<p>
[quote]
so I'll just end this with a nice plain "go *&^% yourself".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>TITCR.......</p>
<p>And now for my contribution to the thread...</p>
<p>
/L'-,
,'-. /MM . . / L '-,
. <em>,--dMMMM\ /MMM <code>.. / '-,
: _,--, )MMMMMMMMM),.</code>QMM ,<> /</em> '-,'
; <em>__,--. \MM( <code>-' )M//MM\</code> ,',.; .-'* ; .'
| \MMMMMM) \MM\ ,dM//MMM/ _</em>_ < ,; <code>. )</code>--' /
| \MM()M MMM)__ /MM(/MP' <em>__, \ \ <code></code>. `. /</em><em>, ,'
| MMMM/ MMMMMM( /MMMMP'</em><em>, \ | / <code>.</code>-,</em>\ /
| MM /MMM---' <code>--'_ \ |-' |/</code>./ .----.___
| /MM' <code>--' __,- \"" |-' |_,</code>.<strong>) . .F. )-.
| <code>--' \ \ |-' |_, _,-/ J . . . J-'-.</code>-.,
| __ `. | | | \ / _ |. . . . \ <code>-. F
| ___ / \ |</code>| ' __ \ | /-' F . . . . \ '`
| \ \ \ / | __ / \ | |,-' _<em>,- J . . . . . \
| | / |/ _</em>,- \ ) \ / |<em>,- _</em>,--' |. .</strong>.----,'
| |/ ___ \ |'. |/ <strong>,--' <code>.-;;;;;;;;;\
| ___ \ \ | |</code> _<em>,--' /;;;;;;;;;;;;.
| \ \ |-'\ ' _</em>,--' /;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\
\ | | / | _<em>,--' `--;;/ \;-'\
\ | |/ _</em>,--' / / \ \
\ | __,--' / / \ \
|</strong>,--' _,-;M-K, ,;-;\
<;;;;;;;; '-;;;;
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Skraylor: while the SAT is not a final determinant of life status or a truly objective measure of intelligence, nobody is arguing that it is. You're arguing against a strawman.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>see post 74</p>
<p>i'm not even going to respond to the rest of it. luckily her opinion has no bearing on my life and i can still go to bed happy and wake up and have a great day. not to mention i dont need my mommy to help me pick my classes....but whatever, que sera, sera</p>
<p>Cornell CAS harder than UPenn CAS???</p>
<p>is that a joke?</p>
<p>funny, i can't keep laughing.....</p>
<p>Cornell CAS has a yield under 40 percent. Penn has a yield over 60 percent.</p>
<p>go look at cornell's website. The state supported schools have a higher yield rate b/c of low tuition.</p>
<p>My mailbox is full but to the person who was asking before... this "information" was posted on xoxoth and unfortunately CC doesn't let us link it. It's like one of the first few threads on a u t o a d m i t . c o m tho so go look it up. But yea once again, this ranking is definitely unofficial.</p>
<p>brand, nice upbringing, your choice of words. Yes, I was insulting but did not use foul words but deliberately provoked to have a debate. Truazn, I probably meant no 2. Psychometrically speaking is not a big word, I use it in psych reports daily and used it reflexively, and normally I would use it before giving the validity and reliability coefficients of the tests I was using, etc.</p>
<p>30 yrs ago in India, I walked in cold to a test called the GRE, did not have a clue what it was, vague idea math and reasoning, first attempt perfect 1600. My S who is going to Columbia next month got 2350 one sitting SAT. I was reacting to the manner in which high scores were trivialized by people saying it is the result of test prep, measures nothing and such nonsense. If people who criticize my wording, insults etc are intellectually honest they can take up my challenge, let us run an experiment to falsify my claim.</p>
<p>
[quote]
30 yrs ago in India, I walked in cold to a test called the GRE, did not have a clue what it was, vague idea math and reasoning, first attempt perfect 1600. My S who is going to Columbia next month got 2350 one sitting SAT. I was reacting to the manner in which high scores were trivialized by people saying it is the result of test prep, measures nothing and such nonsense. If people who criticize my wording, insults etc are intellectually honest they can take up my challenge, let us run an experiment to falsify my claim.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>considering you got a 1600 on the gre i'm surprised you didnt understand my argument at all. i never said that the sat measures "nothing". my argument is simply that there is a very small difference between a 700 and a 750. even a 730 and an 800. (i would say the same for a 700 and 800 but i have a feeling there are 2 st.devs between that whereas in the above 2 there are only 1, maybe 1.5 at most)</p>
<p>you shoul also try and make sure you are responding to the correct people since when you misquote people i have to assume you are actually responding to other ppl (for instance when you say you probably meant #2, i have to assume you mean denzera) that even brings up a whole new argument of that you dont even know what you mean but i'm not even going to touch that.</p>
<p>that said, i really want you to respond to this:</p>
<p>you are still stuck on the idea that the sat measures intelligence well at the upper scores. i don't understand this because, since you do have a background in psychometric testing, you should know that no IQ test is meant to differentiate IQ's when in the upper (or lower) scores. this is another thing learned in psych101. </p>
<p>in fact, i'm sure you are familiar with alfred binet and his criticism of the whole measurement of iq as a linear surface. in another vein of criticism, the APA has come out with a number of studies that show IQ tests are biased (interestingly enough not towards african americans but towards mexican americans). so tell me, if the sat is effetively an IQ test as you claim it to be, why would the same not hold true? while i am too lazy to go looking for the papers, the sat HAS been criticized for being culturally biased as a matter of fact.</p>
<p>so, there you are. debate away</p>
<p>Yes, Cornell is the least self-selecting Ivy, simply because most Ivy applicants apply to it because they think they'll get into it. If Cornell were as small as, say, Dartmouth, then it might be a lot more selective, but right now, it's safe to argue that it's also the least selective college. </p>
<p>Actually Skraylor, rama is partly right. I think you don't give the SAT test enough credit. It might not test your intelligence directly, but the smartest kids tend to score higher than dumber kids, so obivously it at least shows that the smart kids are better at adjusting to new situations and sometimes even more resourceful.</p>
<p>Skraylor, my first response to some posters who accused me of insulting them. When someone says that there is little difference between 700 and 800 or that the diff between 94th and 99th percentile is but test taking ability I feel equally insulted. EVen when I insulted back I did not use f words, so for a start let's keep those words out. I never understood you or anyone to say that it measures nothing. If I cited that (and I have not checked my replies) I was being careless, my apologies. Whilst the differences are small in terms of standard error or measurement or std dev and linear surface covered they are differences based on ability or intelligence etc. </p>
<p>Please consider that lower scores are perhaps attained by mastering the test taking abilities taught at Kaplan and it is only at the high end that ability is really getting differentiated. The ability to hold two opposing ideas in one's head and still function is a good test of intelligence as Scott Fitzgerald quipped. The SAT does not measure intelligence alone, it measures wealth, social class, access to test prep etc etc etc. (measures is the wrong word, it is contaminated by all this). But factor analysis of most educational measurement tools clearly shows that they all load well with the g factor underlying all intellectual tests. In this sense, the SAT is an imperfect surrogate for an IQ test just as an IQ test is an imperfect surrogate for crystallized intelligence.</p>
<p>Yes, many IQ tests are culturally biased. Some are not: Raven's, Leiter, etc. They have other problems. But it is perhaps more correct to assume that a high scorer on the SAT is smarter than a low scorer than to assume that the low scorer and the high scorer have the same smarts. At the end of the day, intelligence is what a community understands to be intelligence. In a primitive society it may mean the guy who makes the max no of poisoned darts in the shortest time; today, it may mean the Enron trader or the high SAT scorer, etc . it will most likely exclude low SAT scorers. To repeat, SAT does not measure intelligence but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is more likely that a high scorer is smart than that a low scorer is smart.</p>
<p>Depending on the ceiling of the tests, they may or may not discriminate well at the high end, I agree with you on that. But please note this does not mean that no differences exist. The Wais and the Binet have different ceilings at different age levels. But you are incorrect, differences do exist at high ends. Thanks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
brand, nice upbringing, your choice of words
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah dude all I've said is TITCR. Do you know what that means?</p>
<p>brand, no I don't, is that something you will tell me face to face if we know each other? That would be the test. I was insulting, in the sense of a debater, but not abusive or foul mouthed.</p>
<p>Well, it seems no one has taken up my wager. That speaks volumes.</p>
<p>"I know Cornell is amazing for graduate education, but Brown, is one that you can't really beat for undergrad."</p>
<p>I disagree. I'd say Cornell is #5 in the Ivies for undergraduate quality, after HYP and Dartmouth.</p>
<p>Brand, TITCR = This is the credited response</p>
<p>Lol just by reading these acronyms I can tell who trolls on A u t o a d m i t haha.
As for SAT scores I don't think they really mean much... I got a 2350 on my first sitting (and 2390 composite after I retardedly retook them for whatever reason) + 35 ACT yet I still only applied to Columbia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was insulting, in the sense of a debater, but not abusive or foul mouthed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lol just by reading these acronyms I can tell who trolls on A u t o a d m i t haha.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've never been to that website before, but I suppose there's a reason you know about it and I don't, right? :rolleyes: I actually am on lawschooldiscussion.org as I prep for law school, where the term is used.</p>
<p>truazn, contrary to what you say, your SAT score means you are very very smart.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Skraylor, my first response to some posters who accused me of insulting them. When someone says that there is little difference between 700 and 800 or that the diff between 94th and 99th percentile is but test taking ability I feel equally insulted. EVen when I insulted back I did not use f words, so for a start let's keep those words out. I never understood you or anyone to say that it measures nothing. If I cited that (and I have not checked my replies) I was being careless, my apologies. Whilst the differences are small in terms of standard error or measurement or std dev and linear surface covered they are differences based on ability or intelligence etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>just gonna adress this sentence by sentence:
first off, the first sentence doesnt even make sense. second, see below. third, i didnt use any swear word. please re-read all my posts here if you think i did. fourth, i refer you to post #74 (one of your own). </p>
<p>back to your second sentence:
[quote]
When someone says that there is little difference between 700 and 800 or that the diff between 94th and 99th percentile is but test taking ability I feel equally insulted
[/quote]
</p>
<p>you have agreed to 3 key things. 1) the test is culturally (and even gender) biased. 2) the test is coachable/tutorable 3) IQ tests do not discriminate well at higher numbers.</p>
<p>lets actually start with number 3 because i want to give you the benefit of the doubt that it is a valid test of IQ. seeing as how the sat is meant to create a median score of 500 (which it does somewhat well, if you search for it numbers range from 460-530 as to what the actual median is but no matter). now, throw in a std.dev. of about 100 (also what you will find if you search) and we get to a point where we see that 710 and 800 are actually not statistically different as they fall within the same std.dev. </p>
<p>now, most IQ tests have a median of 100, std.dev. of 15, and with anyone scoring above 130 considered a "high scorer". we can see that this is 2 std.dev's above the median and can infer that between 2-3 std.dev's, it is hard to differentiate intelligence. after all, an iq score is essentially meaningless without stating the std.dev. since a person who scores at least 2 std. dev's above the median could essentially be just below the 3rd deviation. since iq test scores can change over a persons lifetime, even depending on mood in while taking the test, you have to see what im saying here</p>
<p>i'm sure you can see that the sat is set up in much the same way with the top score actually being 3 std.dev's away from the median so i wont waste my breath on that argument and will move on.</p>
<p>as for 1 and 2, this explains why you should not be offended by saying the SAT's 94th and 99th percentiles are essentially alike. these 2 things say that the test is susceptible to error. for example, a mexican-american female scoring a 700 is not necessarily any less intelligent than a white suburban kid who had an sat tutor and scored an 800. to argue that this is untrue when you have already admitted test bias and coachability is absurd</p>
<p>furthermore, in regards to your previous argument that i missed, just because the sat tests vocab (which is an indicator of IQ) that does not make it an IQ test. vocab is coachable and for an minimum effort can be drastically improved. you must know that IQ tests test much more than vocab tho. things like perceptual speed, spatial visualization, and short term memory are much harder to coach and learn than vocabulary.</p>
<p>Ownedddddd</p>
<p>Lamp, I agree with you, caltech has higher scores and tho the SAT is an imperfect measure it is a good surrogate for IQ. Tux is wrong: SAT verbal especially correlates well with IQ. Vesalvay is also incorrect in saying above 2000 it doesn't matter or words to that effect.</p>
<p>There is a difference: 238 2400s but 1594 between 2350 and 2400.</p>
<p>denzera, I have liked your posts and learned from them but I differ on post 79. Most students in the middle spectrum 25th to 75th percentile bands will probably increase their scores on retest. At higher percentiles, there will be both random variation and a slight regression to the mean. Since I was typing in a hurry I probably did not say it very clearly. In the national sense, 2100 is good, also 3.8 even in HS and 3.3 UW etc etc. I was saying something in bad taste: mentally I was factoring in my S who got 2350 , I got 1600 yrs ago, and he got perfect As' all thru school, plus 9 5s on APs with the only 4 on his second foreign language French lit. My cousins' kids, who got into HYPSM, all score in that range, with 2 Siemens, one Intel etc. In high achieving Asian American families these scores you cited would be mediocre. But I do apologize for the tastelessness in bringing personal bragging into a national debate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lamp, I agree with you, caltech has higher scores and tho the SAT is an imperfect measure it is a good surrogate for IQ. Tux is wrong: SAT verbal especially correlates well with IQ. Vesalvay is also incorrect in saying above 2000 it doesn't matter or words to that effect.</p>
<p>There is a difference: 238 2400s but 1594 between 2350 and 2400.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Vesalvay didn't say that. He said that you could pull a 2000 with no studying on pure intelligence, but anything higher than that requires studying. You will not pull a 2400 without studying, end of story. There is absolutely no difference between a 2350 and a 2400. Once you're in the 99th percentile, it's a level playing field. If there really was a difference, then you would be seeing colleges accepting perfect-scorers with open hands, but that's not the case. And, often times, these perfect-scorers have nothing but the academics going for them, so they lack in another type of intelligence. </p>
<p>And, seeing how you rephrase other people's arguments, it seems you're lacking in particular necessary skills...</p>
<p>Oh wow, look at all the thumping going on here...you might have the stuff on paper, but you can't live on the streets.</p>