<p>Hehe, can't remember where I saw this last night, but I did see it right here on College Confidential (of course), about a dude with a 17xx SAT score being told his score was (going off my memory) wasn't good. </p>
<p>What's so bad about a 17xx? I have an 1850 myself, all it consists of:
* Geometry. Probably long forgotten
* Reading/writing responses to terrible essays you may or may not agree with</p>
<p>I'm not asking "if it matters" (I did post this in the UC transfer board, none of us here probably referenced our SAT scores anyway lol). More like, why shouldn't you be proud of it? </p>
<p>Even then, I think it was a bit of a lie. Perhaps I wasn't in the right mood the day I wrote mine, but my writing seemed worth a lot more than a 590 on that test.</p>
<p>1200 under the old SAT is certainly not bad, but it’s not exceptional. It’s good, but that’s it. It’s not Ivy League material but sometimes you get the feeling that almost everyone is an HYP grad here on CC, but I suspect there are many wannabees. </p>
<p>The national SAT average(old system) was just under 1000. The current average under the new system is around 1500. And then you have to realize that those who take the SAT are above average in IQ to begin with compared to the overall population of 17-19 year olds who take the test.</p>
<p>If ALL, say, 17-year olds in the nation took the SAT then the mean score would be even lower, probably in the 1300s(on the new system) and around 800 on the old.</p>
<p>You also have to take into account that the members on CC isn’t representative of the entire population. Therefore, a 1700 might be deemed low on CC, whereas in reality, it’s the average score.</p>
<p>The SAT has a testing pool of all COLLEGE-BOUND kids. Thus, the performance level in school and on aptitude testing is slightly higher than the national average as mentioned by Hithle.
If you want to get technical here, the marginal benefit in terms of aptitude begins to plateau at IQ 120 (I’d have to dig up the source but it’s from my own experience in being tested and in the many “gifted education” books that I’ve poured over). This being said, many gifted programs often have a cut-off at IQ 130, and Mensa at 132. It’s entirely possible to “study” the test and achieve these scores (as it is to do well on the SAT beyond your own natural ability) once you hit a certain number naturally.
A 17xx isn’t a <em>bad</em> score. It’s above-average. And that’s all it is.
In terms of “taking pride” in your score. Weeell, it’s a score. That’s it. Take it with a grain of salt, as they’d say. :rolleyes:
When I found out my IQ score (professionally tested etc) it went like this, " …what now…" and that’s how it is with the SAT. You’ve got a score. Now, what are you going to do with that academically-speaking?</p>
<p>Vertigo is right. SAT scores are not destiny but they are not irrelevant either, it’s a good indication of where a person might end up.</p>
<p>IQ is actually a far better signal of achievement. One of the most telling graphs in the oft-discussed The Bell Curve is the correlation between IQ and income. The authors compared highly educated people with IQs over 120 to other people with the same IQ but who had very little or no education at all and found very, very dismal difference in income at age 40 and beyond. The main differences seem to occur in the younger years.</p>
<p>This, of course, means that education is certainly important in it’s intellectual stimulation, prestige and perhaps most of all: contacts. But in the end, things smooth out and the high-IQ individuals almost always tend to flock at the better paid jobs. You simply can’t fool people for a long time if you’re averagely intelligent but just had rich parents with good political connections to get you into a great school.</p>
<p>Of course, there are always exceptions to any rule but this is a very established fact.</p>
…what now…" and that’s how it is with the SAT. You’ve got a score. Now, what are you going to do with that academically-speaking?</p>