<p>brand I did not know TITCR, I thought you were foul. If you were not I apologize.</p>
<p>tux et al, </p>
<p>Half this board is filled with people who take things out of context and try to use it to their advantage. Then another 10% have insecurity issues and resort to harrassment, physical challenges, racism etc to try to put others down etc etc</p>
<p>I love this place.</p>
<p>Skraylor, point 3: I thought brand had used a swear word, not you. I believe he has pointed out that he used an acronymn I did not understand. In any case, that was not addressed to you. Point 1: maybe a grammar clarification, what I meant was that my first response as in initial reaction was to the insult I experienced from some posters. More important, let's get to point 2:</p>
<p>You distort what I wrote in my post. I never said SAT is biased. I said many IQ tests biased. Again not all. I gave examples of those that are not. I did not say the SAT does not discriminate at high end nor did I say IQ tests do not discriminate at high end. I said IQ tests may or may not discriminate depending on which test you are talking about. Finally, I said the SAT is coachable at lower scores. You have thoroughly distorted my post and it is intellectually unfair.</p>
<p>One cannot make the SD argument and compare the construction of IQ tests and the SD of SAT. We will have to get into z scores and t scores and all that. The point is that diff between 710 and 800 on SAT is bigger than the diff between 127 and 133. It is too complex to explain: it has to do with the no of tests used in the Wechsler, the factor analysis, the VIQ-PIQ differences. Vocabulary is coachable at the lower end but not everyone will acquire a grand vocabulary due to IQ differences, area of the temporal lobe devoted to language, ie structure of the left hemisphere etc. I cannot teach you neuropsychology here but I am sure a bright man like you will find out for yourself. Thanks for paying me the compliment of debating me.</p>
<p>Tux, you say that I rephrase what people say and hence lack in particular skills. OK, you will have to apologize to me for that.</p>
<p>Vesalvay in post 59 says: I really don't think SATs once you are in the 2000s constitute a big difference in academic ability or capability.</p>
<p>I come from a southern Indian town, I learned english as a second language, made a 1600 GRE, got perfect scores in a PHD program from a top school and taught at Mayo. When you can go to a different culture, China or India and have the same accomplishment you can claim street skills. YOu will not survive one hour in Mumbai or Shanghai.</p>
<p>Everyone has gone through their highs and lows in their own relative sense, so let's not get into that argument.</p>
<p>Also, one would also have to wonder why an apparently very successful PHD graduate, lecturer at Mayo etc etc adds to his to-do list, an argument about the nature of the SAT (something which won't really concern you anymore) on a College board. I'm not dissing you whatsoever, I just think that someone of your calibre has better things to do! :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
You distort what I wrote in my post. I never said SAT is biased. I said many IQ tests biased. Again not all. I gave examples of those that are not. I did not say the SAT does not discriminate at high end nor did I say IQ tests do not discriminate at high end. I said IQ tests may or may not discriminate depending on which test you are talking about. Finally, I said the SAT is coachable at lower scores. You have thoroughly distorted my post and it is intellectually unfair.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) ok if you will not admit to bias, get some evidence to prove there is none. here is mine:
<a href="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0655(197124)8%3A4%3C245%3AVOTSFB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G%5B/url%5D">http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0655(197124)8%3A4%3C245%3AVOTSFB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G</a>
<a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2405/is_n1_v119/ai_14153544%5B/url%5D">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2405/is_n1_v119/ai_14153544</a>
<a href="http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2177%5B/url%5D">http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2177</a>
<a href="http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/23%5B/url%5D">http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/23</a></p>
<p>2) again, i admitted a few IQ tests do work well at high levels, however, to my knowledge most of those are untimed. find me some that are timed and maybe i will believe the sat is a little more reasonable as a measure of intelligence</p>
<p>3) can you even put to words why you think the sat is not coachable at higher scores? you really think that intelligence will always equate to great time management? (i use this because time management is a coachable skill and IS taught by kaplans, pr, etc.)</p>
<p>4) as far as my std.dev. argument goes, i will admit my knowledge on z-scores and whatnot is very limited since i've only had intro stats. however, i did not merely declare out of the blue that a 710-800 SAT is comparable to a 127-133 IQ. I back this up with the arguments that bias and tutoring CAN effect the SAT score but NOT the IQ score. (or at the very least, not effect it as much) until you disprove the bias and coachability of the SAT, i have no reason to believe you are correct in this point....unless of course you managed to pull a study exactly about this out of no where but i wait to see</p>
<p>hahaha everyone sit the IQ test one <a href="http://www.iqtest.com%5B/url%5D">www.iqtest.com</a>...</p>
<p>it's timed! then post your result.</p>
<p>Good morning , skraylor. You did not apologize for accusing me of distortion. Be that as it may please note a) in science the burden is on the claimant, I do not have to prove a negative b) the articles in the links are not from peer reviewed highly cited measurement journals; they are opinion pieces and an extract from a court verdict re the predictive validity of the SAT for college GPA c) an example of a timed IQ test that differentiates at higher levels is the WISC d) I never said that intelligence always equates to great time management; most smart people in most situations will be better time managers e) time management is a coachable skill but at complex levels anxiety will interfere and the most fluent overlearned response will be what the organism executes and this is where the smarts come into play. You need to go back to Thornike's and Dollard and Miller's early experiments that established the basis for animal learning f) bias and tutoring can affect not only the SAT but also the IQ tests which is why to prevent tutoring effects the tests cannot be distributed or administered by non licensed psychologists. Even then scoring errors and administrator bias in timing etc can creep in as in white psychologist and black client etc. They are minimal but do exist. g) the SAT is an imperfect test, it does not directly measure intelligence but has a good loading on it and is a reasonable predictor. Hope this helps.</p>
<p>1)are you kidding me? journal of general psychology, journal of educational measurement, and harvard educational review...secondly, YOU are the one making the claim. CollegeBoard is now certainly not claiming that the SAT measures intelligence (it may have back in the 70's but that was then, this is now). You DO need to come up with some evidence because right now the test makers are on my side. lastly, can we not say an intelligent person will get a good gpa in college? your argument about that is a paper one at best.</p>
<p>2) how can you call the SAT complex? yes there is a level of anxiety in it but everyone faces it. to say that it is something like a paralyzing fear is simply unreasonable. also, how do you condition for a multiple choice test??? no one i know tells you to "put C!" or "leave it blank always!" </p>
<p>3) (for your f) great, but you admit they exist in the SAT and that they are minimal in the IQ tests. so really, my previous point still stands that since the differences between the 2 tests are so great a 710-800 is comparable to a 127-133 once bias and tutoring are taken into account</p>
<p>4) "[the sat] does not directly measure intelligence but...is a reasonable predictor"
by using the words "reasonable" and "not directly" you are now going against your previous argument in 74. by allowing the wiggle room of these vague terms, you are all but admitting that my argument is a valid one.</p>
<p>so, once again, i will say that the sat is NOT a measure of intelligence past a certain level (about 700). before that, it measures certain english and math skills but once again, not much. now, seeing as how this has gone on for about 5 posts back and forth, i am done and wash my hands of it. you can have the last word if you wish but until you pull some hard evidence out (since you ARE going against what the test creators have said) i will continue to believe that my words ring truth</p>
<p>skraylor, the article in the journal on ed measurement had something to do with predictive validity and has nothing much to say about the intrinsic construct validity of the test. Pulling isolated articles is not science. The second article the courts held in one opinion that the SAT does not capture the entire acad achievement etc. I agree with that, and no one will dispute that. Other courts in other judgments have concluded in various ways but courts are addressing specific issues. Your third article in capitalism magazine, less said the better. One thing is clear: you have not gone near a PHD program and you have never published a scientific article that was peer reviewed. You don't know science.</p>
<p>I never said the SAT is complex. I said complex levels, which in psychology as applied to this issue refers to item difficulty as a dependent variable to the indep variable of student IQ, personality characteristics as anxiety, defense mechanisms etc. In other words, when a non-complex (to you and me) item is complex to someone that person may find it complex because of a host of factors of which trait anxiety or IQ may just be two.</p>
<p>I never said paralyzing fear. I gather you have no knowledge of the research on trait anxiety or on flooding etc. I am not making any claims other than to say that the SAT has a certain loading for IQ and correlates well, which does not mean direct measure. I gather from your defensiveness that you did not achieve high scores, high scores in my sense above 2350. You specifically asked me in your post to prove absence which is frankly ludicrous.</p>
<p>Re post 74: no wiggle room. I continue to maintain that at high scores the SAT separates the smart ones. I do not have direct evidence for it but it is intuitive and depends on face validity: if after repeat testing, (control for coaching, SES etc etc) someone gets only (ONLY!!) 740 and another 790 it is not unreasonable to conclude that intelligence is playing a part in addition to noise, random variations, regression, errors, etc etc. When people are willing to attribute a no of reasons for the variation but will not cite intelligence as one possible cause but will attribute somewhat lower scores which incidentally coincide with their scores to intelligence then they are being self serving. </p>
<p>I do not want to have the last word but we can agree to disagree. Best wishes.</p>
<p>if these rankings come out to be true, it will be really...interesting. for columbia, after seeing a record low acceptance rate and increasing endowment, was given a higher ranking as compared to a lower ranking. meanwhile, cornell was given a lower ranking--right above columbia (that is, if these rankings prove true). just something to think on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
for columbia, after seeing a record low acceptance rate and increasing endowment, was given a higher ranking as compared to a lower ranking. meanwhile, cornell was given a lower ranking--right above columbia (that is, if these rankings prove true). just something to think on.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not trying to start a fight, but why is this so unfathomable?</p>
<p>It's not so much unfathomable as it is just unfair...</p>
<p>Of course on this board most of us are biased to say the least.</p>
<p>But all the same, it's hard to comprehend how COlumbia can drop 1 in the rankings (IF THESE ARE INDEED THE REAL RANKINGS) when Columbia has gained 2.2billion in endowment/donations, increased publicity, 2 Nobel Prize wins, and record low selectivity. The increased publicity and nobel prize wins should marginally help the peer assessment score while the record donations help the finanical assets score. The selectivity score also is helped by the admit rate. So given that all three of these factors increased....how does Columbia drop by 1? It's hard to imagine a school like Dartmouth, Duke, Penn, or Cornell managed to do all of this within the time-frame of a year (and they didn't) which is why it doesn't make sense that not only did Columbia not stay as 9 tied with Dartmouth, but it actually dropped.</p>
<p>I'm not saying Columbia didn't have a good year, I'm asking why it's a problem that Cornell might soon rank just below your school. The impression I get from mrsopresident's post is that he doesn't believe Cornell deserves to be ranked alongside mighty Columbia -- whether the two schools are ranked 1st and 2nd, 10th and 11th, or 100th and 101st.</p>
<p>Personally, I'm slightly freaked that Harvard has dropped to #3. I'm doubting USNWR methodology more and more, if in the year Yale has been getting much less attention, has become less selective, and has made no notable improvements in particular, it climbs over Harvard. (!!)</p>
<p>Conspiracy perhaps? I would laugh is USNWR ends up being alternatively funded based on their yearly rankings and all this ends up as the bull***** we know it as; that is, of course, unless they happen to make Columbia no1.</p>
<p>Yale is still arguably the most selective school in the country, and it had a lower acceptance rate than Harvard or any other college in the country last year. Also I wouldn't say that it has made "no notable improvements" when it has been spending on new facilities & programs at a rate beyond any other school and, along with Princeton, has more resources per student than any other college in the country.</p>
<p>lol why are you all so worked up over this? Those are not even the confirmed rankings...</p>
<p>Wait rami, you bash Skyraylor for pulling "isolated articles" but where is the evidence for your claims? You say that the burden of proof lies on the affirmative side but that does not mean that you do not have to present evidence to disprove his contentions. On online forums, nobody gives a damn about peer review. This is College Confidential. This is not NIH. The peers are us and we've got sensitive bullcrap meters.</p>
<p>LOL I love how CollegeConfidential is full of angry, irritated, insecure *******s.</p>