<p>well said my man.</p>
<p>Being "hardworking" is much smarter than being "smart but lazy". I'd much rather be the former than the latter. Another thing, I don't believe that Berkeley girls are ugly. The girls going to UCB from my school are all average or above average, but the guys on the other hand...</p>
<p>dood, i find that the people who complain constantly about girls at berkeley are just plain old LAZY. there's good looking girls EVERYWHERE. sure there's alot of asian girls that many non-asians don't find appealing (myself included), but there's good looking girls where ever you go.</p>
<p>no dude, being hardworking is not "much smarter." and keep in mind that when i say hardworking i mean people that just work hard, spending almost all of their free time studying. They get good grades because they memorize everything the teacher teaches them and then just regurgitates it later. That makes them no smarter than a microwave, as someone earlier said. What good is a "microwave" in the real world, where the boss can't afford to constantly supervise his workers right?</p>
<p>thread starter u have forgotten something, good SAT does not mean those students are smart
It is not very indicative of smartness, math is basic, english would be ez for a first language speaker, so there is not much to it.</p>
<p>anirudhreddy - You may consider it to have "basic math" and "ez english," but how many people actually score VERY well on the exam? There's always room for perfection, and I'd say that all the smart people display their intelligence by scoring as close as possible to 2400, sometimes obtaining that score (though I realize that the SAT isn't the most perfect tool to measure competence, but it's still pretty good at measuring relative intelligence; if you're smart, you'll score in the higher range, and if you're dumb you'll score in the lower ranges). So, unless you easily got a 2400 and know tons of people that also easily got a 2400, I don't think you can call the SAT "easy" and not a good indicator of academic competence.</p>
<p>^Basically what i think anirudhreddy is trying to say is that a non-native english speaker who takes the SAT is likely to score pretty low, depite possibly being very intelligent. For example, i learned english as a second language begginning at the age of 9.<br>
thus, i knew i couldnt compete with students who were born here and have only spoken english their entire lives. I scored 800 on Math SAT I, 800 on Math SAT II, 800 on SAT II Physics, and 790 on SAT II Chem. But, i scored 590 on critical reading SAT I and 610 on writing SAT I. Thus, i dont think its that im not "smart," but rather that native english speakers have an inherent advantage on this test. </p>
<p>If the SAT was in my native language, im sure i could get pretty close to a 2400 and you would probably get around a 600. Now, does that make me "smarter" than you? No, i had an unfair advantage.</p>
<p>So, basically, you cant just compare 2 people's SAT scores to determine who's smarter</p>
<p>Hm well I don't know about the other two UCs mentioned, but I agree that there are a lot of hard-working but not as intelligent kids at Berkeley (when compared to HYP). I dunno, maybe I'm just used to being around my high school friends (my high school average SAT was around 2070), who were all lazy but smart. At Berkeley, a lot of kids I know are super hard working but are just slower learners or don't learn as well. In my engineering classes, I feel like the kids who get As at Berkeley are the smart and hard working. The A-'s are the smart but lazy, and the Bs and Cs are for the hard working.</p>
<p>GoldenBear10 - I agree, but the SAT measures what its tests are. It'll measure your competence in ENGLISH as that is what it is designed to do (so if you're weak in English because it's your second language, then that's irrelevant and SHOULD be picked up by the test). Math, of course, is much more universal and everybody should have a fair shot at. Basically, if you're good at ENGLISH, you'll do well on the ENGLISH section. If you're good at Math, you'll do well on the Math section. </p>
<p>I agree that the system isn't perfect. If the non-native English speaker is intelligent in the areas that he/she is intelligent (which obviously won't be English), then he/she should score well in those areas (Math on SAT; Math/Science on ACT). It would be much more fair to have the test in multiple languages, but the test is designed to measure competence in English as we are indeed an English speaking language. I can see what you're saying in how thus the SAT cannot be used to measure intelligence for these students, and I agree. However, I do think it does a good job at measuring competence in the fields that it tests you on (It'll measure your competence in math/English/writing, and from this relative intelligence pertaining to either math, English, or writing can be attained; the same can be applied to the ACT).</p>
<p>phroz3n, I definitely agree with you. Being hardworking is great and all, but if you're not naturally smart i.e. on your toes i.e. can grasp things easily, then it'll eventually catch up to you. Its even better if you're naturally smart AND hardworking.</p>
<p>back to the main point:</p>
<p>UCLA and Berkeley basically have the same average SAT score for incoming freshman</p>
<p>Thus the theory is pretty inaccurate....</p>
<p>
[quote]
ni24045 - It is NOT a theory. A theory is generally something that has been widely accepted by many in the field. A hypothesis is a sort of speculation or proposition that can be proved or disproved.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, in a strictly scientific definition of the word. However, it could be used more casually to mean such:</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.<br>
*2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. *
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.<br>
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.<br>
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.<br>
*6. contemplation or speculation.<br>
7. guess or conjecture. *
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hm well I don't know about the other two UCs mentioned, but I agree that there are a lot of hard-working but not as intelligent kids at Berkeley (when compared to HYP). I dunno, maybe I'm just used to being around my high school friends (my high school average SAT was around 2070), who were all lazy but smart. At Berkeley, a lot of kids I know are super hard working but are just slower learners or don't learn as well. In my engineering classes, I feel like the kids who get As at Berkeley are the smart and hard working. The A-'s are the smart but lazy, and the Bs and Cs are for the hard working.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this and especially about the trend in engineering classes. Also regarding UCSD, from all the people I know there, many are pretty smart, some are not, but I can't think of one who is extrodinarily hard-working (at least compared to some Berkeley students).</p>
<p>Smart kids go to UCLA, hardworking kids go to Cal, and smart but lazy kids go to UCSD. Where do rich kids whose parents donate millions to their alma mater go? Stanford!</p>
<p>"no dude, being hardworking is not "much smarter." and keep in mind that when i say hardworking i mean people that just work hard, spending almost all of their free time studying."</p>
<p>Excuse me, Ni24045, but of course being hardworking is much smarter. To have the brains and talent, but not nurture it or put it to good use is extremely stupid. Besides, no one is going to say "Let's give him to job since he got his "B+" through little effort while the other guy got his "A-" through hardwork and sweat." Also, who's to say who is smart and who is not? You and I certainly do not have that right. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, although it takes some people more time to grasp a particular concept does not mean they are "no smarter than a microwave."</p>
<p>ok purple cow you have to remember that I am not putting down anybody. All I'm saying that the kind of people that i define as hardworking are those people that just follow directions, they just regurgitate what teachers tell them. Basically, they don't know how to think on their own or come up with their own ideas. And so when they go to a school like Cal, they'll be on their own for the first time and it will be hard to adjust. Of course people that work hard to get a grade deserve it, but I'm saying that people like the ones i described above are nothing more than microwaves, in that they only know how to take orders.</p>
<p>key word of advice... never say "All" there are probably many more exceptions than u think (thousands of hardworking kids at UCSD, AND lazy ppl at UC Berkely)....to point where your "theory" is obsolete.</p>
<p>Actually people usually don't care so much about the GPA, if you are sharp it will show through. Most employers could care less about the difference between a B+ and an A-, especially if it seems like the B+ person is smart, sharp and a quick learner.</p>
<p>SalikSyed: I was using it as an example to show that no matter how intelligent you are, if you don't have the credentials to back that up, it means nothing.</p>
<p>Interesting theory.
In my family's case, my daughter ( the "smart" one),
is at another UC, and my niece ( the one with low SAT scores and a low family income, i.e. 300 extra points on the comprehensive review) is at UCSD. Ha ha.</p>
<p>ni24045,</p>
<p>Interesting opinions. Like the majority of posters in this thread, I don't happen to agree with them, but... you know... enjoy the freedom of speech.</p>
<p>What strikes me most about your original post has nothing to do with your use of generalizations, but instead, your quick association with a prestigious private university. Does your status as a Stanford student entitle you to degrade Cal students as "hardworking (but not smart, as implied in this thread)" and UCSD students as "lazy?" Surely, this thread would read differently if you attended a community college.</p>
<p>Stanford may be "superior" to the UC System, but the fact is, most Americans cannot afford the Ivy Leagues and other like private schools, as generous as they may be with need-based scholarships. For this reason, its not uncommon for private school admits to eventually enroll at their state school. Both Cal and UCSD are full of Stanford-worthy students, including those you may deem as "lazy."</p>
<p>Be sure to get off your high horse, buckaroo.</p>