<p>This is not a nice thread for people who actually got these scores. No I didn't get a 2300 but I still think my score was pretty good for my first try. Yes, I am going to try to do better but you have to think about people who read this and have the same scores that you are saying. Its hard around here to even say your real score without people looking at you like your stupid when its actually a pretty good score.</p>
<p>I think this is a mean-spirited thread. SOme of you may get into great colleges but after a few years, no one asks where you got your degree. Learn to be more likeable, it will serve you well in the future.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do you guys frown upon the SAT? It's suppose to be an aptitude test...It DOES meansure your capability to think and learn up to a certain point..</p>
<p>There are plenty of kids out there who do extremely well in school because they have a great memory, but I can 110% assure you that they will not get over a 1800 on the new SAT. Why? Because they don't have any logic, don't have ANY imagination, and don't do any extracurricular reading.</p>
<p>Dont try to correct me on this, because I GO TO SCHOOL WITH THESE KIDS!! THEY MAKE 10-PAGE REVIEW SHEETS FOR 10 MINUTE QUIZzES!!! THEY EVEN WALK INTO TREES FOR GODS SAKES
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So true. This needs to be a sticky!</p>
<p>well ignoring the fact that SAT DOES measure SOME intelligence although it contains bias and thus CAN be inaccurate. SAT has to be regarded as some indication of measuring intelligence. HOWEVER it must be seen VERY carefully analyzing the bias that could have affected the test taker.</p>
<p>I totally agree with semiserious. read the quote he had....</p>
<p>She. :) Yeah, I still agree with myself. The SAT cannot simultaneously measure your innate intelligence AND be very coachable.</p>
<p>^^^ That's just wrong to say.</p>
<p>My friend got an 1100 in 7th grade and a 900 her senior year... lol</p>
<p>1560 me... Junior tomorrow.</p>
<p>Mean thread. Everyone wants to do well in life. Remember that.</p>
<p>I'm highly gifted, so I can say this: One reason a gifted child does well is because they are, well, gifted. Yes, you can strive to push yourself, but if you don't have the horsepower under the hood, you won't go too far, too fast. Your cognitive ability is something you were born with, so thank Mom and Dad, etc. Just because someone else can't achieve at your level, don't insult them...they too were born with what they were born with. With less to work with, intellectual life is a lot less fun. They, like you, can push themselves, but the outcome will not be to your standards.</p>
<p>Personally, I have more respect for some one of moderate cognitive ability who achieves, than some one who is gifted who soars, because it takes the moderate student more of everything to succeed.</p>
<p>There's a college and a place for everyone. High-fliers should remember that everyone is equally important, and that they aren't superstars solely because of their efforts...genetics played a significant role...so quit bragging.</p>
<p>OrangeBlossom, your modesty makes your thread oh so much more convincing.</p>
<p>anangrymailman - Hi. I'm not sure how to take your post...so...let me clarify mine...</p>
<p>When I came out and criticized the high-fliers for their lack of sensitivity, I noted that I was gifted because I wanted to make a comment on all gifted people from first-hand experience (not from a sour grapes perspective). Over the years, I have found it really stunning how many gifted people brag about their great scores and top grades. Yes, they've done well, but having the giftedness sure made it a lot easier. Bottom line...it's always good practice to be humble about one's abilities and accomplishments, because ability is inherited and accomplishment is relative to ability. Again, I'd rather praise someone with modest ability who really tries hard to succeed, than someone with greater potential. While both succeed, the one with more modest ability has had to try a lot harder and overcome more than just the contents of the course being studied. This too I have seen from first-hand experience, because my adopted DS has moderate intelligence with some disability, has worked very diligently over the years, and his achievements have far-outstripped his cognitive ability. That's worth bragging about.</p>
<p>Hope this clears up my post.</p>
<p>OrangeBlossom~</p>
<p>What an eloquent and lovely post! I am in full agreement with you. I NEVER tolerated anything less that humble and gracious behavior from my gifted oldest son. He never ONCE came home from school claiming "boredom" because he was so far ahead of everyone else. I think I was successful in instilling in him a true appreciation for his abilities and sensitivity to others who struggled with those things that came so easily to him. Evidence of the success? When my son, at the end of sixth grade, got called up a ridiculous number of times to receive various awards, he heard this comment from a friend who was sitting next to him: "Jeez, ___________, I didn't know you were SMART!!!!!!!!!!!!" <em>lol</em> ~berurah</p>
<p>berurah ~</p>
<p>How proud you must be to have raised such a wonderful young man. He will become a nuturing leader who will bring out the very best in all those around him...both professionally and personally.</p>
<p>What a lovely tale! You know, the biggest award your son received that day was his friend's recognition of what a humble and genuinely nice guy he is. Thanks for sharing! OB</p>
<p>
[quote]
The SAT cannot simultaneously measure your innate intelligence AND be very coachable.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>^^^ That's just wrong to say.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And can you please explain why?</p>
<p>Because your innate intelligence isn't coachable. I think SAT tests both your innate intelligence and your preparation. If you don't think being bright will help you on the SAT and most other standardized tests, then your.. sheltered? or at least not too bright yourself. <em>flame</em></p>
<p>Someone at my school got, brace yourselves, a 400 (out of 1600). That is the lowest score you can get...</p>
<p>actually if he/she did that that's on purpose. It's harder to get 400 than to get a 1600 on the old scale.</p>
<p>I know some one who got a 510 verbal (old SAT) and got into Columbia U. (OK he was top ranked in CREW)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you don't think being bright will help you on the SAT and most other standardized tests, then your.. sheltered? or at least not too bright yourself. <em>flame</em>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That should be: "then YOU'RE...sheltered?" You + are = you're. And an ellipse has 3 periods, not 2.</p>
<p>Sure, being bright definitely helps you score high on the SAT. Let's say you get a 1350 without ANY prep or studying. You're obviously a pretty smart person. But it's possible for someone whose not nearly as naturally intelligent to prep and prep and prep and get a 1580. Therefore, AS I EXACTLY SAID BEFORE, it would only be an accurate measure of one's intelligence if everyone was forced to take it with NO warning and NO prep.</p>