<p>is a 135 IQ good? becuz i have a 4.7 GPA now and an 1100 SAT and i feel like a dumbass with this SAT score</p>
<p>there are some people who believe that SATs are gender biased. Does anyone belive that?</p>
<p>ecnerwalc3321 -- How?</p>
<p>there are a gazillion inconsistancies with the SAT....it benefits some while hurting others...even people with the same intelligence (as measured by IQ - which is also questionable but still is accpeted) may score differnetly for reasons as simple as stress/anxiety/pressure....people who come in to a class confident that they know the material and have a history of doing well when they study will probably do well (duh)....for the SAT, most people have never taken the REAL one and done well (the retakers are generally the ones that did not do as well as they think they should have), so this lack of confidence may hurt.....the SATs still measure, to some extent, one's intelligence.....if a person gets a 1500+, there is no way this person is stupid....however, the "opposite" is not necesarrily true, a 1200 SAT score is not enough to qualify one as less than smart....there are studies proving that gender bias and racial bias does occur (hence the new SAT)......there are soooo many problems with this test, but it still helps colleges get SOME type of measure</p>
<p>wow, i just rambled for a while.....on another note, i wanted to comment on the slacker thing.....i am probably what you guys would consider a "slacker"...i hate high school (although i go to a relatively good public one)....i think that the grading system is stupid and that the teachers are subpar and underqualified (although they get paid more at our school than just about any other in new jersey).....well, i do the BARE minimum to get a high B or a low A....i dont read the books for english or the textbooks for any other subject....i dont pay attention in class....in this sense, im the "slacker"....but on the other hand, i am very interested in ACTUAL learning (its different from what most people do in school)....there isnt a day that goes by without me checking the news and reading at least 3 articles.....when i told a few people about my SAT score, they were surprised, because i have always been the "AP slacker"....what i am getting at is that the person that is labeled a "slacker" may not necessarily be that....i have gotten a few Cs in high school (just because i dont care about grades) and i have a 1580 and an 800 in writing, so what? the people in my school that have gotten 1550+ are all fairly hard-working people....the factor that is common between all the high scorers in my school is NOT grades; rather it is INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY.....the hardworking people that just study for the grade ended up not doing that well (in general)....</p>
<p>soo, to wrap up, it is my belief that although the SAT is flawed terribly, it provides some type of measuring stick....if used correctly and perpetually improved, the SAT is a positive aspect in college admissions</p>
<p>"is a 135 IQ good? becuz i have a 4.7 GPA now and an 1100 SAT and i feel like a dumbass with this SAT score"</p>
<p>Don't be embarassed by your SAT score. In life we don't always do as well as we want to, but all that really matters is that we tried, and looking at your GPA, it is evident that you are likely a very hard worker.</p>
<p>"there are some people who believe that SATs are gender biased. Does anyone belive that?"</p>
<p>I've also heard people say the SAT is racist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because the SAT tests more for intellgence than knowledge. Hard work directly correlates with knowledge. Intelligence, however, exists independently from effort. So you have a lot of intelligent slackers scoring high on the SAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of the top handful of students at my school, I probably am the least hard working one (though I do work pretty hard, just not as much as they do), so I'm not trying to "defend my kind" or anything here. But I have to heartily disagree. When you're learning truckloads of English's least used words, how does that measure intelligence? Nobody's born with an innate ability to somehow know what "ameliorate" or "palliate" means without ever having heard it or seen it before. The math section also requires some firm knowledge about triangles, exponents, etc. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Newton (who suddenly finds gravity or a mediocre scientist who works hard all his life and gets nothing?)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm betting that Newton was a genius AND worked his tail off, unless you believe the mythical apple story. It takes intelligence and diligence to become anything. There are tons of intelligent yet unmotivated/lazy people in the world, and they usually amount to nothing.</p>
<p>IMHO, the SAT's best gauge is on your ability to handle pressure. Where else in life are you going to be asked to write an essay in 25 minutes? Universities give you entire terms to write a paper. If you're a scientist, you can take a lifetime to write that one revolutionary theory.</p>
<p>"When you're learning truckloads of English's least used words, how does that measure intelligence? Nobody's born with an innate ability to somehow know what "ameliorate" or "palliate" means without ever having heard it or seen it before."</p>
<p>the thing about intelligence is that you do not HAVE to know those words...you haveto know enough about the words around them in the question (or the base of the word or something)....intelligence is finding a way to get around the problem to figure out the answer.....i didnt KNOW a LOT of the questions on the SAT (neither did many of my friends), but I figured out a way to logically eliminate choices and pick the correct one out of those remaning</p>
<p>
[quote]
you haveto know enough about the words around them in the question (or the base of the word or something)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you still have to know either the words around them, or the root of the word in question. It still comes down to knowledge, not some innate ability to decipher absolutely foreign words.</p>
<p>I have noticed that many peopl ein my class that have high GPA's ( 3.9 UW and up) who are also taking the hardest classes dont always do well on the SAT even though they do well in a class. </p>
<p>THe biggest part to all of it with the people that I know is people are able to do well in high school classes since the test may only have a couple of week s on them so the peopl estudy like hell and then after a few weeks don't retain that much. These people also do not do that wel on finals -- i have seen it many times where a person with a 95 average on tests gets a 75-80 on the final but still winds up with an A in the class. Once these people go into college they wil have to work even harder and will not do nearly as well just since each test/midterm/final has more weight and each test covers more info and over a longer period of time. </p>
<p>Just wanted to throw this out.. its what some friends and i have observed of our fellow classmates.</p>
<p>In my humble opinion, I think the SATs don't necessarily gauge intelligence for everyone. I first started with an 1170 (PSAT predicted score), and eventually clawed my way up to a 1510 (in the span of one year). I really doubt one year produced significant intellectual growth to demonstrate such a huge discrepancy in SAT scores. I just studied the test, and managed to do fairly well on it afterwards. Of course this isn't the case for everyone- some people just manage to naturally shine on this sort of thing, and some people are very intelligent, yet really don't do well on standardized tests.</p>
<p>man<em>on</em>fire...</p>
<p>Edit: Nevermind. I just looked at some of your posts and realized you're a score nazi. I'm out, no point in arguing with an idiot.</p>
<p>PS: Guys like you are the reason I wouldn't attend Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have noticed that some individuals on this forum complain about being a bad standardized test taker. Maybe its just me, but I just don't understand why anyone would complain about fundamental tests like the SAT, ACT, PSAT's, etc. They all just test students' knowledge of basic and broad concepts in various subject areas and require some critical thinking strategies, most of which are normally taught in high school. So, why wouldn't a student with a good GPA no perform comparitively on a standardized test? </p>
<p>Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that some people really don't keep much of the information they learn in the school with them. These kiinds of people just study for tests and do the minimum required to pull of good grades in theri classes. In reality however, they really don't have a full grasp of the material that they are being taught, which explains why some students in calculus perform poorly on SAT M for example.</p>
<p>In terms of college admissions, I really don't believe an individual who just slugs along and pulls off the A in his/her classes adds much to a higher-level institution. That is why I think the SAT's are imortant. They might not reveal much about an individual's work ethic but they do give a fairly accurate assessment of a student's intelligence and ability to perform in later years, since the SAT's are not something you can study for specifically. Thats my 2 cents on this long-torn debate about grades vs. SAT's. What are all your opinions or thoughts???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How can someone remember every thing for every class? Unless it is their major in college...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Egregious? I came across that word several times in the booklet that trains AP Music Theory teachers how to grade the exam. And I would exactly consider music teachers linguistic experts. And parsimonious...you'll come across that more than a few times in books, or if you're discounting books, newspapers and editorials. OK, I'll admit I haven't seen temporizing used in everyday lingo, but I'm just trying to say these words DO show up and WILL embarrass you if you don't know them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lucky you. I also come across lots of words but cannot remember the meanings of all of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of the top handful of students at my school, I probably am the least hard working one (though I do work pretty hard, just not as much as they do), so I'm not trying to "defend my kind" or anything here. But I have to heartily disagree. When you're learning truckloads of English's least used words, how does that measure intelligence? Nobody's born with an innate ability to somehow know what "ameliorate" or "palliate" means without ever having heard it or seen it before. The math section also requires some firm knowledge about triangles, exponents, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This also brings up a question--How do child prodigies skip grades? For example, can a prodigy be born knowing a curriculum through 8th grade by the age of 6 so they can skip to high school? Do they process information quicker?? How do they do this stuff?? I don't see how it's possible for someone to skip from pre-k to 10th grade in a year. (Just an example)</p>
<p>
[quote]
THe biggest part to all of it with the people that I know is people are able to do well in high school classes since the test may only have a couple of week s on them so the peopl estudy like hell and then after a few weeks don't retain that much. These people also do not do that wel on finals -- i have seen it many times where a person with a 95 average on tests gets a 75-80 on the final but still winds up with an A in the class. Once these people go into college they wil have to work even harder and will not do nearly as well just since each test/midterm/final has more weight and each test covers more info and over a longer period of time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can study something everyday until the test (studying notes as you are given them by the professor/teacher) and stil remember close to nothing months later. Is it possible to remember every little thing years later? If it's possible, then I do not have that ability. I don't remember kindergarten, but some people do. I don't even really remember much from middle school.</p>
<p>Well, for example...I have a 3.5, I am in honors/ap at a good academy in philadelphia..I am in the lower end of the honors kids with my modest 3.5 but I honestly know I have a much greater bank of knowledge than them. I have no trouble recalling dates, memorizing. I go to school to learn.</p>
<p>Most of the girls at my school that get 4.0s...et cetera (of course, there are exceptions) are not any more intelligent than myself...they are just better at getting into the mind of whatever teacher we have. </p>
<p>For example, in my english class, I feel as if I want to scream at the top of my lungs everyday. Half the girls do not read the books and get the same scores as me, an ardent bibliophile because they simply know how the teacher thinks and tests. </p>
<p>The same is true for the sat. if people understand the teacher, Mr. Sat, they do much better.</p>
<p>anyone else find this so?</p>
<p>Yes => The SAT is all about beating the test => That doesn't necessarily mean at all costs, but you could go all out... (rolls eyes innocently :) ) </p>
<p>The very fist time I took the SAT's (without any prep work or anything...=> this is the OLD SAT), I got 1000. I am in all accelerated classes, am #8 in my class out of 243 or so, and get straight A's. I work hard doing my homework every night, and never slack off. This is very discouraging so I thought I would take a shot at the New SAT. I used a practice book in conjunction with a Prep class at Gannon University in Erie, Pennsylvania; it was nothing like the actual SAT, and now I am royally P'Od again. Thank you ETS for ruining my life for the second time.</p>
<p>But the SAT is about BEATING the TEST not an EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE because its about BEATING the TEST, not and EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE
But the SAT is about BEATING the TEST not an EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE because its about BEATING the TEST, not and EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE
But the SAT is about BEATING the TEST not an EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE because its about BEATING the TEST, not and EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE
But the SAT is about BEATING the TEST not an EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE because its about BEATING the TEST, not and EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE
But the SAT is about BEATING the TEST not an EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE because its about BEATING the TEST, not and EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE
But the SAT is about BEATING the TEST not an EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE because its about BEATING the TEST, not and EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE
But the SAT is about BEATING the TEST not an EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE because its about BEATING the TEST, not and EVALUATION of KNOWLEDGE</p>
<p>Maybe ACT's?</p>
<p>hmm...maybe. I think its really funny how I am the most well read person in my grade yet some people score higher than me in english..who have not read one book since freshman year completely?</p>