (April 1983). "Evaluating the Effect of Coaching on SAT Scores: A Meta-Analysis". Harvard Educational Review. 53 (1): 1–15. doi:10.17763/haer.53.1.n06j5h5356217648.
93. Domigue, Ben; Briggs, Derek C. (2009). "Using Linear Regression and Propensity Score Matching to Estimate the Effect of Coaching on the SAT". Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints. 35 (1): 12–29. from the original on June 4, 2021. Retrieved January 31, 2021.
94. Becker, Betsy Jane (June 30, 2016). "Coaching for the Scholastic Aptitude Test: Further Synthesis and Appraisal". Review of Educational Research. 60 (3): 373–417. doi:10.3102/00346543060003373. S2CID 146476197.
95. Park, Julie J.; Ann H., Becks (Fall 2015). "Who Benefits from SAT Prep?: An Examination of High School Context and Race/Ethnicity". Review of Higher Education. 39 (1). Johns Hopkins University Press: 1–23. doi:10.1353/rhe.2015.0038. S2CID 145649282. from the original on September 9, 2021. Retrieved January 5, 2022.
96. Park, Julie J. (August 1, 2012). "It Takes a Village (or an Ethnic Economy): The Varying Roles of Socioeconomic Status, Religion, and Social Capital in SAT Preparation for Chinese and Korean American Students". American Educational Research Journal. 49 (4): 624–650. doi:10.3102/0002831211425609. S2CID 143887760. from the original on January 5, 2022. Retrieved January 5, 2022.
97. Shellenbarger, Sue (May 27, 2009). "High-School Senior: I Took the SAT Again After 41 Years". The Wall Street Journal. from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved February 22, 2021.
98. Goldfarb, Zachary A. (March 5, 2014). "These four charts show how the SAT favors rich, educated families". The Washington Post. from the original on February 16, 2021. Retrieved February 16, 2021.
99. Steiner, Matty (August 22, 2014). "Neuroscience and College Admission Tests". Compass. from the original on August 27, 2021. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
100. (Walker, Matthew) (2017). "Chapter 15: Sleep and Society". Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams. New York: Schribner. pp. 310–11. ISBN .
101. (Budson, Andrew); (Kensinger, Elizabeth) (2023). "20: Sleep". Why We Forget and How to Remember Better: The Science Behind Memory. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 274. ISBN .
102. Becker, Sam (April 17, 2024). "During test-optional college admissions, exam-prep companies still thrived". BBC News. Retrieved April 17, 2024.
103. Atkinson, R. C.; Geiser, S. (2009). "Reflections on a Century of College Admissions Tests". Educational Researcher. 38 (9): 665–76. doi:10.3102/0013189x09351981. S2CID 15661086. from the original on June 23, 2020. Retrieved September 10, 2018.
104. "Report of the UC Academic Council Standardized Testing Task Force (STTF)" (PDF). January 2020. (PDF) from the original on September 14, 2020. Retrieved August 27, 2020. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.³ For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income.
105. Kobrin, Jennifer L.; Patterson, Brian F.; Shaw, Emily J.; Mattern, Krista D.; Barbuti, Sandra M. (2008). Validity of the SAT® for Predicting First-Year College Grade Point Average. Research Report No. 2008-5. College Board. from the original on August 21, 2023.
106. Burton, Nancy W.; Ramist, Leonard (2001). Predicting Success in College: SAT® Studies of Classes Graduating since 1980. Research Report No. 2001-2. College Entrance Examination Board. from the original on April 6, 2021.
107. Watanabe, Teresa (March 19, 2020). "Report bolsters idea of dropping SAT, ACT tests for UC admission". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 29, 2023.
108. Natanson, Hannah; Svrluga, Susan (March 18, 2024). "The SAT is coming back at some colleges. It's stressing everyone out". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 23, 2024. Retrieved June 7, 2024.
109. Friedman, John; Sacerdote, Bruce; Tine, Michele (January 2024). "Standardized Test Scores and Academic Performance at Ivy-Plus Colleges" (PDF). Opportunity Insights. Retrieved June 7, 2024.
110. Schmitt, Neal; Keeney, Jessica; Oswald, Frederick L.; Pleskac, Timothy J.; Billington, Abigail Q.; Sinha, Ruchi; Zorzie, Mark (November 2009). "Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and noncognitive predictors and the impact on demographic status of admitted students". Journal of Applied Psychology. 96 (4): 1479–97. doi:10.1037/a0016810. PMID 19916657. from the original on August 31, 2021. Retrieved August 31, 2021.
111. Kuncel, Nathan R.; Hezlett, Sarah A. (December 14, 2010). "Fact and Fiction in Cognitive Ability Testing for Admissions and Hiring Decisions". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 19 (6). Association for Psychological Science: 339–345. doi:10.1177/0963721410389459. S2CID 33313110. from the original on March 16, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
112. Sackett, Paul R.; Kuncel, Nathan R.; Beatty, Adam S.; Rigdon, Jana L.; Shen, Winny; Kiger, Thomas B. (August 2, 2012). "The Role of Socioeconomic Status in SAT-Grade Relationships and in College Admissions Decisions". Psychological Science. 23 (9). Association for Psychological Science: 1000–1007. doi:10.1177/0956797612438732. PMID 22858524. S2CID 22703783. from the original on March 9, 2021. Retrieved February 2, 2021.
113. Shewach, Oren R.; McNeal, Kyle D.; Kuncel, Nathan R.; Sackett, Paul R. (2019). "Bunny Hill or Black Diamond: Differences in Advanced Course-Taking in College as a Function of Cognitive Ability and High School GPA". Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 38 (1). National Council on Measurement in Education: 25–35. doi:10.1111/emip.12212. S2CID 96513319.
114. Zwick, Rebecca; Greif Green, Jennifer (Spring 2007). "New Perspectives on the Correlation of SAT Scores, High School Grades, and Socioeconomic Factors". Journal of Educational Measurement. 44 (1). National Council on Measurement in Education: 23–45. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2007.00025.x. JSTOR 20461841.
115. Rothstein, Jesse (2005). "SAT Scores, High Schools, and Collegiate Performance Predictions" (PDF). Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal. (PDF) from the original on May 15, 2021. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
116. Coyle, Thomas R.; Pillow, David R. (2008). "SAT and ACT predict college GPA after removing g". Intelligence. 26 (6): 719–729. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.05.001.
117. Ackerman, Philip L. (2018). "Chapter 1: Intelligence as Potentiality and Actuality". In Sternberg, Robert (ed.). The Nature of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN . from the original on August 21, 2023. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
118. Kaufman, Scott Barry (September 4, 2018). "IQ and Society". Scientific American. from the original on September 30, 2020. Retrieved March 1, 2021.
119. Wai, Jonathan; Lubinski, David; Benbow, Camilla (2009). "Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning Over 50 Years of Cumulative Psychological Knowledge Solidifies Its Importance" (PDF). Journal of Educational Psychology. 101 (4). American Psychological Association: 817–835. doi:10.1037/a0016127. S2CID 17233758.
120. Sternberg, Robert; et al. (The Rainbow Project Collaborators) (July–August 2006). "The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical, and creative skills". Intelligence. 34 (4): 321–350. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.01.002. from the original on August 26, 2021. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
121. Dance, Amber (July 15, 2021). "Has the Pandemic Put an End to the SAT and ACT?". Smithsonian Magazine. from the original on August 26, 2021. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
122. Mayer, John D. (March 10, 2014). . Op-ed. The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 29, 2021. Retrieved August 31, 2021.
123. Turner, Cory (April 30, 2014). "U.S. Tests Teens A Lot, But Worldwide, Exam Stakes Are Higher". Education. NPR. from the original on August 26, 2021. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
124. Ripley, Amanda (March 12, 2014). . Time Magazine. Archived from the original on September 18, 2020. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
125. Salaky, Kristin (September 5, 2018). "What standardized tests look like in 10 places around the world". Insider. Archived from the original on October 19, 2022. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
126. Wai, Jonathan (July 24, 2012). "The SAT Needs to Be Harder". Commentary. Education Week. from the original on February 18, 2021. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
127. Zoroya, Gregg (March 6, 2014). "Sharpen those pencils: The SAT test is getting harder". USA Today. from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
128. Popken, Ben (July 13, 2018). "Easy SAT has students crying over 'shocking' low scores". NBC News. from the original on February 28, 2021. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
129. Jaschik, Scott (July 12, 2018). "An 'Easy' SAT and Terrible Scores". Inside Higher Education. from the original on April 14, 2021. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
130. The Staff of the Princeton Review (2019). "Why You Shouldn't Want an "Easy" SAT". Princeton Review. from the original on October 28, 2020. Retrieved February 19, 2021.
131. College Board (2023). "The SAT: Overview for International Counselors" (PDF). Retrieved April 12, 2024.
132. Gallagher, Ann M.; De Lisi, Richard; Holst, Patricia C.; McGillicuddy-De Lisi, Ann V.; Morely, Mary; Cahalan, Cara (2000). "Gender Differences in Advanced Mathematical Problem Solving". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 75 (3). Academic Press: 165–190. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.536.2454. doi:10.1006/jecp.1999.2532. PMID 10666324. S2CID 27933911.
133. Hannon, Brenda; McNaughton-Cassill, Mary (July 27, 2011). "SAT Performance: Understanding the Contributions of Cognitive/Learning and Social/Personality Factors". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 25 (4): 528–535. doi:10.1002/acp.1725. PMC 3144549. PMID 21804694.
134. Frey, M.C.; Detterman, D.K. (2004). "Scholastic Assessment or g? The Relationship Between the Scholastic Assessment Test and General Cognitive Ability" (PDF). Psychological Science. 15 (6): 373–78. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00687.x. PMID 15147489. S2CID 12724085. (PDF) from the original on August 5, 2019. Retrieved September 10, 2019.
135. Beaujean, A.A.; Firmin, M.W.; Knoop, A.; Michonski, D.; Berry, T.B.; Lowrie, R.E. (2006). (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 41 (2): 353–57. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.014. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 13, 2011.
136. Gottfredson, Linda (2018). "Chapter 9: g Theory - How Recurring Variation in Human Intelligence and the Complexity of Everyday Tasks Create Social Structure and the Democratic Dilemma". In Sternberg, Robert J. (ed.). The Nature of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN . from the original on August 21, 2023. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
137. Zwick, Rebecca (2004). Rethinking the SAT: The Future of Standardized Testing in University Admissions. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. pp. 203–04. ISBN .
138. "Ditching dreaded SAT analogies". Chicago Tribune. August 11, 2003. from the original on May 18, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2021.
139. Lawrence, Ida; Rigol, Gretchen W.; Van Essen, Thomas; Jackson, Carol A. (2003). "Research Report No. 2003-3: A Historical Perspective on the Content of the SAT" (PDF). College Entrance Examination Board. (PDF) from the original on June 5, 2014. Retrieved June 1, 2014.
140. Garfield, Leslie (September 1, 2006). "The Cost of Good Intentions: Why the Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Affirmative Action Admission Programs Is Detrimental to the Cause". Pace Law Review. 27 (1): 15. ISSN 0272-2410. from the original on September 4, 2019. Retrieved September 4, 2019.
141. . Daily Nexus. September 20, 2002. Archived from the original on October 9, 2007. Retrieved July 3, 2016.
142. Lindsay, Samantha (January 6, 2019). "SAT Analogies and Comparisons: Why Were They Removed, and What Replaced Them?". PrepScholar. from the original on February 16, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2021.
143. Hsu, Stephen; Shombert, James (November 2010). "Nonlinear Psychometric Thresholds for Physics and Mathematics". arXiv:1011.0663 [physics.ed-ph].
144. Wai, Jonathan (February 3, 2015). "Your college major is a pretty good indication of how smart you are". Quartz. from the original on January 16, 2020. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
145. Crew, Bec (February 16, 2015). "Your College Major Can Be a Pretty Good Indication of How Smart You Are". Humans. Science Magazine. from the original on February 6, 2021. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
146. Gunn, Laura H.; ter Horst, Enrique; Markossian, Talar; Molina, German (May 13, 2020). "Associations between majors of graduating seniors and average SATs of incoming students within higher education in the U.S." Heliyon. 6 (5): e03956. Bibcode:2020Heliy...603956G. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03956. PMC 7266786. PMID 32514476.
147. Wai, Jonathan; Brown, Matt I.; Chabris, Christopher F. (2018). "Using Standardized Test Scores to Include General Cognitive Ability in Education Research and Policy". Journal of Intelligence. 6 (3): 37. doi:10.3390/jintelligence6030037. PMC 6480800. PMID 31162464.
148. Petrilli, Michael J.; Enamorado, Pedro (March 24, 2020). "Yes, It Really Is Harder to Get into Highly Selective Colleges Today". Education Next. from the original on October 24, 2020. Retrieved February 19, 2021.
149. Duncan, Keven C.; Sandy, Jonathan (Spring 2007). "Explaining the Performance Gap between Public and Private School Students" (PDF). Eastern Economic Journal. 33 (2). Palgrave Macmillan Journals: 177–191. doi:10.1057/eej.2007.16. JSTOR 20642346. S2CID 55272711. (PDF) from the original on July 6, 2021. Retrieved June 19, 2021.
150. Geiser, Saul; Studley, Roger (October 29, 2001), UC and the SAT: Predictive Validity and Differential Impact of the SAT I ad SAT II at the University of California (PDF), University of California, Office of the President., (PDF) from the original on March 5, 2016, retrieved September 30, 2014
151. Blandin, Adam; Herrington, Christopher; Steelman, Aaron (February 2018). "How Does Family Structure during Childhood Affect College Preparedness and Completion?". Economic Brief. 18 (2). Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. from the original on February 13, 2021. Retrieved March 3, 2021.
152. Novotney, Amy (December 2012). "Psychologists debate the meaning of students' falling SAT scores". APA Monitor. from the original on May 17, 2021. Retrieved February 2, 2021.
153. Pinker, Steven (September 4, 2014). "The Trouble With Harvard". The New Republic. Archived from the original on May 26, 2021. Retrieved July 9, 2023.
154. Johnson, Wendy; (McGue, Matt); Iacono, William G. (November–December 2007). "Socioeconomic status and school grades: Placing their association in broader context in a sample of biological and adoptive families". Intelligence. 35 (6): 526–541. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.006. PMC 2598751. PMID 19081832.
155. Hsin, Amy; Xie, Yu (June 10, 2014). "Explaining Asian Americans' academic advantage over whites". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111 (23): 8416–8421. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.8416H. doi:10.1073/pnas.1406402111. PMC 4060715. PMID 24799702.
156. Cummins, Denise (March 17, 2014). "Boys outperform girls on mathematic portion". Psychology Today. Retrieved November 6, 2016.
157. Halpern, Diane F.; Benbow, Camilla P.; et al. (October 1, 2012). "Sex, Math and Scientific Achievement". Scientific American. Archived from the original on January 3, 2022. Retrieved January 5, 2022.
158. Cummins, Denise (April 17, 2015). "Column: Why the STEM gender gap is overblown". PBS Newshour. from the original on February 26, 2021. Retrieved March 4, 2021.
159. Ceci, Stephen; Ginther, Donna K.; Kahn, Shulamit; Williams, Wendy M. (November 3, 2014). "Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 15 (3). Association for Psychological Science (APS): 75–141. doi:10.1177/1529100614541236. PMID 26172066. S2CID 12701313. from the original on February 28, 2022. Retrieved January 31, 2021.
160. Ceci, Stephen J.; Ginther, Donna K.; Kahn, Shulamit; Williams, Wendy M. (2018). "Chapter 3: Culture, Sex, and Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert (ed.). The Nature of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN . from the original on August 21, 2023. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
161. Wai, Jonathan; Cacchio, Megan; Putallaz, Martha; Makel, Matthew C. (July–August 2010). "Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30 year examination" (PDF). Intelligence. 38 (4): 412–423. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.006. from the original on February 4, 2021. Retrieved January 31, 2021.
162. Wai, Jonathan; Putallaz, Martha; Makel, Matthew C. (2012). "Studying Intellectual Outliers: Are There Sex Differences, and Are the Smart Getting Smarter?" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 21 (6): 382–390. doi:10.1177/0963721412455052. S2CID 145155911.
163. Bates, Karl Leif (July 6, 2010). "Gender Gap in Math Scores Persists". Duke Today. Duke University. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
164. "Cleverer still". The Economist. December 22, 2012. from the original on November 12, 2020. Retrieved February 15, 2021.
165. Niederle, Muriel; Vesterlund, Lise (Spring 2010). "Explaining the Gender Gap in Math Test Scores: The Role of Competition" (PDF). Journal of Economic Perspective. 24 (2): 129–44.
166. Halpern, Diane F.; Benbow, Camilla P.; Geary, David C.; Gur, Ruben C.; Hyde, Janet Shibley; Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (August 2007). "The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 8 (1): 1–51. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x. PMC 4270278. PMID 25530726.
167. Lehre, Anne-Catherine; Lehre, Knut P.; Laake, Petter; Danbolt, Niels C. (2009). "Greater intrasex phenotype variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differences in humans". Developmental Psychobiology. 51 (2): 198–206. doi:10.1002/dev.20358. ISSN 0012-1630. PMID 19031491.
168. Wai, Jonathan; Hodges, Jaret; Makel, Matthew C. (March–April 2018). "Sex differences in ability tilt in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 35-year examination". Intelligence. 67: 76–83. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2018.02.003. ISSN 0160-2896. from the original on March 3, 2021. Retrieved January 31, 2021.
169. Schrager, Allison (July 9, 2015). "Men are both dumber and smarter than women". Quartz. from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved February 15, 2021.
170. "Validity of the SAT for Predicting First-Year Grades: 2013 SAT Validity Sample" (PDF). files.eric.ed.gov. 2013. (PDF) from the original on April 11, 2019. Retrieved May 14, 2019.
171. Pope, Devin G. (August 8, 2017). "Women who are elite mathematicians are less likely than men to believe they're elite mathematicians". The Washington Post. from the original on February 16, 2021. Retrieved February 16, 2021.
172. Haier, Richard; Benbow, Camilla Persson (1995). "Sex differences and lateralization in temporal lobe glucose metabolism during mathematical reasoning". Developmental Neuropsychology. 11 (4): 405–414. doi:10.1080/87565649509540629. from the original on May 25, 2021. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
173. Roth, Philip L.; Bevier, Craig A.; Bobko, Philip; Switzer, Fred S.; Tyler, Peggy (June 2001). "Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: a meta-analysis". Personnel Psychology. 54 (2): 297–330. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.372.6092. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x.
174. Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Average SAT scores for 12th-grade SAT-taking population, by race/ethnicity: 2006
175. "Average SAT scores for 12th-grade SAT-taking population, by race/ethnicity: 2006". Institute of Educational Sciences. The College Board, College Bound Seniors, 2006. 2006. from the original on June 27, 2015.
176. Abigail Thernstrom & Stephan Thernstrom. 2004. No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning. Simon and Schuster
177. Jaschik, S (June 21, 2010). "New Evidence of Racial Bias on the SAT". Inside Higher ED. from the original on January 1, 2015.
178. Smith, Ember; Reeves, Richard V. (December 1, 2020). "SAT math scores mirror and maintain racial inequity". Brookings Institution. from the original on January 27, 2021. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
179. Card, D.; Rothstein, Ol (2007). "Racial segregation and the black–white test score gap". Journal of Public Economics (Submitted manuscript). 91 (11): 2158–84. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.03.006. S2CID 13468169. from the original on January 3, 2019. Retrieved September 10, 2018.
180. "The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test". The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. from the original on December 16, 2015. Retrieved December 14, 2015.
181. Ogbu, John U. (January 3, 2003). Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement (Sociocultural, Political, and Historical Studies in Education). New York: Routledge. pp. 16, 164. ISBN .
182. Freedle, R.O. (2003). "Correcting the SAT's ethnic and social-class bias: A method for reestimating SAT Scores". Harvard Educational Review. 73: 1–38. doi:10.17763/haer.73.1.8465k88616hn4757.
183. Crain, W (2004). "Biased test". ENCOUNTER: Education for Meaning and Social Justice. 17 (3): 2–4.
184. "Editorial Biased Tests" (PDF). files.campus.edublogs.org. 2011. (PDF) from the original on April 11, 2019. Retrieved May 14, 2019.
185. "New Evidence of Racial Bias on SAT". insidehighered.com. from the original on September 28, 2015. Retrieved September 10, 2015.
186. Santelices, M.V.; Wilson, M. (2010). "Unfair treatment? The case of Freedle, the SAT, and the standardization approach to differential item functioning". Harvard Educational Review. 80 (1): 106–34. doi:10.17763/haer.80.1.j94675w001329270.
187. Fleming, Ol (2002). Who will succeed in college? When the SAT predicts Black students' performance. The Review of Higher Education, 25(3), 281–96.
188. Jencks, C. (1998). Racial bias in testing. The Black-White test score gap, 55, 84.
189. Reeves, Richard V.; Halikias, Dimitrios (February 1, 2017). "Race gaps in SAT scores highlight inequality and hinder upward mobility". Brookings Institution. from the original on February 16, 2021. Retrieved February 16, 2021.
190. Jaschik, Scott (October 19, 2020). "ACT and SAT Scores Drop". Inside Higher Education. from the original on January 22, 2021. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
191. Finder, Alan (August 28, 2007). "Math and Reading SAT Scores Drop". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 24, 2023. Retrieved April 24, 2023.
192. Sarraf, Isabelle (July 1, 2022). "More Students Are Taking Optional SAT and ACT, Hoping to Stand Out". Education. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on July 8, 2022. Retrieved August 30, 2022.
193. Paris, Ben (April 11, 2022). . Inside Higher Education. Archived from the original on April 11, 2022. Retrieved August 30, 2022.
194. "Intertel - Join us". www.intertel-iq.org. from the original on March 22, 2021. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
195. "Qualifying Scores for the Triple Nine Society". from the original on March 6, 2018. Retrieved March 10, 2018.
196. Wai, Jonathan; Lubinski, David; Benbow, Camilla (2005). "Creativity and Occupational Accomplishments Among Intellectually Precocious Youths: An Age 13 to Age 33 Longitudinal Study" (PDF). Journal of Educational Psychology. 97 (3). American Psychological Association: 484–492. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
197. Wai, Jonathan (July–August 2013). "Investigating America's elite: Cognitive ability, education, and sex differences". Journal of Intelligence. 41 (4): 203–211. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.005. from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved February 14, 2021 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
198. Park, Gregory; Lubinski, David; Benbow, Camilla (November 2007). "Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences: tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years". Psychological Science. 18 (11): 948–52. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x. PMID 17958707. S2CID 11576778. from the original on January 16, 2021. Retrieved February 14, 2021.
199. Robertson, Kimberley Ferriman; Smeets, Stijn; Lubinski, David; Benbow, Camilla P. (December 14, 2010). "Beyond the Threshold Hypothesis: Even Among the Gifted and Top Math/Science Graduate Students, Cognitive Abilities, Vocational Interests, and Lifestyle Preferences Matter for Career Choice, Performance, and Persistence". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 19 (6). Association for Psychological Science: 346–351. doi:10.1177/0963721410391442. S2CID 46218795. from the original on March 16, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
200. Tierney, John (June 7, 2012). "Daring to Discuss Women in Science". Science. The New York Times. from the original on April 12, 2017. Retrieved February 15, 2021.
201. Korn, Melissa (March 25, 2014). "Job Hunting? Dig Up Those Old SAT Scores". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on November 13, 2021. Retrieved November 13, 2021.
202. Salmans, Sandra (November 7, 2004). "Don't Throw That Score Out Yet". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. from the original on November 13, 2021. Retrieved November 13, 2021.
203. Griswold, Alison (March 4, 2004). "Goldman Sachs, Bain, McKinsey: Job Candidates SAT Scores". Business Insider. from the original on November 13, 2021. Retrieved November 13, 2021.
204. "McKinsey's online application FAQs | Careers | McKinsey & Company". www.mckinsey.com. from the original on November 13, 2021. Retrieved November 13, 2021.
205. Rothstein, Richard (August 28, 2002). "Sums vs. Summarizing: SAT's Math-Verbal Gap". The New York Times. from the original on May 10, 2013. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
206. Phelps, Richard (2003). Kill the Messenger. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. p. 220. ISBN .
207. Atkinson, Richard C. (December 2001). . University of California Office of the President. Archived from the original on May 4, 2006.
208. Hubler, Shawn (May 23, 2020). "Why Is the SAT Falling Out of Favor?". The New York Times. from the original on February 3, 2021. Retrieved February 2, 2021.
209. Aspegren, Elinor (January 19, 2021). "Adjusting to 'new realities' in admissions process, College Board eliminates SAT's optional essay and subject tests". USA Today. from the original on February 4, 2021. Retrieved February 5, 2021.
210. Anderson, Nick (January 29, 2021). "Applications surge after big-name colleges halt SAT and ACT testing rules". Education. The Washington Post. from the original on February 9, 2021. Retrieved February 9, 2021.
211. Nierenberg, Amelia (February 20, 2021). "Interest Surges in Top Colleges, While Struggling Ones Scrape for Applicants". The New York Times. from the original on February 20, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2021.
212. Anderson, Nick (December 17, 2021). "Harvard won't require SAT or ACT through 2026 as test-optional push grows". Higher Education. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 18, 2021. Retrieved January 5, 2022.
213. Anderson, Nick (April 7, 2021). "Applications boom, admit rates plummet: Prestige college admissions get a little crazier in the pandemic". Higher Education. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 7, 2021. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
214. (Selingo, Jeffrey) (March 23, 2022). "The College-Admissions Process Is Completely Broken". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on March 23, 2022. Retrieved July 12, 2023. ...that's the dirty secret I learned the year I watched admissions offices review applications: Most don't know exactly what they're trying to assess when they ask for multiple essays and recommendations as well as an encyclopedic list of activities.
215. Lorin, Janet (February 17, 2021). "SATs, Once Hailed as Ivy League Equalizers, Fall From Favor". Bloomberg. from the original on February 18, 2021. Retrieved March 4, 2021.
216. Page, Susan; Berry, Deborah Barfield (March 20, 2019). . USA Today. Archived from the original on December 5, 2020. Retrieved October 28, 2021.
217. Bovy, Phoebe Maltz (December 17, 2013). "The False Promise of 'Holistic' College Admissions". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on June 15, 2020. Retrieved July 12, 2023.
218. Brangham, William; Dubnow, Shoshana (June 30, 2023). "Colleges adapt admissions programs in wake of affirmative action ruling". PBS Newshour. from the original on July 2, 2023. Retrieved July 2, 2023. ...all the plaintiffs in these affirmative action cases over the years, going back 20 years to the Michigan cases, have used test scores as one set — one proof point in terms of that they were discriminated against that, students who were denied admission with a 1500 SAT and other students with a 1200. Well, when you don't have scores from everybody, it's a lot more difficult to make that case.
219. Wang, Amy X. (July 19, 2017). "No wonder young Americans feel so important, when half of them finish high school as A students". Quartz. Archived from the original on June 19, 2021.
220. "Exams are grim, but most alternatives are worse". The Economist. November 28, 2020. from the original on February 17, 2021. Retrieved February 17, 2021.
221. Harden, Kathryn Paige (April 2, 2022). . The Atlantic. Archived from the original on August 10, 2022. Retrieved August 18, 2022.
222. Leblanc, Steve (April 11, 2024). "Harvard again requiring standardized test scores for those seeking admission". Associated Press. Retrieved April 12, 2024.
223. Hartocollis, Anemona; Saul, Stephanie (April 11, 2024). "Harvard and Caltech Will Require Test Scores for Admission". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 12, 2024. Retrieved April 17, 2024.
224. Winerip, Michael (May 4, 2005). "SAT Essay Test Rewards Length and Ignores Errors". The New York Times. from the original on March 16, 2015. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
225. Harris, Lynn (May 17, 2005). . Salon.com. Archived from the original on September 19, 2009.
226. Lemann, Nicholas (2004). "A History of Admissions Testing". In Zwick, Rebecca (ed.). Rethinking the SAT: The Future of Standardized Testing in University Admissions. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. pp. 5–14.
227. Crouse, James; Trusheim, Dale (1988). The Case Against the SAT. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 16–39.
228. "frontline: secrets of the sat: where did the test come from?: the 1926 sat". Secrets of the SAT. (Frontline). from the original on October 31, 2007. Retrieved October 20, 2007.
229. Dorans, Neil. "The Recentering of SAT® Scales and Its Effects on Score Distributions and Score Interpretations" (PDF). Research Report No. 2002-11. College Board. (PDF) from the original on May 31, 2014. Retrieved May 30, 2014.
230. Fuess, Claude (1950). The College Board: Its First Fifty Years. New York: Columbia University Press. from the original on October 18, 2017. Retrieved August 5, 2016.
231. (PDF). College Entrance Examination Board. 1977. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 18, 2014. Retrieved June 24, 2014.
232. Lewin, Tamar (June 23, 2002). "New SAT Writing Test Is Planned". The New York Times. from the original on May 5, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
233. "Understanding the New SAT". Inside Higher Ed. May 25, 2005. from the original on September 15, 2016. Retrieved July 3, 2016.
234. Lewin, Tamar (March 5, 2014). "A New SAT Aims to Realign With Schoolwork". The New York Times. from the original on May 14, 2014. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
235. "New, Reading-Heavy SAT Has Students Worried". The New York Times. February 8, 2016. from the original on December 1, 2017. Retrieved July 25, 2017.
236. "Key shifts of the SAT redesign". The Washington Post. March 5, 2014. from the original on May 15, 2014. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
237. Murphy, James S. (May 12, 2016). "How Hard Is the New SAT?". Education. The Atlantic. from the original on October 21, 2020. Retrieved February 22, 2021.
238. . College Board. Archived from the original on March 25, 2008. Retrieved May 29, 2007.
239. Commission on New Possibilities for the Admissions Testing Program (1990). Beyond Prediction. College Entrance Examination Board. p. 9.
240. Pitsch, Mark (November 7, 1990). "S.A.T. Revisions Will Be Included In Spring '94 Test". Education Week.
241. Jordan, Mary (March 27, 1993). "SAT Changes Name, But It Won't Score 1,600 With Critics". Washington Post.