|By Iloveschool95 (Iloveschool95) on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 10:02 pm: Edit|
How many of you guys out there are actually extremely smart? Please don't list your SAT score, because I have that too. I consider above a 140 IQ to be very smart, but aren't any of you brilliant. All around me, I see people who really aren't smart getting 1550+ on SAT, and 800's on SAT II's. BTW, my IQ is 168, which I consider to be extremely high. I really do think that IQ is the only over-achiever proof test with the exception of tests like the Putnam or IMO. I am not trying to be arrogant; I would just like another's opinion on the matter.
|By Jje (Jje) on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 10:10 pm: Edit|
Mine was proctored in the 160's when i was real little, I think the name of the test was something like weschler.
|By Sunshine916 (Sunshine916) on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 10:43 pm: Edit|
my language arts teacher has a 176 and his identical twin has a 175. crazy huh??
he is soooooooo smart, and you can tell. he missed 2 questions on his PSAT's total and was (obviously) a National Merit Scholar. However, he blew off his Junior year (like 2.0 GPA) and didnt get accepted into his first choice (Cornell) although he more than made up for it senior year.
the smartest people aren't necessarily the ones you find at HYPS. they could be anyone, anywhere.
however, i think its more impressive that someone who is not as smart can achieve so much through solid work ethic. i dont find it very impressive when a truly smart person BS's their way through a class and bums by with a B.
|By Scr_1525 (Scr_1525) on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 10:48 pm: Edit|
My S.S teacher is supposable a genius! 170 or something. But he is the biggest ***hole that you just don't care to notice!
|By Lynn (Lynn) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 01:15 am: Edit|
Both my daughters have tested IQ's in the Profoundly Gifted range (over 180). There is a forum board for both students with high IQ's (though all are welcome there) and their parents. The forum participants are mainly parents though there are some college students. Do a search for "Precocious and Prodigious" (I dislike the name because it is pretentious, but I didn't name it). The people on this forum are very intelligent and nice to talk to--a lot like many of the parents on this board.
There is a difference between high IQ and overachieving, though I often think it is the overachievers who come out ahead. One of my daughters was a National Merit Scholar, graduated Valedictorian, etc., but she didn't work that hard at it. There were definitely those in her class who worked harder, e.g. took higher levels of math. She was always just happy to make her minimum A. Both of my daughters have had some slacker friends who they have felt were innately brighter than those who weren't achieving good grades. These are very intelligent students who just don't want to play the school game.
My younger daughter is still in high school, and has earned 3 B's and the rest A's. She has diagnosed-ADHD which manifests in some major focus problems. It was the lack of focus and not hearing an instruction for her Trig/Adv Algebra Final that caused her to slip from an A to a B+. She has some glitches with applied work that cause her to have some problems with math and some types of science, otherwise she scoots through school with little effort. She, too, could be working harder, but enjoys her social life and lots of extracurriculars. I've always been astounded by both of my kids saying they have to study for a test, then saying they are finished after 30 minutes of studying. As long as they are pulling down good grades, I can't complain, but I sure had to study more than that. It isn't because the classes are easy either. There are often on 3-5 A's given out in their Honors/AP classes.
Both my girls skipped 2 grades, then chose to bump back one grade so they wouldn't be so much younger than their classmates.
For what it is worth, I don't think one can always ascertain IQ by how a person acts. I've known some very pretentious kids and adults who weren't nearly as smart as others who were down to earth. Some smart kids are also pushed quite hard to be competitive and always come out on top. I also have heard about one study that showed the C students as a whole ended up being the highest earners because they understood people and how to work with people. Guess they learned how to do that while the A and B students had their noses in books. People have talked about this study on the PnP forum, but I don't have a source link for you--sorry.
|By Yalie (Yalie) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 03:02 am: Edit|
It is incredible how these people talk on IQ. Let me give you some fresh facts that might change your opinion, though honestly I don´t think it will.
On their book "Is not in the genes", two researchers from an Ivy league Univ or stanford, I don't remember righ now, showed that, for instance, Blacks raised under the same circumstances than the whites have a higher IQ. The problem is that the average income of a black family is less than half than the white family's. However, when analized under EQUAL socioeconomic conditiosn, blacks were noticed to score higher. In an IQ test there are questions that ask for the object missing. If we take into account that there are participants, from Africa for instance, that have never seen a tennis court in their lives, how will they know that the net is missing?
Another interesting thing, the SAT is being reformed, haven´t you asked why? Well, the driving force behind it is the former President of the UC system (a research powerhouse and the largest univ. system in THE WORLD), who recently stepped down. He decided to check the SAT and found that the analogies are not an accurate way of measuring, just, he said, as IQ's aren't either.
Besides, if your IQ cannot be increased (IQ supporters say intelligencve is an innate quality) by studying, a high QI only shows high potential, but if a 180 IQ sits on his couch to watch TV all day (how is he going to be an overachiever?) gosh... If it is the other way around, then IQ's are jsut another stupid test that can be aced. In both ways, they are not OVERACHIEVERS' exclusive stuff.
Finally, and assuming IQ's mean something, most if not all experts, agree that IQ accounst only for 25% of success. The other 75%, other factors boy. So, please, get a life...
|By O71394658 (O71394658) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:37 am: Edit|
IQ tests are a joke. Not to be pretentious. But I read an article in which NASA rocket scientists were tested, and they only scored in the mid 140s. So either you guys are lying, or the IQ tests you took are extremely off balance. Because you SHOULD NOT be testing above 160.
|By Andymcgav (Andymcgav) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:48 am: Edit|
Yeah, Lynns kids were over 180. They should be in college, not one grade ahead.
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 11:55 am: Edit|
I think they were very smart *not* to go that far ahead. College is more than a purely rational intellectual experience and for those too young--emotionally, socially, experientially--I think it would be a not good thing.
I'd be scrambling like crazy to augment their high school days with stuff to keep them challenged and interested.
|By Lynn (Lynn) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 01:17 pm: Edit|
Many of the young kids on the forum I mentioned in the earlier post are in college already. We opted not to go that route because we wanted our kids to have normal lives with experiences that will be similar to their age peers. I think it is sad when kids grow into adulthood and can't relate to their adult peers because they had a totally different education/life as a kid. You only get to be a kid once--there is no rewind button. We homeschooled because the public school's solution to their educational needs was to just keep moving them up grades. That produces gaps in learning. As a teacher who was a high achieving student, I felt I could handle their elementary and middle school education at home. Even though homeschooling is different from the norm, the kids were always involved in sports teams, dance, theatre, community youth chorus--activities that kept them with their age peers. We also made arrangements with the public school which allowed them to spend time with their age peers.
That said, my kids did take some colleges courses at the community college starting at age 10 and never had a problem with them. We were homeschooling then, so this was more to augment areas in which I could not teach, e.g., German I and II. They never took more than one a semester and did not take a class every semester.
As for tests that test high IQ's, the Stanford-Binet LM tests IQ's up to the low 200's. If you want to know more about this, visit www.giftedddevelopment.com. The Gifted Development Center in Denver, headed by Dr. Linda Silverman, deals with children in the high and profound IQ ranges. There are many interesting articles on the site regarding this subject.
Knowing your IQ isn't that big of a deal. When you are dealing with a kid that is reading fluently before age 2 and at a 6th/7th grade level by the time they enter kindergarten, having an IQ score helps the parent get the school to sit up and pay attention. A high IQ isn't going to make a person a success in life or give them wisdom, which I feel is something different than intelligence (though the two can be intertwined). My kids don't know their IQ's because it isn't important--what they do with their ability to learn quickly is much more important.
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 01:40 pm: Edit|
Lynn, I thing you've got things pretty well nailed. Kudos.
And the distinction between intelligence and wisdom is too often overlooked...there's ample evidence in the universe.
|By Mlin (Mlin) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 11:52 pm: Edit|
Personally, I would find it difficult to believe that many of you here aren't lying about your IQs. Note that anything above 120-130 is in the top 1% of the population, and what a coincidence it would be if half of them were found right on this forum.
|By Lynn (Lynn) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 03:15 am: Edit|
Min, if you question the frequency of high IQ's, you really need to check out the Gifted Development Center website. An IQ of 120 to 130 is not in the top 1% of the population. My daughters were tested at a university. The psychologist did tell me he hadn't seen an IQ as high as my older daughter in his 30 years of working and testing, but I have heard of the occurrence of such IQ's many times over on the PnP forum. Many of these parents take their kids to the Gifted Development Center for testing. My younger daughter's IQ is within points of her sister. Evidently, this is not unusual. I think that the occurrence of higher and higher IQ's has risen, and I don't have an explanation for it, but perhaps someone needs to change the occurrence scales.
Stats on the increased frequency of high IQ's may be available. I don't chase down such info because it isn't that important to me. If you really have questions about it, I think you can email your questions to the staff at the GDC.
One thing I should note, a person will test with a higher IQ if tested as a youngster (before age 8) than if that same person was tested as a teenager or an adult. The tests are skewed that way. This is one of the reasons I don't think IQ scores are important--a person would have had to have a parent who knew to have him/her tested as a child in order to yield the optimum IQ. That certainly doesn't make that same person have less aptitude when they are older, but that person would never be aware of what their IQ really is. Does that make sense? It is late, so I hope I explained that well.
|By Lynn (Lynn) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 03:17 am: Edit|
Jje--I just noticed your post toward the top. The Wechsler has a ceiling of 165 (I'm pretty sure about this), so if you tested at 160 as a child, it is possible that your IQ is higher. If you had taken the Stanford-Binet LM at that same age, it may have yielded a much higher score.
|By Zerg_Vvins (Zerg_Vvins) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 07:18 pm: Edit|
Personally I think overachievers are way better than high iq people. Why? Because overachievers are those who try the hardest to get all that they can from the life that they are given, while the IQ people are smart, it really doesn't mean a whole lot.
I really don't like to classify, but take for example, do most asians have high IQs? Probably not, but most of them are high achievers and there for later in life they will have a better job and a better life.
|By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 08:36 pm: Edit|
Welcome to the Marylin Vos Savant web club
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 09:56 pm: Edit|
My IQ was tested at 135, i'm really average - trust me there is no way that can be in the top 1 percent of society.
|By Fastshak5 (Fastshak5) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 01:08 am: Edit|
Well, I have no idea about what my IQ is and I really just could not care less. Being naturally "gifted" (as you people call it) has no importance in society and by all means does not predict success in the future. People that brag about their high IQs are just elitists who think that they are better than everyone else. I honesty think all that matters in the future is how hard-working and how aware of a person you are, not your uncommon IQ. BY the way, I got a 1520 and studued my butt off.
|By Canadian_Idol (Canadian_Idol) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 01:19 am: Edit|
IQ tests are very weird. According to its bell curve, 100 is supposed to be the score that a normal person attains, yet I have NEVER once in my life met a person who scored a 100 on an IQ test. Most seem to get above 130 and 140. Would this be effects of IQ score inflation? Gosh it's spreading everywhere.
I scored 140-150 on an IQ test btw and got a fairly high sat score.
|By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 01:36 am: Edit|
I agree with Fastshak5, IQ scores mean jack these days. It's your work-ethic that counts. I'd rather be able to create a full life for myself than be a super genius who sits on his @ss 24 hours a day.
And i think there is a huge IQ score inflation going on. It could be a conspiracy of some sort to raise little kid's self-esteems or something, who knows (kidding).
My IQs vary so much it's pathetic. I think from 140 all the way to 160, so i don't trust them much. Catch me on a good day, i'll analyze them puzzles for yah, catch me on a bad day and i probably can't even add...
And if you followed that national IQ thing on fox, their questions were so much easier than the British version. It's pathetic. My little sister got all the questions right (max 138 or something) on the American version when she barely got past 120 on the British version. It's pathetic, FOX must've purposely made the test easier to boost America's self esteem or something.
|By Fender1 (Fender1) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 01:38 am: Edit|
1) I think most people that are selected for IQ testing placement through school are only the "brightest"
2) According to the statistics, the average IQ has been rising ever since they started keeping track.
3) There are many different IQ tests and many different IQ scales. Some have 130as the "genius" mark, some 160, some 200, etc etc. Different tests measure IQ in different parameters.
|By Twinkletoes696 (Twinkletoes696) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 01:48 am: Edit|
IQ score? Phsssh. LOL. I don't know mine, and I don't care to. I know I'm not a genius and I don't think I would score over a 140, but I'm probably over 100 because I'm not average. I used to think I was dumb, but I'm really talented in other ways. For instance, I could never do math, but I have found ways to do it BECAUSE I am an overachiever. Having less to work with has made me work harder and harder to compensate. And... I believe in multiple intelligences. I'm great socially and linguistically/verbally, and kinestetically, but spatially and mathematically I'm practically dyslexic. I mean, spatially as in directions. In sports and stuff I'm fine, and I'm good at rearranging a room, but I can't take/give driections to save my life. LOL.
I belive that hard workers will win out over the naturally smart person in the end... I don't know about you but I'd rather be the motivated hard worker than someone who has it all on a silver platter and wastes it.
|By Uncchlocalmayor (Uncchlocalmayor) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 02:30 am: Edit|
i got a......................................2?
|By Twinkletoes696 (Twinkletoes696) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 02:36 am: Edit|
Wow you are just a tad smarter than table salt ;)
|By Obh100 (Obh100) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 04:21 am: Edit|
lets see, I'm definately not a genius (pretty much sucked on most IQ tests), didn't do great on the SAT, didn't have a high high school GPA, and I managed to get a 3.8 first year in college, and am going to Northwestern? I think test scores and IQ are overrated...
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 04:23 am: Edit|
"I really do think that IQ is the only over-achiever proof test with the exception of tests like the Putnam or IMO"
Define an over-achiever for me? One who achieves as much as they possibility can and by definition, achieve more than they should be achieving. Just because you are born with a higher level of intelligence than the average human-being does not make you an over-achiever. It's what you do with your god given abilities that makes you as a person. I may not be super tall in height, nor was I given extraordinary brain power...I do, however, make a killer pasta (and i'm not even ITALIAN!).
|By Iloveschool95 (Iloveschool95) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 09:10 am: Edit|
in order to be smart, you must have extraordinary brain power. Anyone who has all these bs awards/activities without having extremely high sat I and II scores is an overachiever (I don't care if you think that these tests don't correlate with intelligence, but they certainly do. If you get a 1450 by working your ass off, clearly you aren't that smart. I apologize if I sound like a jerk, but I am just fed up with people who aren't smart trying to build a facade of intelligence and pass it off as the real thing.
|By Momof2 (Momof2) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 09:18 am: Edit|
Ah, but in the real world, those folks willing to spend years working their A's off usually come in miles ahead of those who choose to rely on solely their intelligence to achieve. All that hard work breeds some amazing problem-solving skills.
Remember - Einstein didn't test well, either.
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 10:47 am: Edit|
Something that took me years to swallow and accept: look around the world very carefully and it's not the "A" students that are running things: everything from Mayors and Police Chiefs to CEO's and CFO's.
"A" students are the ones who tend to make interesing discoveries and every good organization is peppered with them...but they tend not to be the people who run the show. The world is large enough that there are lots of exceptions, of course.
|By Momof2 (Momof2) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:00 am: Edit|
Some of the most "intelligent" people I know have found a way to do what they love, live reasonably and live in a forest or on a mountaintop. Sounds like true SUCCESS to me! Maybe someday I'll be one of them.
|By Mike (Mike) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:10 am: Edit|
I had a Prof in college who started the intellegence testing coarse by warning us about a classmate in his college who had an IQ of 85 and graduated with a DVM. Pointed out the IQ tests do not measure drive, desire, wilingness to work among other things. Told us to remember that like all tests they simply measure who is best at taking that specific test.
Over the years I have seen people's IQ test scores go up if they take it more then once. Like the SAT or any other standardized tests, scores are failable and human. Try getting a job based on your test score. How many colleges pick students based on IQ tests? You can join mensa if it makes you feel good.
|By Canadian_Idol (Canadian_Idol) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:14 am: Edit|
I disagree with iloveschool's comment which seems to imply that SAT scores indicate how smart a person is. This is NOT true - if you prepare enough for an exam, you are bound to do well on it. The SAT scores merely indicate how good you are at taking that test.
|By Iloveschool95 (Iloveschool95) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:01 pm: Edit|
i understand canadian idol. However, I believe that if you do well without studying, you are naturally smart. If you do not do well with studying, you are not smart. I consider well to be 1550+, with no lower than 740 or so on verbal because the math is for idiots.
|By Tenista09 (Tenista09) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:10 pm: Edit|
To Iloveschool95 (You actually love school?!)
So what you're saying is that if I got a 790 on math and a 730 on verbal, I'm not smart?! That's ridiculous! Even a person with 500 V 500 M can be very smart! Some people are simply not good test takers and become extremely nervous on test day. Your generalizations couldn't be more false!
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 01:24 am: Edit|
Iloveschool - if you truly do love school as your name indicates - then you will have high test scores, a high GPA, killer essays and everything else will fall into place. Intelligence does not always play the most essential role in test scores. As the saying goes "The means always justify the ends" so with hardwork and ambition throughout your life without a great deal of intelligence you can get to wherever your heart desires. I don't need intelligence to justify my means in this world, truthfully, I don't have a love for learning either or love of school. I don't really have an argument to make, other than the fact you have obscure generalizations. God forbid, i get a 1510 on my SAT, i'm not smart. That is LUDICRIOUS! Perhaps one of the smartest and most intellectual people I know, recieved a 1510 on his SAT..."not" smart, I think not. By the way, some people are better with other parts of the brain than others and are not mathematically inclined. Some people are genius in the "arts", others are philosophical genius'. Intelligence comes in all shapes and forms, if you think outside of your stubborn box for once ILoveschool.
By the way, wouldn't it be no lower than a 750 on the verbal, NOT 740? 740+800=1540...
"I consider well to be 1550+, with no lower than 740 or so on verbal because the math is for idiots."
|By Canadian_Idol (Canadian_Idol) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 01:37 am: Edit|
Intelligence is highly overrated. There is a near-genius at my school who is absolutely brilliant. He comes up with all kinds of quirky ideas and...to be honest is kinda on the boastful side as well.
But anyhow, to cut the story short, he didn't study for SATs cause he thought he'd do well, and he got like low 1400's. He was pretty disappointed. So the moral of the story is: you gotta work your ass off for what you achieve.
|By Hahaha (Hahaha) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 01:44 am: Edit|
The SAT is no hallmark of intelligence; it's a fairly biased test. Some of the smartest people i know did kinda bad on the test. Iloveschool, just because you study and do bad on a single standardized test does not mean at all that you are not smart.
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 02:52 am: Edit|
I believe we've some to a general consensus here. Iloveschool it would probably not be worth your while to respond - but feel free to.
|By Serene (Serene) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 08:29 am: Edit|
Sirmoreau -- By the way, wouldn't it be no lower than a 750 on the verbal, NOT 740? 740+800=1540...
"I consider well to be 1550+, with no lower than 740 or so on verbal because the math is for idiots."
|By Kimfuge (Kimfuge) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 09:30 am: Edit|
I think although IQ has to do with environment itself, some reports have shown that race also plays a big role. Like in math and science, the most talented people are the dudes in Asia; whites next, then blacks, hispanics, etc. Here is a result of the world math/science olympiad. This is math:
I'm not racist or anything but this is just my rough opinion.
|By Kimfuge (Kimfuge) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 09:32 am: Edit|
When I say overachiever, this kid name Shao is one. I think he's Korean American, and now he's suppose to be in 4th grade but in University of Chicago medical school after graduating phi beta kapa from loyola college. He scored a SAT score of 1570 when he was 9. And he is believed to have a IQ of 200+.
|By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:08 am: Edit|
I agree that kid is an overachiever... There are so many people who claim to have 180 IQs and yet they're in the same grade as me, and i'm beating them in the SAT, GPA and ECs part of academics (and trust me, i have very little ECs), and probably the social life part as well. These people i don't consider overachievers, no matter how much their mothers say so.
Anyways, if you work a kid hard enough, one of my teachers have a son who's a doctor before he turned 20! Or was that when he turned 20, i can't remember, but that's crazy. Kinda like that Shao kid. But my teacher admits her son is no super-smart with an IQ over 200, it's just that she has overworked him and now he's the best stress controller, time-managing 20 year old she knows. He's probably still catching up on his social life though, poor guy...
So, achieve what you can, and push for more, then you would be an over-achiever. Claim you have an IQ of 180 and still get low grades, no life etc... i'll just laugh at you instead, it's not as good as ACTUALLY achieving something.
|By Dumbuket (Dumbuket) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 03:23 pm: Edit|
This all seems kind of odd to me. If people with high IQ's are supposed to be very smart, why are they all making the same tired old comments? I suppose great minds think VERY alike sometimes...
Since I'm the most special person in the entire world, I'll chuck in my shiny 2 cents:
Intelligence, IQ score, and achievement are three very differenct things, (possibly four if you talk to the right people).
That said, intelligence obviously can make a difference in your ability to achieve, as well as your IQ score, and anybody who says that being gifted or brilliant doesn't count for crap is obviously full of it themselves. They're obviously just frustrated by the brighter-but-lazier people that they've encountered.
On the other hand, I think that my high school Psych book puts it best when it says something along the lines of:
"People in the mildly to moderately gifted range tend to be better adapted academically, socially, and behaviorally, but rarely achieve intellectual eminence. Those in the profoundly gifted range often encounter greater developmental and social adjustment difficulties."
So while the arrogant, lazy "smart person" may seem frustrating, I always keep in mind that those with uniquely brilliant minds often have it much worse than those dime-a-dozen "gifted" children who plaster their parent's SUV's with college stickers.
Finally, as I'm constantly reminded by my Dungeon Master, there's a huge difference between intelligence and wisdom.
Glad to have blasted my opinion across the forums. Please respond to this post and feed my ego!
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 03:30 pm: Edit|
A sensible post.
|By Jje (Jje) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 03:40 pm: Edit|
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 05:26 pm: Edit|
What about those lazy average people? I plastered my car with UCSB stickers.
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 06:47 pm: Edit|
Lazy average people won't cut it at UCSB.
Lazy smart people, yes. Hardworking average people, yes.
Sirm, perhaps you should consider Knocks.
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 07:40 pm: Edit|
Knocks? Sorry my averageness, could not pick up on the meaning of this, or what it is? In the state of California, i'm way beyond average, as half the kids in the public schools are graduating without even being able to pass the HSEE (high school exit exam). That is why they're getting rid of it, for the class of 04.
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 07:53 pm: Edit|
As I tell my D, there's nothing to be gained comparing yourself to the lower half...gauge yourself against a) the best and b) your own capabilities.
Knocks = School of Hard Knocks.
I suppose you've heard of it?
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 08:15 pm: Edit|
I just have a hard time focusing my energy on things i'd rather not be doing. For example, in our english class we had a research assignment on the great "Pacifists" of our time. Due to the fact i'm so seldom in the library, I decided to do a little adventuring. I came across this book "The Principles of Economics" by Bowden. Instead of working on the research assignment, I ended up reading the first chapter. I'm really motivated business wise - which is why I think i'll be more successful in college than I was in high school. My english teacher - a graduate of Berkeley and a man who dislikes white heterosexual males - knew I wasn't working on the assignment. When I finally turned it in (it was the most incredable paper I had ever written, most the material I found off various sources online etc.) my teacher admitted this was one of the best essays he had seen me write. But because I didn't source any books and because I "sat" on my hands in the library, he decided to give me a C+ on it. I needed atleast a B to recieve an A- in the class, but I ended up with a B+. So instead of recieving 4 pts, I was given 3 pts. I showed another english teacher and they said it looked like an A paper to them. The best was in my spanish class this year, my teacher was this super femninazi, I ended with a 79.9 in the class. I know she gave this girl a B- in my class, who had a C+, there was only 1 A in the class of 32 students to say the least and it wasn't even an honors course (they don't offer it for spanish 3). Normally you'd think that would be a B- right? No, I was given a C+. 2 pts instead of 3. I'm so sick of my high schools grading system (how different teachers can change the rules) and constantly getting shafted. Sorry I needed to vent. School of Hard Knocks is looking very good to me.
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:08 pm: Edit|
TheDad it looks as though me and Blair Hornstine will be attending the school of Hard Knocks!
|By Sunshine916 (Sunshine916) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:32 pm: Edit|
wow our high school has some sort of psycho grading system:
B+=A+ non-weighted, B=A non-weighted, etc.
etc etc etc.
i guess its to differentiate the straight A kids who take the most demanding courseload and the straight A kids who dont. also-the straight A+ kids (98+) vs. the straight A kids.
how do schools figure out class rank without the +/- system? I cant believe a 90 and a 100 are worth the same! crazy! or am i just used to a weird system?
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:18 pm: Edit|
I don't know - we usually have like 3-5 valedictorians per year. We don't have weighted grades in our school, although when you apply to colleges they look at the AP's/Honors as weighted. So pretty much if you maintain straight A's during your four years you will be the valedictorian, no questions asked. But our school is very competitive and many many many times you'll run into teachers that only give out 1 or 2 A's..it's not as easy as it seems.
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:39 pm: Edit|
Also our school does not rank.
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 01:36 am: Edit|
Sunshine, D's high school doesn't weight *and* doesn't count plusses or minuses. Every "B" is a killer...D missed an A- in Pre-Calc/Calc A Honors by around 15 points this last semester. The "89" is a real bitch at her school...she's had 2-3 of them.
Btw, check you e-mail tomorrow.
|By Techieguy (Techieguy) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 01:50 am: Edit|
I read Marylin Vos Savant's (sp?) column every week on PARADE!
|By Twinkletoes696 (Twinkletoes696) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 01:55 am: Edit|
The dreaded 89... I got one in PE sophomore year because I failed a very confusing T/F test on softball. No kidding. And an 89 in pottery for the required arts elective frosh year.
If it weren't for that, I would be valedictorian, but I guess I should rejoice in the fact that I am close to it. Then again, being an overachiever, it really isn't enough.
|By Sunshine916 (Sunshine916) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 12:29 pm: Edit|
geeez i feel bad for you guys
what in the world, so an 89 is the same as an 80??? and no weighting means that someone who took the easiest coarseload and got straight A's could be valedictorian!!
i think its a lot more fair the way our school does it just because a B+ is still higher than a regular B and it really separates the "outstanding" kids from the "great" kids. we've never had more than 1 valedictorian because nobody gets the same amount of A+'s, A's, and A-'s. the girl who will be val in our grade has almost straight A+'s (crazy!) and the rest of us have a mix. i have 5 A-'s (all in useless subjects like PE and Computer Applications). they also only count 7 credits per year and i have been consistently taking 8 classes/year so they drop my lowest grade when the figure out class ranks
how can high schools NOT weight grades???
|By Iloveschool95 (Iloveschool95) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 01:19 pm: Edit|
ok fine, i accede. You guys are right. Sorry for the inconvenience of all this argumentation.
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 01:20 pm: Edit|
It's pretty funny at my school, there really are only a few "easy" courses, the courses "load" in AP/some honors classes is a great deal more though - depending on the class.
--I think it's a california thing..to NOT weigh grades.
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 01:44 pm: Edit|
Sunshine, you got that right about some kids getting easy grades getting the 4.0.
This year's graduating class had one valedictorian and three salutorians. Now from what I know, statistically if you're not a 4.0, you're out of the top 1 percent, which would be seven students. So how they split this, I don't know. I do know that of the four, one is going to MIT and one is going to Brown.
|By Fartleksue (Fartleksue) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 06:01 pm: Edit|
Our school system's grading is horrible too.
There is only Honors English and if you are in that you get no extra weight added. So there is no incentive for kids to take Honors English. Students who take AP classes get .0250 added to their A and .0125 added to their B. Nothing added for a C or below.
When we moved here from Florida my daughter had taken Honors everything - Eng, Alg, Geo, Bio, Chem
When they made her new transcript they took all the HONORS names off her classes bc they don't have them here. When she applied to colleges I made them send her Florida transcript too so they would see that she had taken Honors classes (which explained the 2 Bs she got).
Grading scales are not fair and I am hoping that adcoms see the differences in the weighting systems.
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 06:49 pm: Edit|
I no longer feel bad.
|By Amagetdon01 (Amagetdon01) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 06:49 pm: Edit|
I would like to laugh at the people who, having no accomplishment, proudly declare their IQ scores. So what if they scored high on a test that doesn't even come close to measuring human intelligence? The test was created by a human for Christ's sake. How can a human measure another human? I do believe every person is born with different levels of skills and talents. However the more important fact is that they vary and decay over time, if one does not put time to harness them. The supposedly "smart" people who waste away their life thinking their talent will remain intact are just pathetic.
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 07:25 pm: Edit|
How can a human measure another human..
I'll just let that comment simmer for a while.
|By Progex (Progex) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 07:20 pm: Edit|
---- Quote by: Fartleksue ----
Our school system's grading is horrible too.
|By Jimjunior (Jimjunior) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 09:29 pm: Edit|
NOBODY should rely on online IQ tests. I have taken a variety of them for fun. I scored 176 on the first one I took and was blown away. I have taken 3 others that put me in 140's twice and 160's once. If I had to guess I would say 150's, although that might be high, but whatever.
|By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 04:53 am: Edit|
IQ tests rely alot on how you're feeling that day too - somedays my brain processes information better than on others.
|By Casualtie1 (Casualtie1) on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 07:34 pm: Edit|
there's a reason why colleges don't ask for "IQ" scores on apps. -because they are race related- face it.
|By Cutie911 (Cutie911) on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 04:04 pm: Edit|
your IQ score doesn't have any effect my IQ was predicted to be 95-100 which is average, but i am ranked 7/420 at a very competitive school
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|