Rejected!

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of Michigan
81

<p>bearcats, trust me, those are in the VAST minority. Testing is, for the most part, mocked in my community. We have long decided to discontinue them because ability and potential cannot be measured. They just cannot. And even companies that unwisely chose to use those tests do so as a means to wilt down their candidate list, not to sort out successful candidates from unsuccessful candidates. I hope you cease believing in those “magical” tests because they really are meaningless.</p>

<p>Clyde, I agree that OOS students tend to appraoch the SAT differently, but OOS students make up one third of the student body. The remaining students are in-staters. It is in-state students who typically invest very little time and money on standardized tests. Like most OOS students (and like the majority of students at private universities), I prepared for the SAT for two full years. The in-state students I knew at Michigan prepared much, much less for the SAT. Back in my day, it was clearly spelled out; A 0.1 GPA advantage in one’s GPA weighed more than a 300 (out of 1600) point difference on the SAT. So you can imagine where in-state applicants focused most of their efforts. Although the forumal is no longer used, everybody in the state of Michigan knows how little trust and weight Michigan places on standardized tests.</p>

82

<p>Then that’s ridiculous. If they discount standardized test scores, than how on earth do they compare OOS candidates. There is a huge variation in the strength of program between school districts, let alone states. Comparing GPA’s within a single state (where presumably Michigan has some familiarity with the schools) is one thing, comparing GPA’s from state to state is another. And with respect to EC’s there’s even less information available. Kids can say just about anything as to what is involved, and I’ll bet they do! The standardized tests are the only STANDARD measures available.</p>

83

<p>test scores can be used to see how inflated people
s GPAs are, along with their schools profile. Too many schools in this nation inflate GPAs to a ridiculous amount, offering extra credit, and just plain easy tests. Ec’s mean next to nothing to an admissions board, as they won’t help the school’s image in anyway unless the person is amazing at a sport. but the SATs and ACTs mean very little, as they are easy to prepare for, easy themselves, and easy to cheat on</p>

84

<p>^
“easy to cheat on”
how exactly would you cheat… and come ahead.</p>

85

<p>how would you cheat on the SATs??? there are three versions, and almost all of the classrooms the person sitting diagonal to you has the same version… ive heard of many a kid cheating on the SATs</p>

86

<p>and you wouldnt come ahead, it just shows that the SATs are pretty much meaningless</p>

87

<p>how do you cheat on the SAT?
its called being rich and having a person get a fake ID with your name on it. and by person i mean your SAT tutor and have them take the test in your name.
its not that hard and i know of over 5 kids who have done it.</p>

88

<p>Hahaha. You’d have to have absolutely no confidence in your test taking abilities to get a fake ID and have your SAT tutor take it for you. Damn rich kids.</p>

89

<p>Guys, trust me, the SAT measures nothing whatsoever, other than wealth and familiarity with the test. I beat out 85% of Harvard students on the SAT. Does that make me smarter than 85% of Harvard students?</p>

90

<p>[Study:</a> SAT a good measure of IQ | Science Blog](<a href=“http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2297]Study:”>http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2297)</p>

<p>also, in our ergonomics course material written by one of the better known U of M IOE professors (U of M is generally considered second best in IE, and especially well-known for the ergonomics research where many of the foundation laws of ergonomics ARE derived at Michigan) also noted that it is considered good practice to use SATs or other standardized tests that do not require previous knowledge (GMAT quant is good/ CFA is not, for example) to screen applicants for technical tasks when performing an IQ test is not feasible *this was written 3 years ago</p>

91

<p>lol dude and I thought you said you were running out of time studying for 333…
shut up and keep cramming lol… no more ergo for us ever again in another 6 hours :)</p>

92

<p>I agree that SAT results, taken in a vacuum and in the absence of preparation, could be an indication of ability, although not necessarily an accurate one. My arguement is that the majority of students enrolled at private universities generally invest far, far, far more time and money on preparing for the SAT/ACT than the majority of students at public universities.</p>

93

<p>Alexandre, I mostly agree with your assessment insofar as I suspect it is generally true that it is possible to “skew” performance on the SAT/ACT upward by investing time and money on prep, and/or teaching to the test, so to speak.</p>

<p>I also suspect the admissions department at U of M is talented enough to know how to use these scores in a relative context informed by other indicators and general knowledge about a school’s reputation for rigor, socio-economic makeup, and other qualitative means (re: Clyde10s comment about the scores giving the only standard benchmark for OOS, which I do not believe to be true.)</p>

<p>THAT SAID, in the case of my son, I do happen to know his professionally assessed IQ (from a neuropsych assessment related to a different matter), and it does correlate very precisely with his first and only unprepared sitting at both SAT and ACT.</p>

<p>Re: First and only unprepared sitting…yes, I’m a stupid/naive parent in that I did not think it was necessary to hire coaches etc. for these tests…I thought that colleges might be more interested in knowing first sitting scores, and in his case, that all worked out just fine. ( I only share this b/c the cc community may find it hard to believe that it is possible to have been unaware of all the prepping and pampering that usually goes into what I had viewed to be a simple aptitude test…this ignorance is in part due to the fact that my own college experience was in a different country with a different approach at the time…)</p>

<p>At any rate, I include the following for information for our amusement purposes only, to see if those posting here come up with an accurate correlation or not.</p>

<p>I realize there are many types of intelligence (I hold with Gardner on this subject) and that many of said types are not quantifiable…and I would not bet my life or even make a hire based on the following…disclaimer over, now enjoy!</p>

<p>Cheers,
K</p>

<p>IQ Score Comparisons*</p>

<p>WAIS CLASSIFICATION, %ile in the general population
descriptions, | standard deviation
High-IQ societies, | | IQ SD-15 - WAIS, WISC
v = “here and down” | | | SD=16 - Binet, CTMM, Otis-Lennon
| | | |
PROFOUND ■■■■■■.—v .13e-8 | 00 -07 IQ SD-23.7 - Cattell (Verbal)
SEVERE ■■■■■■.-----v .29e-4 -5.00 25 20 | SAT Verbal
MODERATE ■■■■■■.—v .0031 -4.00 40 36 | | GRE Verbal
MILD ■■■■■■.-------v .13 -3.00 55 52 | | | Miller Analogies
BORDERLINE ■■■■■■.-v 2.3 -2.00 70 68 | | | | SAT (old) Verbal+Math
DULL-NORMAL--------v 9.1 -1.33 80 79 | | | | | ACT Composite**
AVERAGE------------v25.0 -0.68 90 89 | | | | | |
general pop. ave.—50.0 0.00 100 100 100 340 | | | |
high sch. grad ave.-60.0 +0.25 104 104 106 370 | | 790 19
70.0 0.53 108 108 112 410 | | 860 21
BRIGHT-NORMAL------v75.0 0.68 110 111 116 430 | | 910 22
80.0 0.83 112 113 120 450 420 | 940
college grad ave.—84.1 1.00 115 116 124 470 440 38 980 23
90.0 1.29 119 120 130 500 470 43 1040 24
SUPERIOR-----------v9l.O 1.33 120 121 132 510 480 44 1060 25
93.0 1.47 121 122 135 530 500 47 1100 26
Ph.D. & M.D. ave.—95.0 1.63 125 126 139 550 530 52 1150 27
97.0 1.87 128 130 145 580 580 60 1190 28
VERY SUPERIOR------v97.8 2.00 130 132 147 590 600 65 1220
Mensa, Camelopard-v98.0 2.06 131 133 149 600 610 66 1230 29
Intertel, TOPS-----v99.0 2.33 135 137 155 640 670 74 1310 31
Poetic Genius------v99.5 2.57 139 141 161 670 710 81 1360 32
99.7 2.74 141 144 165 690 730 84 1390
99.8 2.88 143 146 168 710 740 86 1420 33<br>
ISPE, TNS----------v99.9 3.09 146 149 173 730 760 89 1450 34
99.95 3.29 149 153 178 750 780 91 1480 35
99.97 3.43 151 155 182 760 790 92 1500
WAIS-III ceiling 99.98 3.54 153 157 184 770 800 93 1510
(IQ 155) 99.99 3.73 156 159 188 780 94 1530
99.995 3.90 158 162 192 790 95 1540
Prometheus---------v99.997 4.02 160 164 195 800 96 1550
99.998 4.10 162 166 197 97 1560
99.999 4.27 164 168 201 98 1570
99.9995 4.42 166 171 205 1580
99.9997 4.53 168 172 207<br>
99.9998 4.61 169 174 209 1590
Mega---------------v99.9999 4.75 171 178 212 1600 36
99.99995 4.89 173 178 216
99.99997 5.00 175 180 218<br>
99.99998 5.07 176 181 220
99.99999 5.20 178 183 223<br>
99.999995 5.33 180 185 226
99.999997 5.42 181 187 228<br>
99.999998 5.50 182 188 230
99.999999 5.61 184 190 233<br>
99.9999995 5.73 186 192 236
99.9999997 5.82 187 193 238<br>
99.9999998 5.88 188 194 239
99.9999999 6.00 190 196 242</p>

<p>Okay, that looks kind of mucked up…don’t know if I’m allowed to format html here so here’s the link where it looks pretty… <a href=“http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm[/url]”>http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

94

<p>My IQ is 158 ± 4 on WISC scale and i have seen enough smart people in my life there is no doubt in my mind I am not at 99.995 percentile… Pretty sure that chart got the standard deviations and stuff wrong</p>

95

<p>According to what people call the most accurate online IQ test, my IQ is about 109, so I’m bright-normal. 75th percentile.</p>

<p>According to the ACT score scale, I am 98th percentile.</p>

<p>?</p>