<p>hikaru2005...bad school?... wow.. you're retarded...it may not be #1... but it's most definitely NOT a bad school....</p>
<p>I was talking about the old SAT that he got a 1550 on. And he's not at a bad school, either. And he's there for free with no debt now too. Poor kid wasting $40 to retake the SAT....</p>
<p>^Agreed and agreed with both upper posts.</p>
<p>hikaru, I don't see how someone smart enough to do so well on the SATs can say such things.</p>
<p>1550 is not a good score even on the old SAT. I'm not saying it is bad. I am just saying it is not good. </p>
<p>1) Everyone knows they could have done better that they did. The real challenge actually doing well. </p>
<p>2) On what basis are you claiming that USC has a "great" education? It is mediocre at best for most subjects although it has a decent aeronautics program. Besides a scholarship is worthless at many schools since you are not getting a quality education. </p>
<p>3) Over 10,000 make it over 2250 each year. </p>
<p>4) You are bourgeois. </p>
<p>5) People with real skills need no tutor. </p>
<p>6) Retaking is always worse than taking it once. </p>
<p>7) What business is it of yours that I laugh at those who retake? It is not as if I am hurting anyone.</p>
<p>Besides, SAT cannot test the limits of intelligence. The test has an upperbound since you max out at 2400 and anyone with a good mind (probably IQ of 115+) can do well on it (1580+ or 2350+) with some practice.</p>
<p>1) Everyone knows they could have done better that they did. The real challenge actually doing well. </p>
<p>I plan on doing well. Do you think I plan on just sitting around? Give me a break, of course I'm practicing before it. This isn't even an actual argument. If I know I can do better, that means I plan on it.</p>
<p>2) On what basis are you claiming that USC has a "great" education? It is mediocre at best for most subjects although it has a decent aeronautics program. Besides a scholarship is worthless at many schools since you are not getting a quality education. </p>
<p>Aeronautical Engineering happens to be my intended major. I base the analysis on USC on the statistics of their graduated classes, the statistics of the people they accept, and what matriculants say. </p>
<p>And second of all, let's go back to your original statement. You said USC is a bad school, and right now, you're saying it's mediocre. Make up your mind.</p>
<p>3) Over 10,000 make it over 2250 each year. </p>
<p>Think of how many take the SAT. Even 20,000 would be a small percentage.</p>
<p>4) You are bourgeois. </p>
<p>Doesn't bother me.</p>
<p>5) People with real skills need no tutor. </p>
<p>That's my point--I'm gonoing to beat those using a tutor.</p>
<p>6) Retaking is always worse than taking it once. </p>
<p>a) Your own opinion
b) What about people that do better?
c) If someone bubbled all of the wrong answers because they skipped a question and didn't skip it on the answer sheet, then they would undoubtedly do better if they took the test again. Your statement was that retaking is always worse. Therefore it is false.</p>
<p>7) What business is it of yours that I laugh at those who retake? It is not as if I am hurting anyone.</p>
<p>^you'll notice that this was my previous argument that you repasted instead of answering it.</p>
<p>Besides, SAT cannot test the limits of intelligence. The test has an upperbound since you max out at 2400 and anyone with a good mind (probably IQ of 115+) can do well on it (1580+ or 2350+) with some practice.</p>
<p>^I agree. But I don't see your point. You are also vastly overestimating the ability to do phenomenally on the SAT, and I suspect this is because you have done very well on it. I do agree that it doesn't test intelligence accurately but . . . . so what?</p>
<p>Your arguments are spurious at best.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1550 is not a good score even on the old SAT. I'm not saying it is bad. I am just saying it is not good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess somewhere around 99% of the population made less than a score that wasn't good on the old SAT. 1550/1600 not good . . . right.</p>
<p>Spurious? Busting out some SAT words eh? Regardless, you still have a lower score than me. And 10,000 is a lot. Especially considerign that only 1/4 of high schoolers decide to go to college and many of those go to community college which does not require sats. Most of the nation will not prepare for the SAT or even care what they get. I think probably less than 5% even attempt to prepare.</p>
<p>No, I just like spurious.</p>
<p>You obviously can't answer first of all, and second of all, at the beginning of this thread . . . </p>
<p>you said I had a good score. And now it's low?</p>
<p>Also, I said out of the people that take the SAT few make 1500/1600, NOT out of the people that prepare. Your logic fails again.</p>
<p>if you noticed I said lower score not low score</p>
<p>And furthermore, I realize I have a lower score than you, but I don't know what your point is. I think you just might be right when you said the SAT is no measure of intelligence.</p>
<p>And I'm pretty sure you edited your post. Everything you said has been refuted. You also still said 1550/1600 wasn't a good score.</p>
<p>i never siad it is no measure of intelligence. it just can't measure it very high. maxes out at around 115 iq which is not exactly amazing</p>
<p>Alright, I'll give you that.</p>
<p>But everything else is intact.</p>
<p>I laugh at people who laugh at people over something as petty as SATs.</p>
<p>Here's the deal: people have different goals and different aspirations. If you plan to apply to Harvard, there is a chance that a score of >2300 would help over a score that's 2200. If there's something you're aiming for, there is nothing wrong with trying to appear your best when the moment comes and they review your application. Perhaps they'll be impressed, or perhaps they'll think "Okay, so they took some extra prep classes". Still, nothing wrong with trying.</p>
<p>And for the record...scores that go down do not hurt your chances. Colleges don't really care about anything besides your highest score in each section unless you take the test more than 3 times.</p>
<p>Not really hikaru, you're twisting facts. It's considered possible for someone with a 115 to get a 2400, but that's not the best estimate of someone with a 2400's intelligence.</p>
<p>Anyway, where are you getting that 10,000 people scored 2250 stat from? I can't seem to locate it...</p>
<p>hikaru2005: So what were your SAT scores? You sound like a cocky douche that will never amount to anything. Surely someone of you intellegence level must have something better to do with the time you spend not preparing for a SAT retake than to sit on a HS messageboard and "laugh" at others for not confirming your idiotic, myopic views on standardized testing?</p>
<p>He scored a 2390, his first time. This undoubtedly contributes to his misguided belief that people shouldn't retake the test.</p>
<p>I see...well scoring a 2390 is not necessarily a miracle, either. If that SAT score is all you're basing your "I'm better than everyone else" attitude on, hikaru, then you better accomplish something else of value in a hurry.</p>
<p>hahaha. I don't think a 2390 is good either. I wouldn't have retaken teh test if I got 2100. Anything 2100 is a keep since although they are not good scores, they are not bad either. I just think it is funny that people will retake a test like that SAT. Besides, tons of people waste their saturdays doing nothing. Some play warcraft, I play college confidential</p>
<p>Your standards make absolutely no sense. A person can miss one question and get a 2390. If you call that 'not good' . . . . However a great deal of people don't score as well as you.</p>
<p>And if a score less than 2390 is not good, then how is 2200 excellent? You said 2200 was excellent, now you're saying 2390 is not good.</p>
<p>Lookie here, students who have 750+ have a better shot than those with 700-740. Guess you're wrong.</p>
<p>oh well whatever. 2100-2390 is both good and bad</p>