<p>well i don't work/study much outside of school but then again my grades aren't good either</p>
<p>I'm definitely scores>(gpa=ecs).
I don't need to become a doctor or businessman.
I want to get a PHD in Math when I graduate which requires brainpower more than anything else.</p>
<p>Trust me. I'm not an overachiever. In freshman year, I handed in roughly 50% of homework AT ALL and maybe 20% on time.</p>
<p>All of my friends know me as "the passive one"</p>
<p>I think there's another category of people (if we are so inclined to group everyone) that is not lazy, but rather not thrilled with school. They might still be passionate and active outside of school or in school extracurriculars but they just never found precalculus or chemistry or french to be a worthwhile use of their time. They would look something like this... SCORES > EC's > GPA<br>
This model could also look like this depending on how well they score on tests (ACT/SAT/SAT II)
EC's > SCORES > GPA
I am one of these two models, quite possibly the latter model I proposed.</p>
<p>Good point, ConLax. I do know people like this.</p>
<p>Of course, it's ridiculous to categorize people. There's a lot of gray area...I was just thinking in hypothetical terms at the beginning of this thread.</p>
<p>I honestly don't think that a high SAT score, even a 2400, in any way qualifies somebody as brilliant. If you're lazy and have a high SAT score, all that means is that you scored high on the U.S.'s low standards. A real test of brilliance has to have hard questions. I'm talking USAMO question for math, US Science Olympiad questions for science, and the hardest AP Lit test questions for reading. If you ace that, then you can say you're brilliant.</p>
<p>-->I honestly don't think that a high SAT score, even a 2400, in any way qualifies somebody as brilliant. If you're lazy and have a high SAT score, all that means is that you scored high on the U.S.'s low standards. A real test of brilliance has to have hard questions. I'm talking USAMO question for math, US Science Olympiad questions for science, and the hardest AP Lit test questions for reading. If you ace that, then you can say you're brilliant.</p>
<p>I think by "brilliant" the threadstarter just meant in the top 5% or so of the population</p>
<p>I think by "brilliant" the threadstarter just meant in the top 5% or so of the population</p>
<p>Still, considering that 1/4 of the population is mentally retarded, it's not that big of an accomplishment.</p>
<p>Well, no. Because no test can test brilliance, which deep down we all know. Tests can show which people are smart, but people like Feynman and Einstein, who never scored particularly high on any standardized test, are the ones who are truly brilliant. However, I would say any score on the SATs higher than 2300 means you're very smart IF it's your first time and you don't prep/think about it all beforehand. Also, brilliant people generally do poorly in high school.</p>
<p>colleges want people who are both overachieving and brilliant. if that perfect balance isn't possible, I would choose someone who is very brilliant with slightly less-than-superb ec's over someone with a ton of ec's but who would have trouble in college-level courses (which are quite a bit tougher than high school courses). why? because the latter will have trouble keeping up with classes and should instead try for slightly easier colleges and stay involved in ec's, and as for the former I have a longer explanation:
1. As a college student, it is amazing to see how many brilliant 'slackers' in high school are now hard at work because of the college workload. It seems like underachievers aren't actually lazy; they just didn't try as hard because high school didn't challenge them. Once they are challenged, they will put in the effort.
2. It's a lot easier to find and/or start extracurricular activities in college than it is in high school, so if the 'brilliant underachievers' were lacking in ec's because they didn't find anything they were really passionate about in high school, they will in college. And in college, many people will find something(s) they are truly passionate about instead of merely participating in a couple ec's to impress college admissions.</p>
<p>I'm a GPA>ECs>scores. My scores aren't bad, even by CC standards (averaging 2170 on practice tests), but I really like school and learning and I really love my ECs. I'm dedicated and I really work hard and care; I just can't do SAT math as well as I can do other things.</p>
<p>Are you kidding me OP, the SAT is not a measure of intelligence, on a broad range, from like 2200 to 2400 its a measure of intelligence, </p>
<p>Statistically speaking, the SAT is a better indicator of your socio-economic status.</p>
<p>NY#####, I'd disagree there. I think it's indicative as to how well someone tests, and yes, on a broad range it certainly <strong>hints</strong> at intelligence as well. But it's nowhere near definitive, which is why colleges also look at GPA, etc.</p>
<p>Unfortunately because there are so many rather expensive test aid courses, there's a lot of score inflating. I feel that anyone who has taken an SAT prep course should be obligated to report it on their college applicaitons.</p>
<p>OP - Again, you really should be a blogger. ;)</p>
<p>I personally think SAT prep does not help at all. </p>
<p>The first time I took the SAT's, I used a tutor and did every single question in the big blue book. Result? 2230.</p>
<p>The second time, I bought the Barron's book and did one or two practice tests the week before. No tutor, limited prep. Result? 2390.</p>
<p>If you're smart, have good focus, and are a good test-taker, you can do well on the SAT's. No amount of studying or practice is going to change that more than a couple hundred points.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally think SAT prep does not help at all.</p>
<p>The first time I took the SAT's, I used a tutor and did every single question in the big blue book. Result? 2230.</p>
<p>The second time, I bought the Barron's book and did one or two practice tests the week before. No tutor, limited prep. Result? 2390.</p>
<p>If you're smart, have good focus, and are a good test-taker, you can do well on the SAT's. No amount of studying or practice is going to change that more than a couple hundred points.
[/quote]
I would disagree with that, as you have no real reference taking the test without any prep. Your first time you were tutored and prepared for it, and the second time you had already taken it and knew what to expect, any your score went up about as much as it would be expected to taking it a second time.
If everybody took the SAT cold, only once, without any prep, it would be a decent indicator of intelligence. Of course this is impossible, so SAT scores will definitely increase with the amount of money made.</p>
<p>wow this thread makes me feel stupid</p>
<p>I took the PSATs with no prep and got a 226. No prep whatsoever.</p>
<p>Ahhh...nothing like a good argument on a Sunday morning.</p>
<p>This may be bias seeing as I am a huge "overachiever" according to this, with low ACTs (27) and over 6+ leadership positions. :) </p>
<p>I'd say both.
I mean i'm sure some people who are insanely amazing (like my friend and val from last year) who can get perfect SAT scores, and I mean 1600 perfect, perfect GPAs, and be President of Math Honors Society, Vice President of NHS, that kind of thing.
But, for the most normal of cases, wouldn't you want your college students to be involved leaders as opposed to cut-throat, competitive, study addicts?</p>
<p>you also want your college students to be able to keep up in their classes</p>
<p>Overachiever.
What's the point of being brilliant if you're too lazy to do anything with it?</p>
<p>"Statistically speaking, the SAT is a better indicator of your socio-economic status."</p>
<p>-I really, really agree with that statement.</p>