|
|
|
|
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/14/2007 9:41:30 PM | Now for a second piece of advice:
I know a guy, he went to school, graduated at the top of his class, knew shitloads about tonnes of super high level shit, and couldn't get a job.
Is it because he didn't intern?
No.
The problem was his resume didn't say anything he could do. It said that he had a very nice piece of paper with "CompSci" written on it, but when he listed all the things he could do, he had 4 offers that same week, all of which were good.
GPA isn't important in private industry. If you've got someone who has a 4.0 gpa from the control engineering program somewhere, you've got NOTHING on the same person who has got DeltaV experience, knows how to draw up loop sheets, can use AutoCAD proficiently, can design control loops, actuators, PID controllers, and sensors from discrete components.
Same guy, different resume.
I'm telling you this because I respect anyone who grabs their future with both hands. Grab on, learn as much as you can, and remember that you CAN list the things you did in school as skills on your resume! HR people don't know what a CompSci degree means, but they know buzzwords! Feed them buzzwords! | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/14/2007 10:25:22 PM | I'm a student , it matters to me. To others, it does not. Theory of relativity is applicable here. End of discussion.
So does that mean that if you care about your GPA, then to other people who don't care about GPAs--they might interpret your caring as their caring about their GPAs--kind of like other people sitting still in a car watching others pass and it seems like the stationary car is moving?  Or maybe you don't actually care, but it's others who care and it just seems like you care because it's relative to your observation . . .
^^^That part of the post was out of pure fun. Take it lightly!
There are specified markets in which jobs are competitive and constrained--especially if you consider internships where you might gain valuable experience--that consider GPA before hiring. It's not exactly the norm compared to all job markets, but--hey!--for some fields it really does matter. So, dianoor, for some professions, you certainly have a point about the importance of GPA when landing a job.
I don't really see how this has anything to do with test scores being indicative of intelligence, but we have to measure something . . . for the sake of measuring . . . and "intellectual" validation, not that it has any real meaning as far as someone's potential as an employee, but it seems like it does on the surface. A person's potential usually boils down to the will to succeed--hard work. Intelligence, whatever that is, means nothing if you don't exercise it and put it to work. An intelligent person can be one lazy b*stard because everything comes easy--and some intelligent people make for poor employees. Are intelligent, lazy people smart? Well, of course--the answer is in the question! Are they wise? You be the judge.
Meh. This thread is getting stuck in details . . . And I'm contributing to it. I think I'll stop.
Grab on, learn as much as you can, and remember that you CAN list the things you did in school as skills on your resume! HR people don't know what a CompSci degree means, but they know buzzwords! Feed them buzzwords!
A resume is nothing but salesmanship and marketing. Yup. Buzzwords! You are right about that. :) | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 1:16:08 AM |
Nothing to prove. I just like to see these forums stay honest and it doesn't do the community a favor when peope ask questions like "what is your SAT score"or "how many people have you had sex with" or "what's your IQ" or anything where someone is judged by a number and they have the power to say whatever they want. You're just inviting people to embellish the truth because it's a public forum! Not to mention peope who lie about their score disrespect the people who actually DID score very high.
I just don't believe that everyone in this forum scored way over 1000 on their SAT and I can't imagine the OP thought for a second everyone would be honest. When I was in school there were VERY FEW who scored over 1200 (probably the average base number for a NMS) so it's not making any sense that there are dozens on POF coming out of the woodwork. Not to say that every person in this forum fudged their number. I'm sure a few could be accurate. Although I doubt most people with an exceptional IQ and/or SAT score would dignify the question with an answer. Just like you rarely see people with real money bragging about it, you rarely see geniuses spouting off their IQ to get approval.
I rarely answer questions regarding my personal IQ, money, etc, however, the question was posed by CG5000. Had the question been posted by someone who's posts I was not familiar with or did not respect, then I probably would not have answered the question at all. I don't know how many other posters were swayed by the identity of the OP.
Also, you should probably consider that the forums themselves may be a somewhat skewed population sample. Most people really don't engage in the sort of intellectual banter that goes on in the forums -- this may lend itself more to those with stronger verbal skills (thus skewing at least the verbal portion results). The vast majority prefer to observe from the corners.
As for above 1200 being rare, it's not really that rare at all. If I recall correctly, when I wrote the SAT's (1991), 1250 would hit you at just about 95th percentile, or 1 in 20. With 300,000 POFers, that would leave 15,000 people scoring 1250+, with 1350 skewing at 98th percentile putting about 6,000 people scoring 1350+. IE, it's more than just a few people.
Finally, regarding the correlation between intelligence and GPA vs. SAT's...
I can't speak to the current incarnation of the SAT's, however prior to 1994 (which is when they revised the SAT format), SAT's correlated very highly to intelligence (as measured in standard IQ tests). This is why MENSA will accept SAT test scores (minimum score 1250 to 1300 depending on if it was before or after 1974) from prior to 1994, but will not accept test scores after 1994 (due to the changes in the test eliminating definable correlations).
As to the correlation between GPA and intelligence, IMHO there's virtually no correlation beyond the "average" to "above average" demographic. Yes, a 4.0 probably requires a modicum of intellect (average to above average), in that a below average person will be unlikely to score a 4.0. However, the correlation breaks down when you exceed the average/above average range (which would probably qualify as about the 1250 SAT (pre-1994) or 130+ IQ range).
For those that enter the category of "gifted" (95th to 98th percentile + depending on who's definition you use), grades/GPA are purely a game. They get fantastic grades in the courses that truly interest them, assuming that they are motivated enough to bother studying for the classes.
With the exception of the most subjective classes and professors, the "gifted" individuals can pretty much get 4.0's at will. It's merely a question of how hard they want to bother working/studying the material.
Personally, I tended to shoot for A-'s in my classes versus A's or A+'s. At the school I attended, you received a 4.0 for A, 4.0 for A+, and 3.7 for A-. It was a pure cost/benefit function. To get from A- to A required about 50% more work, and to get from A to A+ required about 50% more again. It made more sense to shoot for A- in all my classes, then use the rest of my time to work/party. This allowed me to take 150% course loads, still put all my classes on Tuesday/Thursday for almost 2 years (5 day weekends), intern 3 days a week, and still drink my brains out on Friday/Saturday while still keeping up a reasonable GPA.
I knew more than a few others who made the same sort of cost/benefit analysis. It's not that they couldn't get a 4.0 GPA, they just couldn't be bothered. Even those shooting for grad school couldn't be bothered, mainly because they assumed that they would end up hitting 95th percentile or higher on the MCATs, GMATs, LSAT's or GRE's. Only those really obsessed with getting into a specific grad school bothered trying to get a 4.0 GPA.
As for the normal school system leaving gifted children (95th percentile+)disenchanted, this is completely true. There are reasons for this.
The school system is generally geared towards the average/mean of the population, IE, to those around the 90 to 110 range in terms of IQ. As a person skews towards either end of the curve (below average or gifted), the standard curriculum and normal teaching methods become increasingly ineffective.
Many educators made the mistake of thinking that the assignment of more homework was the solution to address gifted children, however what the gifted really crave is a combination of challenge, freedom to express creativity, and freedom to pursue their interests at a pace that is suitable to their own skillsets.
Gifted children are not all uniform in their talents. While some are stronger in mathematics, others are more talented with language, music, spatial reasoning, or visual arts. Each child needs both the structure of education, as well as the flexibility to pursue their individual strengths at a pace that is suitable for them.
Without that flexibility and freedom, children get bored quickly, are often misdiagnosed with disorders like ADD, or labelled generally as troublemakers. Those inundated with homework begin to see learning as a chore instead of as an adventure, leaving them hateful of school. Increasing numbers of educators have recognized these problems, which is why gifted programs have been created in many districts to address them, just as programs were created for those with learning disabilities.
Sadly, while educators at the primary and high school levels have recognized the need to address gifted children, Universities and Colleges are far behind the curve in terms of addressing the gifted. While accomodations in Universities are sometimes made for true prodigies, university courses and lectures are often done in a mass production style more suitable for the manufacture of hamburgers than the encouragement and development of the the gifted.
Lecture halls crammed with 400+ students, insufficient office hours and study halls, lack of flexibility in terms of curriculum, rigid and structured timetables for acquisition of knowledge all create a stultefying environment for those who are gifted.
Under this sort of pointless structure, only the most disciplined of the gifted are able to thrive. Those who are less disciplined can easily become disillusioned, choosing to either drop out or perform far beneath their abilities. It is not that they are unable to excel, it's that they don't have the desire to excel.
I suspect that most "gifted" individuals could complete their entire 4 year degrees in 2 years or less with the right type of instruction and motivation. Sadly, only a handful of universities have designed programs to address the needs of these individuals. It truly makes one wonder how much potential has been wasted. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 4:42:05 AM | | I do not remember what my SAT and TOEFL scores were, but they were good enough to get me early admission to a "highly competitive" US college and then to transfer, with my freshman GAP, as a sophomore, to MIT. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 5:01:31 AM | I had very good SAT scores.....in the 1400's.
Then my GF @ the time showed up w/ a perfect 1600 & a full scholarship to Stanford.... | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 9:05:54 AM | Here in Canada we do not have SAT scores . I do wonder what your reason for asking is though , as I have always had bit of a different view of people who put so much emphasis on education . Yes I agree education is needed to get by in todays world , but if you look back in history many of our greatest people , from politics to bussiness had very little formal education . Although I may be considered a lowly mechanic by many , with no formal education to speak of , I am amazed at the amount of people who have university degrees and lots of letters behind their name , how utterly dumb they can be in a real life situation . I find that many times people who claim to be smart are like a fish out of water if anything but what they are trained in is discussed .
There is something that is not taught in schools which I have much more faith in , its called common sense , add to that a little ambition and a thirst for success and you have a combination that will far surpass a college diploma . | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 9:13:47 AM |
I am amazed at the amount of people who have university degrees and lots of letters behind their name , how utterly dumb they can be in a real life situation
Over in the US, college degree holders' unemployment is under 2%. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 9:27:54 AM | SATS were 1580 in 1979, ACT were 35, same year. I took the GRE last year, just out of curiosity, since I am considering getting an MA in history. Quantitative was 660, Verbal was 780 and Analytical writing was 5.
I hate math! The geometry section always kicks my butt. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 9:59:48 AM | | In the end who cares. If you pass your classes and graduate you get a little piece of paper that gets you respect in that respective field and a higher paying job. As far as companies wanting to know your GPA as far as I've ever seen/heard they never ask for that info. Hell, they never even ask to see your Diploma most of the time. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 3:35:21 PM | No, let's start HERE, dianoor. For starters, you're 21 years old. That's far too little "life experience" to be handing out "sage" advice on these forums. Your post in particular stood out as lacking wisdom which is why you got a response when you made the broad assumption that drop outs are lazy and work at McDonald's. You earned the comment you got. Run around the block a few times, get some experiences that aren't in pig tails, and then maybe your comments will hold some weight.
But holy smokes you can't take criticism can you?
Since it's "evident" you seem to "know" a lot about Einstein, therefore you should also know about his theory of relativity ( ironically you even mentioned it, but failed to apply it? Weird....)
Nice try. Boy, aren't you a clever little thing trying to twist my reference to Einstein and make it look like I didn't know what I was talking about. What you attempted is called obfuscation and it's a tactic used by debaters when they have a weak argument - or lack critical thinking in general. It's low and grasping. So for the record, I didn't need to apply "relativity" to my forum response to prove I know what it is. It's actually amusing to me that you made it the crux of your attack against me. Hilarious! Is that all you had? Seriously, if you were at all knowledgeable you would have at least pointed out that I erroneously referred to one of Einstein's theories as the Unification theory when it is actually known as the Grand Unification theory. If you would have caught that you would have garnered at least a modicum of respect as a budding scientist.
Therefore, all these geniuses that you mention who can apparently eat Einstein for breakfast ( which is laughable) may not be geniuses to me or some other common man. How do I know you're not bragging about your social circle that apparently involves born again Einsteins who seem to eat Einsteins for breakfast?
Sure, this was an easy target. It's true that I can't prove I know geniuses, just as no one on this forum can prove what they made on their SATs. You further support my point. Yet you so readily attacked me for stating something unprovable and left everyone else alone. What's your problem? And simply because I had the audacity (god forbid) to claim I know people who eat Einstein for breakfast. Of course what I mean is that these guys LOVE Einstein, read his writings, debate his theories. Not that they're any better or worse in comparison to him. Just that they have great minds and are in search of elusive universal truths just as Einstein was. Is it a crime to know great minds and to use them as examples when someone attacks people who drop out of school and blanket them as losers? I don't see where your animosity is coming from. You seem almost resentful that someone presupposed you hadn't met dropout geniuses as a resut of you stating that dropouts are losers working at McD's. What else was I to assume? Oops, I forgot to look at your profile before I responded last time or I would have realized you're a freakin CHILD.
Believe me, if I truly want to brag I have enough things to brag about. And it certainly would not include me having a social circle that involves "scientists" who can eat Einstein for breakfast yet have no name/fame/acclaimed credit to their names ( if they have any that is).
I think by coming into the forum and stating your SAT score you already have made an attempt to brag. My comments about my friends were to refute a broad assumption you made about peope who drop out of school. My scientific friends are relevant to the discussion and not a means of bragging. To this point I have made not a single bragging statement. Not about SAT scores, not about scholarships, not about the HUNDREDS of things I could easily have bragged about. Not up until now. (I resent you inciting me to even mention a single one as I have no desire to make any personal claims to boost myself. Trust me, after you have achievements running out your ears you'll understand). Oh but you being all of 21 years old I'm sure you've amassed quite the collection of awards and recognitions yourself.
As for my friends having "no name/fame/acclaimed credit to their names" I had to laugh as I read that. You are correct! Yes, of course they may never have a big name like Einstein, and may never be recognized outside their immediate work environment or peer community. And some make contributions that don't go beyond journals and white papers. Doesn't make them less brilliant. Does anyone expect that every brilliant thinker will automatically get acclaim? Of course not. And if you know anything about great scientists you also know that acclaim doesn't always come when they're young. Why would you make a statement based on that expectation and try to use it as a solid argument? More illogical ranting I suppose.
Of course the world only rarely breeds beautiful minds, if it bred beautiful minds all the time, I would not be arguing with an idiot who seems to bring up Einstein's theory of relativity and yet does not know how to apply it.
Ahhh, but once again you make my point for me! Indeed, if the world bred more beautiful minds your entire post might have carried a bit more logic. Or better yet you wouldn't have felt the urge to "argue with an idiot." Please, do your future employers a favor and stay in school a few more years. You obviousy haven't learned the art of critical thinking. Just because I didn't preface my comments by saying "dude, it's all relative" doesn't mean I "don't know how to apply" the theory of relativity. And to clarify, using the term relativity to describe how two different people have different perspectives of the same VALUE STATEMENT is so far removed from Einstein's theories on the laws of PHYSICS it's just laughable that you tried to connect the dots between them as an argument. Seriousy, LAUGHABLE. As a student of ANY science, be embarrassed.
Certainly, it's evident you have an agenda behind all your posts on here Miss Xvr and I would no longer like to waste my time and energy arguing with a lost cause. If you did not have an agenda you would not have suddenly appeared out of nowhere and lash out at people. Instead, you would have answered the question at hand first before going crazy for no valid reason whatsoever.
Certainly you seem to have barely wasted more than your emotions in this little exchange. As you certainly didn't tax any real mental reserves with your vacuous attack. Let's correct this. It is you, I believe who has the agenda, as it is you who attacked me for no valid reason when I questioned the credibility of a forum that asks people to state a number (that could reflect poorly on themselves) and then later defending people who drop out of school as more than the losers you believe them to be.
And it certainly was not me who "went crazy." My post's emotional content paled in comparison to your banshee rant. I made logical, rational statements. Yes, they were critical. Yes, they questioned the validity of forum responses. Yes, there is some bias against rote learning and linear thinkers. I admit to that. Well, I'm human and entitled to my opinion - I gladly welcome educated debate at any time. We are in a forum that encourages this, no?
Dianoor, here's a lesson for ya. When you grow up and can engage in a debate where you don't get so emotionally out of whack that you resort to calling the other person an "idiot," then maybe you're ready to play with the big kids. Until then, wade yourself back down to the shallow end of the pool. High SAT score or not, you're OUT OF YOUR DEPTH. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 5:17:44 PM | Wow. It's freakin' incredible. Almost ALL the regular posters on these forums are f*ckin' low, mid or even high level geniuses. I guess geniuses must be a demo that has the most trouble coupling. I can see it.
But you would think that amongst all of you brainiacs, that you could somehow find a way to make a realtionship work? I mean, c'mon. These forums are harboring a monster braintrust. I can't believe this wasn't noted earlier and a plan isn't being forum-ulated as I speak. Please tell me I missed that memo! I saw a guy saying he had a 180 IQ in another forum. Hell, he should be able to help, too!!!!!
Can't wait for the white paper so I can get off these dayum dating sites...
Hopefully yours
Chaz | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 6:47:39 PM | In 1999, on the 1600 point test, I got:
750 Verbal (98th percentile!  )
570 Math (68th percentile   )
I never claimed to be good at math, I didn't need a test to tell me it wasn't my specialty.
Total: 1320 out of 1600, so not bad. Especially since I went into the test totally blind, having no idea what an SAT even looked like, other than the Scantron-style bubbles I had to fill in. I wish I would have had some SAT prep. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 7:01:48 PM |
I suspect that most "gifted" individuals could complete their entire 4 year degrees in 2 years or less with the right type of instruction and motivation. Sadly, only a handful of universities have designed programs to address the needs of these individuals. It truly makes one wonder how much potential has been wasted.
Since when does the world conform to ANYONE's particular style? If you can't hack college the way it is, then you can't hack college the way it is. Period. Just like you might not be able to hack the laws the way they are or you might not be able to hack the market the way it is or you might not be able to hack a job the way it is.
The solution isn't for college to come up with special programs to meet unique needs, it's for students to learn to cope with reality.
See that? Got my point across in a billion words or less. That's what my college education got me. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 7:14:54 PM |
As far as the homework doing is concerned, let me tell you this, you barely get any homework in college. Your test grades counts the highest. Especially in the sciences. I majored in biochemistry and molecular biology in undergrad and my tests grades and the finals mattered the most. My major did not assign me any homework and even if it did it was not graded. It was just for practice. So it was all up to you to whether do your homework or not. If you did, good for you. If you did not and you're not an intelligent person then you obviously are going to fail the test. But home work was not graded
WOW is that above statement ever inaccurate!!! College is NOT like high school, there is no such thing as a 'standard' college experience. The means, methods, and theories of teaching; and of what and how to teach, can vary enormously between schools.
I have attended 2 different community colleges (total of about 3 years together), spent 2 years at a state university in Washington state, and 3 years at a more selective (and much more expensive) private university. State and private schools can have HUGE differences in what and how they teach.
My state school experience seemed to almost be one long math class. It almost didn't matter what I majored in, I was going to do at least pre-calc II. At the private school, I only had to go through stats. But while the private school did not emphasize the math, they emphasized reading, writing, philosophy, and language. Also, I had much, much more homework and studying at the private school. It was the hardest academic experience of my life, it certainly was no cake walk. As for this:
you barely get any homework in college
It is a good thing I wasn't eating anything when I read this, or I would have probably choked. I don't know where you went to school, pal, but at the school I am graduating from in about a month from now, believe me, you get PLENTY of homework. Then, they give a little bit more, just to make it interesting. And they do it on a 4-1-4 schedule of two compressed semesters and one hyper-compressed month.
THANK GOD I AM IN MY LAST QUARTER! GRADUATION IS HERE!   | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 7:34:12 PM |
Yeah right. I'd be blown away if 25% of the answers were honest.
I have, in front of me on my desk RIGHT NOW my original SAT results sheets from The College Board, still in the original envelope. What me to scan it and e-mail it to you, wise-ass??? I say again: 1320. Deal with it. If I was gonna lie, I'd make my math score better. I still did 98th percentile on the verbal. Oh, yeah, and that was while forgetting to answer 2 of the verbal questions on my 2nd pass through before turning in the test.
So how come none of the SAT geniuses on here know anything about the NMS or mentioned the scholarship that's awarded in relation to those high scores.
I don't know what decade you are thinking of, or what 2-bit podunk schools you have attended, but the average SAT score for freshman entering my university is well over 1200, and nobody ever invited me to join any honor societies or gave me any scholarships. I don't remember the exact number for the entering high school GPA at my university, but I remember it was well-above 3.5.
College has gotten much more competitive across the board over the past decade, and continues to get more so. My school is getting so selective anymore that, if I applied today instead of 4 years ago (has it really been that long?) I am not sure I could even get in anymore.
What I don't understand is how practically everyone in this forum managed to score right about 1000 or much higher, but NEVER much lower
Because to use a computer successfully, you have to be smarter than the machine. Dumb people don't use computers, at least not successfully.
The POF forums are not anything like a statistically significant random sampling. It makes perfect sense that the people here would be above average. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 7:52:22 PM | First off, XVR and wanderer, your posts are ridiculous. Their length alone tells me you are unaware of your audience.
Also, Hyperion is right about this not being a random sample. Only those willing to share their scores are given, which of course is going to be skewed.
Finally, whoever mentioned the NMS. It is based on PSAT, not SAT. And nobody asked about scholarships! The SAT was asked for.
Boy, I've never seen so many bothered people on a board before. This thread has gotten to be a mess. | |
|
| |
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 9:21:53 PM |
Since when does the world conform to ANYONE's particular style? If you can't hack college the way it is, then you can't hack college the way it is. Period. Just like you might not be able to hack the laws the way they are or you might not be able to hack the market the way it is or you might not be able to hack a job the way it is.
The solution isn't for college to come up with special programs to meet unique needs, it's for students to learn to cope with reality.
See that? Got my point across in a billion words or less. That's what my college education got me.
I'm impressed that you've managed to interpret a discussion of higher education as "The World", however I think my definition of University may be different than yours. Universities are schools -- places of education and learning. "The World", while it does include Universities, does encompass far more than that. However, I do appreciate that your particular frame of reference may be "special".
Should Universities adapt to their student body? It depends on whether you believe a University should be an institution of learning and research, or purely a degree mill. If you want a degree mill, then your view works fine. If you believe higher education should be that, then it should strive to maximize the potential for knowledge and intellectual achievement. This is why they have proctored tests for the deaf, use braille textbooks for the blind, allowances for those with dyslexia, etc. IE, to ensure that students may reach their potential, and thus maximize their contributions to society and humanity. Is it so different to have some flexibility for those with exceptional talents?
As for the market and jobs, lots of companies make accomodations for the most talented. This is common in a number of industries whether it's through flex hours, sponsored education, sabbaticals, publishing bonuses, patent participation, etc. The fact is, industry recognizes it's about maximizing performance. The old model of assembly line labor is a dead one in modern management. It is increasingly about the individual, and will most likely focus on them more so in the future.
Yes, you got your point across in less than a billion words. You have clearly made us all better human beings by doing so. Enjoy your hero cookie.
First off, XVR and wanderer, your posts are ridiculous. Their length alone tells me you are unaware of your audience.
And your track record of 3 line posts is no doubt a model for meaningful debate and discussion. I see that "gimme a break!" has been seriously underutilizes in the forums. If only we could all take such fine lessons to heart! Sadly, I am confined by my predeliction for fully illuminated discussions and debate. If only I could escape the prison of my Edumacashun!
*gazes longingly at the unattainable hero cookies...* | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 10:17:17 PM | 800 math, 790 verbal - 1590/1600...NMS......Lucky I guess. I always liked school.
ACT.....35/36 | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 10:24:06 PM | | Many tests that test intelligence don't apply real life and how smart a person can be when faced with problems or how their mind really works or how that person would deal with a situation. It tests how well you studied for their test, bought their test books and how you said OMG my life is going to end if I don't get this amazing score. I graduated high school and I didn't care! I didn't study, I just went and took it and I made a ACT score that allowed me to go to a college. I knew so many pepole that feared and studied forever for these stupid thats right stupid tests. It's a horse race for people who like to hop threw hoops. Standardized testing over it's wide use has destroyed and hurt our nation as much as we wish it helped it. Little Johny tested bad on some BS test lets hold him back. Lets tell him how he isn't as good as the rest. Elitists want to brag but I went to school with a honor student who is now a fry cook so thinking doesn't take a test, it takes thinking and effort! These tests serve to do one thing, make people with big egos bigger and make people who are creative and intelligent to give a finger to the establishment. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/15/2007 10:26:29 PM | | What is the lowest you can get with out being retarded? I don't want to look stupid here. What ever it is, I'm that and then some. However much is necessary, but preferably avoiding one of those "pointy" headaches. You know, the kind really smart people get. I only get a dull pain in my medulla oblongata when I lift logs that are too heavy. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/16/2007 2:30:40 AM | | I hold a Bachelors in Business Administration from Indiana University, South Bend and an Associates in Criminal Justice and never took S.A.T.'s. What's the big deal with them? | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/16/2007 4:04:37 AM | I knew so many pepole that feared and studied forever for these stupid thats right stupid tests.
Agreed. It's kind of ridiculous when you have to study HOW to take a test, rather than the actual material that it covers. I've always been fairly good at standardized tests, and it used to get me stuck in honors classes when I was younger. However, throughout middle and high school, I didn't want any of the extra work. I'd basically fail my way through honors courses until they stuck me back in a regular classroom where I could get by almost never studying. I've cleaned up my act in college, but my actions back in high school didn't get in the way of me getting into school. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/16/2007 5:29:21 AM | Orginal post
"OK - After reading several forums, I am starting to wonder about a lot the people who post responses on this site."
I didn't comment on this, we as a people don't write as much as we used to with, phones, cell phones, voice chat, and abbreviated language in chat. Writing is something people have become crappy at. I know the feeling reading a profile great pic but she writes like Elmer Fudd. People don't proofread regarding responses, profiles or forum posts they should. I don't think that effects how many people respond to their profile, the picture does. Till people make writing a daily thing like it once was, I think we will have to deal with peoples language as much as we might think it makes them look stupid. | |
|
| What were your S.A.T. scores?
Posted: 5/16/2007 5:46:51 AM |
First off, XVR and wanderer, your posts are ridiculous. Their length alone tells me you are unaware of your audience.
Actually, it's you who aren't aware of the audience. My last post wasn't designed to be read by every single person that comes across it. It's a RESPONSE to another poster who aggressively attacked my previous post. At this point I don't care if anyone reads my last post except that person. If you'll notice, she made illogical, random statements to support her points and went out of her way to insult me. I simply responded to each of the statements that I took offense to. There's no need for anyone to read a post if they feel it's longer than they have time to spend.
To clarify, I didn't say everyone in this forum was fudging their SAT score. I'm sure some are true. But yeah I admit I went as far as to say I'd be more willing to believe that 25% of the scores were real. I still believe that when people are asked to state a number, they will be more apt to say what they think will make them look good, especially if no one will know the difference. I didn't write my original post until after the forum had basically 90% of the responders having high scores. Apparently I wasn't the only one who noticed how "odd" that was. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
