Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Can someone explain to me why everyone here is so perfect?

I go to a crappy school in a small town known as Eureka, California. I have considered myself to be a reasonably intelligent fellow until I came across this board. I am now on the ridge of viewing myself as borderline idiot...until I thought about it a little.

I would also like to ask why the SAT seems to be the end all and the be all? We seem to take it as God's intelligence test, I perused this board and found numerous examples of inferiority among those with 1300-1490 SATs!! SHUT UP people!

Do we all believe that a person with a 1330 SAT is just simply incapable of ever academically outperforming someone with a 1590 on their SAT?

It's amazing how grades have become such a back seat on this board. We base our entire essence on some stupid scores that are based on missing (in some cases) a very small difference in terms of raw questions.

Personally, I think it's all bull.

I can live with my Berkeley admittance and my poor (but not overwhelmingly) SAT II scores. I spent a whole of zero seconds studying for the SAT I/IIs. The SAT and the college board can kiss my ass. They essentially stole my money. I go to school to learn, I don't need some stupid test to weigh who I am. I already know who I am, and what I can and cannot accomplish.

I read a post about grade inflation and about how someone getting super grades damn well better have ~1600 on their SAT, mentioning that if the individual receives a 1330 they may not be so smart after all. This is crap in its purest form. The IQ test is a fairly recent device. I'm sure you all received a 5 on the AP U.S. History exam, correct? I distinctly remember learning of the army's experimentation with them during World War I. They ended up being incredibly biased...declaring minorities imbeciles!!

May it be that this device is not yet perfected, perhaps it never will be. I'm sure someone with a 1600 SAT will scholastically outperform someone with a 900...but are we willing to write them off so quickly? Many a genius was at first declared a moron.

Maybe I am just full of it, after all I come from a shallow gene pool in a lowly town in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps I am in for a challenge as I come to face you perfect people in the unfolding years of my life.

-Tom (1330/670 SAT II Math/640 Writing/650 literature)

Also please take note that these scores represent my intelligence (not a single score over 700..must be real dumb). My straight As mean nothing - grade inflation has become so prevalent this days...whatever shall we do, after all these tests are administered by the gods...they must be representing infinite truths.

By Mzinn (Mzinn) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 03:30 am: Edit

"I spent a whole of zero seconds studying for the SAT I/IIs."

cheers to that.

"The SAT and the college board can kiss my ass. They essentially stole my money. I go to school to learn, I don't need some stupid test to weigh who I am."

my thoughts exactly. i don't see how the tests are so expensive when they call themselves a "non-profit organization" or whatever. It must be a huge bureaucracy. I guess you gotta remember that salaries are considered costs, not profit.

By Cara811888 (Cara811888) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 04:31 am: Edit

Yeah tom..just take most of the stuff on this board with a pinch of salt. SATs r not everything but I guess its a sorta cut and dried thing unlike trying to figure out which ecs and recs are better and all.. just a basis for comparison I guess and its got a little outta hand.

By Microcephalic (Microcephalic) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 06:43 am: Edit

-You're right about the S.A.T's.

-Most people on this board lie, or exaggerate themselves.

-Most people on this board have money to spend on aspects, such as an endless stream of College Board standardized tests.

-I'm sure that many people on this board are, to put it bluntly, more adapt at "sucking up" to a teacher over actually possessing intellect. Doing well in school has a lot to do with effort and charisma, over just intellect.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 10:35 am: Edit

There are actually several colleges who do not require testing for admittance ( www.fairtest.org)

Anything for the SAT over 1000 is better than average, and I know students with scores pretty close to 1000 who are in college and doing fine.

If you got in to Berkeley, obviously someone thinks you are capable of doing the work ( and frankly your SAT scores IMO are very good)

By Creatorcat (Creatorcat) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 04:20 pm: Edit

I guess it's okay to think that we don't need standardized tests to measure our capabilities and intellectual potential. And we can all agree upon this, but somehow the scores, in most cases, present a step in making difference between applications in such a large pool which admins have to consider... It's most certainly is not the bottomline (you would know best, since you were accepted to UCB without being near the shimmering 1500+, and many people with better score got rejected), but they (the admins) prolly do take a moment and think- okay, this kid is so smart and we really like him, but then why was it a problem for him to do the stupid SAT better? Obviously, they also often just say "neah, what the heck, who cares about the SATs, this kid is worth it..." In other words, I think amission officers are pretty much sick of SAT's as well.

But off to another point- why not boast the SATs, why not show everyone how below our level it is, how stupid and unnecessary, thus, look how well we've done it, give us something more challenging?
If it's even worth mentioning, I got 1400 without any preparation for the test and without English being my first language.
But I could've done it even better. I know that, but I was just too lazy to look for any help in my country.

The point would be to show your best. It's not about the score, it's not about what it'll make your application look like, it's just about giving your best, whatever the matter- whether it's the (again) stupid SAT, or any other thing you'll be occupied with in life...

Aaaaah, I'm tired, so I might as well be typing complete crap.

By Stupid_Guy (Stupid_Guy) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 04:28 pm: Edit

"Do we all believe that a person with a 1330 SAT is just simply incapable of ever academically outperforming someone with a 1590 on their SAT?"

nah.... only the colleges do. and thats all that matters. They are in control, not us. The demand for college is much higher than the demand for student. We as the student are expendable pisses of shiit, just like the ages of child labor, you either conform with the college standards- or you die

By Nocalguy (Nocalguy) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 04:34 pm: Edit

We care about SAT scores and GPAs because the colleges do. I see many people that don't have the best grades, but are simply brilliant. However, to a college, they need to see numbers. Going to a good college is very important and in the college admissions process, the colleges are in control. That's why I care about SATs and about grades.

You are someone who is secure with yourself and believe that you can succeed no matter what college you get into. I respect that.

By Arthur (Arthur) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 05:55 pm: Edit

the reason the SAT is so big is because it's the only way to accurately compare students from different schools.

By Incognito (Incognito) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 06:29 pm: Edit

The current SAT (according to many) is pretty crappy. I'm not exactly sure what it is really supposed to test (although I have always speculated). It is not an extremely accurate predictor of performance in higher education, which is the reason that they are making major changes to it (which will be implemented in 2005).

I believe (although I'm not too sure) that it is illegal for high schools to put your IQ score on your transcript (if this is wrong, please correct me). Well, just consider the fact that many people with average IQs do very well academically. What does that tell you? I know that it tells me that the concept of IQ itself is either not fully worked out, is meaningless, or both.

By Incognito (Incognito) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 06:58 pm: Edit

...then again, I still have a hunch that IQ DOES mean something...I really dont know...

By Retrospect (Retrospect) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 08:08 pm: Edit

colleges need numbers. some people that are complete dumbasses get 4.0 because they know how to work hard but they are dumb as ••••. therefore, to keep the bad •••• out of colleges, we need to have SAT as a sort of IQ test to keep these fuckers out

By Rowan (Rowan) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 08:55 pm: Edit

This is the reason for the combination. High GPAs *should* indicate a strong student. However, there are easy classes. Now they look at the rigor of the curriculum. Inflated grades led to looking at another qualifier: the SAT. Well, it may not be very acurate at depicting the exact /range/ of academic ability, but the fact that it is a test that can be studied for gives it some credit (but not much). It's rather unreliable, however, so there are essays. Essays are good: people have to write essays in college to express their ideas, so here's a good way. But essays aren't everything. So there's the interview. But some people aren't quite so "together" when face-to-face -- even some of the researches.

That's my idea on why this 'comprehensive review' business is so important. It's best to look at these things in *context* of a student's opportunities and their choices therein.

By Incognito (Incognito) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 09:14 pm: Edit

To Retrospect ~
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand your reasoning. First off, do you really think that the SAT measures IQ to some extent (I do too, that's why I'm curious if other ppl think the same way)? Also, don’t you think that hard work is an essential attribute in an applicant? Work ethics are very important. "Keeping those [see your post of blank] out" wouldn't make sense at all if they can succeed...

By Nocalguy (Nocalguy) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 09:27 pm: Edit

In between all of the profanity, it's hard to understand anything Retrospect's saying. Apparently, he thinks colleges should take only the smartest people and weed the people who have to work hard to get good grades out.

By Retrospect (Retrospect) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 10:52 pm: Edit

sorry for my profanity sir
I will try to limit these powerful expressions ( i call them "wild cards") that are prevalent in my extensive vocabulary

and yes, working hard is nice..but not working hard is nice too

so yea i wasnt trying to offend anyone

and yes hard work is an essential attribute for an applicant to possess
however, i feel that it is a poor supplement for raw intellectual ability

By Nocalguy (Nocalguy) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 11:07 pm: Edit

It's not often I get called "Sir!"

By Incognito (Incognito) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Retrospect ~
How exactly would one *determine* their intellectual ability? Aside from just that, what is it? Also, does the SAT I measure it to a degree (despite the fact that I prepped a lot for it)?...

By Neo (Neo) on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Beautiful thread.