Are you guys above average?





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: What Are My Chances?: January 2004 Archive: Are you guys above average?
By Christinew87 (Christinew87) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 05:01 am: Edit

Almost everyone in here has much higher stats than me. I know im not dumb, so are you guys in here mostly above average with your scores/ecs/awards or am i just not as smart as i think i am?
Christine

By Smpaladin (Smpaladin) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 07:32 am: Edit

I would think the majority of the people that post here are above average since you probably won't see the students who don't care about college or have terrible grades posting here. People who care enough to learn what their chances for admissions into college post here, and it's likely that it's mainly the above average people who do just that. Don't feel intimidated though, because a lot of the people here are seniors in high school.

By Xdtish (Xdtish) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 09:55 am: Edit

Define above average? Is it grades ?SAT ?Ecs ?

Just because people here have uber-high scores doesn't mean you're any less intellident. Don't worry. As long as you have the drive and ambition, those will take you far.

By Wrinklefiber (Wrinklefiber) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

1020 or so is the SAT average. That's perhaps the most quantifiable indicator, if not always the most accurate.

By Savedbythebell7 (Savedbythebell7) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 01:00 am: Edit

Scores really don't judge intelligence. Xdtish is right.

By Warriorlax22 (Warriorlax22) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 02:33 am: Edit

score-wise, yes, i am above the school average. but even the uber-top kids, i can kick their ass in a debate. so scores don't say a thing about you. hopefully recs and essays will do that for you.

By Sidis (Sidis) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Debate doesn't define intelligence either.

By Collegehelp1234 (Collegehelp1234) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 02:40 am: Edit

Well said, Sidis.

Debate is a form of formalized argument. The debaters I know can write good speehes and argue with teachers, but the practical value is overrated. Charisma and practical cunning are far more valuable forms of expression and manipulation.

Everybody's good at something; colleges are looking for people who will succeed in the world and make a difference, and that they will benefit THROUGH USING all available educational resources.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 05:05 am: Edit

Oh, scores *do* more or less correlate with intelligence, at least on the scale of a 100-200 point difference. The flaw in many people's thinking is that intelligence is the sole or determining factor in success. Perseverance, charisma, social skills, wisdom, integrity, imagination, creativity and probably a few other characteristics I'm overlooking a sleep-deprived state also matter quite a bit.

By Onlynyu (Onlynyu) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 06:44 am: Edit

Exactly, you could score a 1600 on the SAT's, but if your essay was about how you nearly killed yourself because of a B on your report card...they're not going to consider a stable person who'll go far in life.

By Onlynyu (Onlynyu) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 06:44 am: Edit

Exactly, you could score a 1600 on the SAT's, but if your essay was about how you nearly killed yourself because of a B on your report card...they're not going to consider a stable person who'll go far in life.

By Greatsurgeon (Greatsurgeon) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 07:15 am: Edit

that brings you back to the question... what exactly is intelligence?

my psychology textbook tells me that theres creative intelligence, and blah blah blah...

all im trying to say is that grades, sat scores, all they tell you is how much effort you put into memorizing a bunch of facts and how much time you wasted studying for a ••••••, biased, three hour test, that will unfortuantely determine how you will spend the rest of your life.

but then, without it, colleges wouldnt have something to compare applicants with....

quite a dilemma...

By The_Slc_Bug (The_Slc_Bug) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:02 am: Edit

Thedad, it correlates with one type of intelligence, not a person's general intelligence.

By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:15 am: Edit

At my school im a genius (If SATs can measure that stuff), Im one of only 6 kids in my grade with 1400+. But when i come here, i feel dumb. Thanks a lot cc. I knew i shouldve gone to a magnet school.

By Fallentear04 (Fallentear04) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:35 am: Edit

The SAT isn't about memorizing facts. I never did any prep work for the SATs (let alone straight memorization) and I did just fine on the test.

By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:50 am: Edit

Yeah, but you have an advantage if u work hard in school & study. Nobody does well just doing everything half assedly (well i kind of did but i still make sure i understand things before i give up). I think middle school is where most people gain an sat advantage. Since i was o lazy in Mid school and 9th grade, I decided to go over the garbage i didnt understand. On my 1st practuce test, i got a 1360, and my math was only like 660. Then i started recognizing what i missed out on by being so lazy, studied a bit, and i was up to 720 like that.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 07:50 pm: Edit

TSB, it [the SAT] correlates with the general math/verbal intelligence that are the most commonly discussed. No, it doesn't measure spatial, social, musical, or kinesthetic intelligence.

By Greatsurgeon (Greatsurgeon) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:03 am: Edit

i have to disagree....

the SAT is an aptitude test. and a horrible one at that.

not an intelligence test.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Splitting hairs but you'll notice that I carefully said "correlates with" as opposed to "being a measurement of."

Take SAT scorers of 1550, 1480, and 1300. Then measure I.Q.'s by any conventional measuring tool.

The results in comparing the 1550 to the 1480 will probably be in the margin of error. The difference between the 1480 and the 1300 are likely to be suggestive but not conclusive. The difference between the 1550 and the 1300 are probably going to be ice cold lock.

By T2opine (T2opine) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Tests may CORRELATE with intelligence, but they can't be I.Q. tests, simply because if they were I.Q. tests, there couldn't be very much fluctuation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that it would be nearly impossible for someone to raise an I.Q. score by 100 points. However, if you come onto this board, there are several people here who have risen SAT scores by at least that much.

I can see where the scores are related though, as I haven't known too many people with a high I.Q. but a low SAT score and vice-versa.

By Warriorlax22 (Warriorlax22) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit

"Debate doesn't define intelligence either."

then would you mind giving me your definition of intelligence? 'cause i'm sure no number is going to tell you.

By Beenthereil (Beenthereil) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:52 pm: Edit

Christine...Met kids with 1500 SAT's and had ZERO personality. Met others with 1000 SAT's and were gregarious and had sparking personalities.

Good to be smart and above average, but, likely, more important to have a good personality to complement your academic stuff.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 12:46 am: Edit

Education facilitates the demonstration of high I.Q. If a person is never educated, or remains poorly educated, it's not likely anyone will ever be able to ascertain the level of his/her innate intelligence (at least not the type of intelligence as measured by an I.Q. test's narrow definition of the term).

Likewise, SATs and similar tests are best at demonstrating a person's access to the levels of learning the tests measure, as well as how much value he places upon such things. While it is true that the educated person with tremendous intelligence can easily score a 1600 without cracking a prep book, the highly motivated person with average intelligence can often achieve the same score with herculean preparation and committment. Therefore, in the end, you have two 1600s sitting side by side. Now, tell me which one is reflective of the person with the most inherent intelligence. (???)

The assumption that SAT scores reliably correspond to innate intelligence, completely negates the possibility that other factors may be skewing the equation. Emotional factors. Cultural factors. Educational factors. Motivational factors. Health factors. Physical factors. Factors virtually innumerable.

There's a great deal that is still not known about human intelligence. Even the definition of intelligence itself, has been a topic of hot debate for decades, if not centuries. Consider the savant who, though otherwise severly developmentally disabled, is capable of playing complex piano concertos flawless after only one hearing and without the benefit of ever having had a piano lesson, who can memorize and sing thousands of pieces of music, as well as compose beautiful and complex compositions. Is he stupid or a genius? How intelligent is he?

The human mind, not to mention the human heart, is much too complex a machine for anyone to claim they've achieved a locke on the definition of human intelligence, much less human potential based on a three hour test.

By Greatsurgeon (Greatsurgeon) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 07:33 am: Edit

9th grade/age 11: SAT 1210
10th grade/age 13: SAT 1310
11th grade/age 14: SAT 1450

in 3 years, i raised my SAT 240 points. if i took it again senior year, im positive i could have gotten 1500+.

with thedad's generalization, my IQ at age 11 was lower than that at age 14. However, IQ isnt supposed to change that dramatically with age... although flucations of 20 points are common.

therefore no correlation.

By Greatsurgeon (Greatsurgeon) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 07:35 am: Edit

of course. im the only experimental group there. and theres no control. so that wasnt a valid scientific point. but you get the idea. you can increase your SAT score. but doesnt make you any smarter...

By Isaman (Isaman) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 08:17 am: Edit

what if you scored 1060 on the SAT?

By Greatsurgeon (Greatsurgeon) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 08:21 am: Edit

what does that have to do with anything?

SAT = what i like to think: meaningless number that measures nothing, costs money, is biased, and reflects (again) nothing.

SAT = in real life: a whole big ••••••• deal in the college admissions process... otherwise. # 1


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
Administer Page