<p>David-
Aquaponics?</p>
<p>Curious choice of pseudonym. </p>
<p>David Humphrey is a famous cartoon voice. Shadow the Hedgehog. 
</p>
<p>@davidhumphrey67 Do you have gold medals at the IMO? Have you published original scientific research and published your own novels?</p>
<p>I do agree that the ACT has lots of flaws and should be harder, but I wouldn’t bash people who scored lower than 36. </p>
<p>LOL: I love the Sheldon Cooper call out. Perfect!</p>
<p>Your comment that “I made a 36, why can’t everyone else” is such faulty logic. I could say, I can do “X”, why can’t you, especially when the “X” is accomplished by less than 1% of those who try. </p>
<p>Genetic variation within the population. As you say, you received a 36 without studying. With no particular effort on your part, you gained this high score. You were born capable of doing well on these types of standardized tests and presumably were raised in an environment that at least did not hinder your abilities, e.g. you were probably not subjected to lead poisoning or extreme malnutrition. Humans are not all the same. Individuals may posses a wide range of attributes, many genetically determined to at least some degree. </p>
<p>Pics or ■■■■</p>
<p>so obviously a ■■■■■, I think it’s funny tho</p>
<p>Get a life instead of trolling forums on the Internet, pleb. </p>
<p>Off course it’s a ■■■■■ </p>
<p>I just googled about 50 different pictures of 36 ACT score cards. It’s really note that hard to pull one off the web. It’s ■■■■■ </p>
<p>Get a 600 SAT before you start talking…</p>
<p>OP, I used to think just like you. After finishing my ACT, I thought, “What a joke, how could I have NOT gotten a 36.” And then… I didn’t get a 36. Yes, I didn’t take any practice tests or study, but I thought the test was so ridiculously easy that I really could not fathom how I didn’t get a 36. But, this is what that experience taught me: there is much more required than just raw intelligence to succeed on these tests, both the SAT and ACT. These tests require one be relatively-stress free such that you don’t go blank, but with senses heightened enough that you can remain focused for the 3.5+ hours that the tests require, be well-rested, be well-fed, and these only some of the many factors required to succeed on the ACT and SAT. It is for this same reason why I have seen friends of mine, with more than enough raw intelligence to get a 36, get by with “meager” 32’s and 33’s. On the other hand, it is for this same reason that I’ve seen kids with 35’s-36’s who struggle with classes in which my “dumber” (by your logic lol) friends breeze through. And as for you not having studied and gotten a 36, I direct your attention to my previous points. Sometimes, kids study or take practice tests, not because they somehow find the material too difficult and need help in understanding it, but simply to eliminate some of the extraneous factors which can negatively affect one’s score (such as nerves, lack of stamina, etc.).</p>
<p>Think of it through a sports analogy. You might have amazing, raw basketball talent, but that doesn’t mean you’re necessary the best “player.” The key to a good player is not only talent, but the ability to endure the pressure of playing a basketball game, the ability to stay focused throughout the entirety of the game, and the ability to have the stamina to compete at max gear even when the games get long. In the same way, very bright kids will not always have the test scores which directly match their raw talent, simply because they are lacking in another department that is required to succeed on these tests. So in effect, if you score a 36 without studying, you’re obviously an extremely smart fellow; the lack of such a score, or the attainment of a 36 by someone only through studying/taking practice, tests does not discount the fact that that person can be as smart, if not smarter, than you. Only thing really surprising about your posts is that you’re too closed-minded to see that lol.</p>
<p>And then, of course you have the fact that there are multiple intelligence’s that these tests don’t test for (emotional, etc.), but that is a whole other argument altogether. For now, simply understand that a higher score doesn’t always mean greater mastery of the material being tested on…</p>
<p>Elevated diction doesn’t necessarily imply anything about your aggrandized intelligence. It is entirely possible and probably beneficial to have a conversation amongst peers in everyday modern vernacular, and not in a tone that reads like a college level academic journal.</p>
<p>Now that you seem to be done gloating and arguing about gloating (worse than the act itself, I daresay), I think you have made your point. Good day and if we are fortunate, goodbye. </p>
<p>@tmo2112 If you had realized, <em>I</em> wasn’t trying to be colloquial, merely suggesting it. </p>
<p>It’s giving him a “taste of his own medicine”. If he desires “like-minded individuals” this greatly, well, it can’t hurt to play along.</p>
<p>@IvyLeague240036 The “thesaurus websites” you speak of are located within my brain, so perhaps your Ivy League education will assist you in discovering some way to functionally erase my crystallized intelligence (Edit: And you can be certain I will bring up a case against you if you actually attempt it, genius.). While you’re doing that, try to realize (although I’m certain your grossly enlarged mass of a brain will struggle with this) that I actually do not need to paint myself as a perfect score and with inflated ego as did Humphrey in order to attain satisfaction that I am indeed worthy of the label ‘intellectual’, perhaps more so than certain individuals aggrandizing themselves at the expense of others and deeming themselves brilliant geniuses through the use of a college readiness score. </p>
<p>It’s definitely a ■■■■■. There’s no way the ACT testmakers give it that easily.</p>
<p>Aha! I finally found the stereotypical CC thread! 8-> </p>
<p>Is this stereotypical? I didn’t realize.</p>