<p>athlon has nightmares every night about giving birth....;)</p>
<p>Woah, another shocking revelation in SAT scores: smart people score higher than dumb people</p>
<p>Cany anyone explain it? I guess they'll just have to change the test again to balance this out</p>
<p>jwvccal: Why don't you give me your SAT score and we'll see whether I'm smarter than you or you're smarter than me - it's so simple, one might even think it's ridiculous.</p>
<p>(edit: we can do the same with SAT II scores too, if you like.)</p>
<p>I'm not saying girls are stupid, I just think that it's ridiculous that they are changing the test so that boys and girls will score the same. The SAT isn't the ultimate measure of inteligience; it's just a test that measures certain skills. If girls are better at writing essays and more meticulous when answering questions, then they can use those things to get better grades and write better college admission essays. </p>
<p>(BTW I haven't take the SAT yet, and even if I had, I wouldn't care which one of us scored higher)</p>
<p>Yeah jwvcal, I love the whole everything and everyone must be equal thing. I just need to find some sort of group I'm part that does worse on average. Then I'll call collegeboard and tell them to change the test to equalize us.</p>
<p>jwvccal's first post: "smart people score higher than dumb people", in response to males scoring higher than females.</p>
<h2>"I'm not saying girls are stupid...[falling backwards on his tail] The SAT isn't the ultimate measure of inteligience[agreeing with me]; it's just a test that measures certain skills[stating the obvious]. If girls are better at writing essays and more meticulous when answering questions, then they can use those things to get better grades and write better college admission essays [because surely a test colleges use to gauge how well an applicant will do in college shouldn't value essay-writing or how meticulous you are. Oh and let's ignore the fact that the essay writing replaces the SAT II writing so even by the shoddy argument that girls can prove their 'essay-writing abilities' somewhere else, that option will be removed. But hey that's okay, because GIRLS ARE DUMBER ANYWAY....oh wait I've failed miserably at defending that original argument] "</h2>
<p>"another shocking revelation in SAT scores: smart people score higher than dumb people"
"I just think that it's ridiculous that they are changing the test so that boys and girls will score the same"</p>
<h2>Another contradiction? Already? By his own argument, he must be a girl he's so dumb.</h2>
<p>I probably agree with jwvccal and tetra more than it might seem on how they're justifying the new SAT, actually, but there are many other reasons the new SAT's come along, with nothing to do with tetrahedr0n's insecurities.
However, even if all of jwvccal's unsubstantiated assumptions are true (that girls are dumb - he's not saying girls are stupid, no, no - that they're changing it to equalize the gap between male and female scores) then maybe that's not a bad thing, given that colleges might want girls at their institutions for their essay writing skills and meticulousness. They might even want guys who can write essays o.O oh dear me. </p>
<p>They're working on equalizing it for the rich and poor too, by making it less study-able. That's why they took away Score Choice, after all. Jwvccal and tetra must be upset that poorer people can't just find some other way to show what they've got. </p>
<h2>Who invented this retarded maternity leave business, jwvccal-tetra [just like a couple, aww : )]? It's like they're giving women the opportunity to work or something. Why not just have workforces of all men? </h2>
<h2>Tetra's "everything and everyone must be equal thing" is a safety net argument that allows him to go 'well, if they're recognizing that a male-female gap exists and they're doing something about it, then obviously they'll 'just call collegeboard' over any ridiculous thing I can think up if I need to defend myself".</h2>
<p>Well, I'd better go back to doing my girl activities like painting and baking for my menfolk now.</p>
<p>The test for YEARS was weighted toward white upper and middle class males. It was the way it was written. Why not even the playing field? </p>
<p>Mea- great post!!!</p>
<p>Anyone know a female who has recieved a 1600? Everyone at my high school that has scored a 1600 (4 in the years i have been in high school) has been a male. Many females have been close but never a 1600</p>
<p>citygirlsmom: : )!</p>
<p>plagmayer: hm, only one person at my school has ever scored a 1600 - she's a girl.
Otherwise, I can only speak for my year group. Above 1550-1590 - girl. 1500-1550 - 1 girl 1 boy.
Sort of pointless to compare tho, plagmayer. Everyone will be different, as will every high school (or even year group, depending on the size of your school). However, the stats I was curious about clearly show twice as many males score 1600 than females, so that's not really in dispute. More interesting to try to explain...</p>
<p>"because we are going to marry someone rich"?? haha that's definitely it. in fact, why even work at all? why bother going to college? i should join mea and start baking. </p>
<p>the way i see it is: the goal is there, we chose whether we want to reach it or not. i know i'm never going to get a 1600...so what? i really don't care that guys score better than girls do. is that helping me at all? no. why even the field according to girls? to make the standards lower? no, i like a challenge.</p>
<p>wishful: i like carrot cake ... : )</p>
<p>that's a neat attitude. Course, if we're talking adding essays and putting in harder math questions, maybe the standards are going up relative to 'guy' portions of the SAT (if that exists, anyhow).</p>
<p>Mea, don't put words into my mouth. I know your looking for any possible reason to go off on one of your girl power rants, but nowhere in any of my posts did I in any way imply that woman are inferior to or dumber than men. All I was saying in my first post is that different groups of people are going to score differently on the SAT. I didn't use "smart and dumb" to characterize men and woman, but as an exaggerated example of the way some people try to juxtapose scores of diffrent groups and for some reason think that they should be the same.</p>
<p>"The SAT isn't the ultimate measure of inteligience[agreeing with me]"</p>
<p>but somehow comparing our two SAT scores will prove which one of us is smarter?</p>
<p>" "another shocking revelation in SAT scores: smart people score higher than dumb people"
"I just think that it's ridiculous that they are changing the test so that boys and girls will score the same"
Another contradiction? Already? By his own argument, he must be a girl he's so dumb"</p>
<p>You can't just take two random sentences from two different posts totally out of context from and put them together. </p>
<p>"[because surely a test colleges use to gauge how well an applicant will do in college shouldn't value essay-writing or how meticulous you are. Oh and let's ignore the fact that the essay writing replaces the SAT II writing so even by the shoddy argument that girls can prove their 'essay-writing abilities' somewhere else, that option will be removed...]"</p>
<p>If you need to prove your writing ability, you can do it in the essays you write for college admissions. That way they get to see much more than just a score out of 800. The SATs are just an easy way for colleges to gauge your math and reading ability.</p>
<p>"They're working on equalizing it for the rich and poor too, by making it less study-able. That's why they took away Score Choice, after all. Jwvccal and tetra must be upset that poorer people can't just find some other way to show what they've got."</p>
<p>Wow, you guessed it: I hate poor people too. It's amazing how you can make all of these accurate assumptions based on so little information. <--(fyi mea those two sentences are sarcastic)</p>
<p>I would be in favor of limiting the numbers of times you can take it to 1 (or at most 2), and I don't know where you get the idea that I'm rich. </p>
<p>"Who invented this retarded maternity leave business, jwvccal-tetra [just like a couple, aww : )]? It's like they're giving women the opportunity to work or something. Why not just have workforces of all men?"</p>
<p>This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation or anything I said and yet somehow you bring me and my lover Tetra into it again. </p>
<p>Well since you attacked my lover Tetra I guess I'll have to take a shot at your best friend Citygirlsmom,</p>
<p>"The test for YEARS was weighted toward white upper and middle class males. It was the way it was written. Why not even the playing field?"</p>
<p>The test was never "weighted" toward white upper or middle class males. Upper class people are always going to have an advantage on any kind of test because they can afford better education and better test preparation. The main reason it favored whites is because in America whites make up the majority of the middle and upper classes. Although I don't believe the test is weighted, I do think that changes that would give poorer people or people of other races a more fair chance of achieving a high score can definitely be a good thing. There is no reason to change the test for women though. In today's society they get the same education as men, so they're at no disadvantage when going into a test such as the SAT. </p>
<p>Well, I guess it's time for me to back to my daily routine of demeaning women and discriminating against poor people. So long</p>
<p>It's the underwear. Men's underwear is far more superior to women's underwear. Hence we 0wn the SAT.</p>
<p>PS: It's a fact those who wear briefs do, on average, 40 points worse than those who wear boxers. IT'S A SCIENTIFIC FACT COLLEGEBOARD DID A SURVEY REALLY!</p>
<p>Interesting article>
<a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03239/215443.stm%5B/url%5D">http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03239/215443.stm</a> </p>
<p>From fair test website:</p>
<p>The Gender Gap The SAT consistently underpredicts the performance of females in college and overpredicts the performance of males. Although females earn higher grades in high school and college, their SAT I scores were 39 points lower in 20002 (34 on the SAT-Math and 5 on SAT-Verbal). College Board research has shown that both the Verbal and Math portions of the test underpredict girls' college performance. A 1994 ETS study found that, on average, males scored 33 points higher on the SAT-Math than females who earn the same grades in the same college math courses. Analyses of SAT gender bias cite several causes including the test's emphasis on speed over sustained reasoning and its multiple-choice format. Mathematics tests in other countries that require solutions to long problems appeared unbiased with respect to gender.
Bilingual Students The speeded nature of the SAT imposes an unfair burden on students for whom English is not the first language. Research suggests that the SAT I does not predict Hispanic students' first-year college grades as accurately as it does white students' grades. One study found that even for bilingual students whose best language was English the SAT I underpredicted college performance.
Impact of SAT Use on Minorities African American, Latino, new Asian immigrant and many other minority test-takers score significantly lower than white students. Rigid use of SATs for admissions will produce freshman classes with very few minorities and with no appreciable gain in academic quality. The SAT is very effective at eliminating academically promising minority (and low-income) students who apply with strong academic records but relatively low SAT scores. Colleges that have made the SAT I optional report that their applicant pools are more diverse and that there has been no drop off in academic quality.
Stereotype Vulnerability</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>What's the Alternative?
Several studies show that female and minority students who are aware of racial and gender stereotypes score lower on tests such as the SAT that purport to measure academic aptitude. One study defined this extra burden borne by some test-takers as "stereotype vulnerability," and warned that these findings "underscore the danger of relying too heavily on standardized test results in college admissions or otherwise."</p>
<p>The nearly 400 colleges and universities that already admit substantial numbers of freshman applicants without using any test scores have shown that class rank, high school grades, and rigor of classes taken are better tools for predicting college success than any standardized test. The ACT and SAT II are often viewed as alternatives to the SAT I. While they are more closely aligned with high school curricula, they are not necessarily better tests.
SAT Myths</p>
<p>The Test Is a Common Yardstick After years of describing the SAT as a "common yardstick," the testmakers have now flip-flopped, claiming "it is a myth that a test will provide a unitary, unequivocal yardstick for ranking on merit." The SAT has always favored students who can afford coaching over those who cannot, students from wealthy suburban schools over those from poor urban school systems, and men over women.
Coaching Does Not Work The testmakers have backed away from their original claims that performance on the SAT could not be improved through coaching. The College Board now even sells its own test prep materials. A number of published studies conclude that good coaching courses can raise a student's scores by 100 points or more. These courses, which can cost $800 or more, further skew scores in favor of higher-income test takers. Because college admissions officials do not know who has been coached and who has not, they cannot fairly compare two applicants' scores.</p>
<p>for a start, jwv, you seem to have difficulty picking out which bits of my post are sarcastic and which aren't. I will go slowly (not too slowly, I've got lunch in a few minutes) through your post.</p>
<ol>
<li>"nowhere in any of my posts did I in any way imply that woman are inferior to or dumber than men." - jwv</li>
</ol>
<p>Now we compare the thread title: "Twice as many males score high on the SAT 1 than females.....why!?" - me.
...with jwv's reply : "smart people score higher than dumb people"</p>
<p>In fact, jwv, you even made a clever parody on my original post, ending your post the same way I ended my question, so don't try to squirm out of saying your smart-dumb people gap is a reference to the male-female gap this thread is about. Perhaps the column headings "Male" and "Female" don't make it quite clear enough to you which disparity is being addressed in that table (if you still don't see it, don't pop a vein or anything -- just ask, and I'll explain it to you).</p>
<ol>
<li>" "The SAT isn't the ultimate measure of inteligience[agreeing with me]"
but somehow comparing our two SAT scores will prove which one of us is smarter?" - jwv.</li>
</ol>
<p>: ) yay, you got my point. You see, when you read on a little to see what follows that sentence (were you complaining about me taking things out of context?)...."it's so simple, one might even think it's ridiculous." - me.</p>
<p>In other words, of course I think the SAT is a ridiculous way to judge how 'smart' or 'dumb' someone is, but you indicated that that's the way you think by this first post of yours: "Woah, another shocking revelation in SAT scores: smart people score higher than dumb people". In other words, you were the first one to suggest that SATs were anyway to compare intelligence. Hence the falling backwards over yourself agreeing with me.</p>
<ol>
<li>"You can't just take two random sentences from two different posts totally out of context from and put them together. " - jwv</li>
</ol>
<p>The two sentences:
" "another shocking revelation in SAT scores: smart people score higher than dumb people" <-- you were shocked by this.
"I just think that it's ridiculous that they are changing the test so that boys and girls will score the same" <-- now you're shocked by this. </p>
<p>I didn't take anything out of context. You just tried to wriggle out what you'd already said. True, maybe you're shocked by everything, but the use of 'just' in that second sentence seemed to signpost that you were most stricken the second time that they were changing the test, (as opposed to the first time, where you were sarcastically shocked that smart people scored higher than dumb people.). </p>
<ol>
<li>"If you need to prove your writing ability, you can do it in the essays you write for college admissions. That way they get to see much more than just a score out of 800. The SATs are just an easy way for colleges to gauge your math and reading ability." - jwv</li>
</ol>
<p>You actually came close to a valid point, which I kind of liked actually. I think it's fine to leave the SAT the way it is, as long as it's viewed as an "easy way to colleges to gauge your math adn reading ability". However, that is not the case. The purported purpose of requiring a SAT, is so colleges can gauge how well a student will be able to do in his/her first year of college.
Given that so many colleges are adopting the new, less preppable SAT, maybe colleges a) don't find the way the test is strucked now to really reflect math and reading or b) they want a test that allows them to gauge how well you will do in college, and essay writing and harder math appear to them to be skills that would help one out in college.</p>
<p>Jwv admits that tests give only a numbers based picture of an applicant. He then says a 'number out of 800' is not adequate. But instead of welcoming the addition of the essay to the new SAT, he says to leave a flawed test as it is and rely on essays instead. After all, jwv [<strong><em>!!!! sarcasm alert (just so you won't be confused) !!!</em></strong>] essays are so reliably an applicants work, since no applicant ever drafts, redrafts, gets their checked (and if they're dishonest - entire sections rewritten). [end sarcasm]</p>
<p>Note: Jwv, you also make the assumption that college adcoms will look at the SAT and go "ahem, well, let us keep in mind precisely what this test tests, which is the ability to do well on analogies, reading comprehension of two passages, and solving basic math involving red and blue chips in bags and permutations of parking spaces." But, no, college adcoms will look at a 1100 and a 1600 and come unfortunately to the conclusion that a 1600, male or female, be the SAT biased or unbiased, is going to be more successful academically in their institution than an 1100, male or female, be the SAt biased or unbiased. THIS is why the test will be revamped. The test is no longer testing for what college adcoms what to judge from applicants' performances on it.</p>
<ol>
<li>""They're working on equalizing it for the rich and poor too, by making it less study-able. That's why they took away Score Choice, after all. Jwvccal and tetra must be upset that poorer people can't just find some other way to show what they've got."</li>
</ol>
<p>Wow, you guessed it: I hate poor people too. It's amazing how you can make all of these accurate assumptions based on so little information. <--(fyi mea those two sentences are sarcastic)" - jwv </p>
<p>Don't be upset now. In fact, that bit of my post was based on teh assumption that you don't hate poor people, and you would realize how unfounded your fear of equalizing the test was. Sometimes, it makes a lot of sense, because in Western society (ideally, anyway) poor and rich people should have the same opportunity to get into a good college. Since you do seem upset about this, I will help you out -- no, you don't mind that changes have been made to reduce the advantage of being rich. By the same token, unless you don't think males and females should have equal shots at the best colleges, you shouldn't mind that changes MAY be being made to reduce the gender gap (once again, I really don't think the new SAT is being redone just because of this male-female gap -- there were plenty of other problems with the old SAT, you know). However, you do mind, and that sort of has me worried.</p>
<p>another note: jwv, I don't assume you're rich. Where did I say that? ""don't put words into my mouth!"</p>
<ol>
<li>"Who invented this retarded maternity leave business, jwvccal-tetra [just like a couple, aww : )]? It's like they're giving women the opportunity to work or something. Why not just have workforces of all men?"</li>
</ol>
<p>This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation or anything I said and yet somehow you bring me and my lover Tetra into it again. " - jwv</p>
<p>Again, don't be upset. I am just showing you once again that there is good cause for equalizing things sometimes. You and tetra don't need to be so hostile to the notion, as he clearly is: "Yeah jwvcal, I love the whole everything and everyone must be equal thing. I just need to find some sort of group I'm part that does worse on average. Then I'll call collegeboard and tell them to change the test to equalize us." - tetra.</p>
<p>If you like, I'll retract what I said about you and tetra being a couple. I was just playing around. Of course you two aren't a couple -- you're right, that was irrelevant to the topic. (Of course, if you two <em>are</em> a couple, that's ok too.)</p>
<p>Citymom's posted an article that would chew a few holes in your arguments, so I think 'my best friend' is ok to defend herself from that best shot you could muster at her...</p>
<p>citygirlsmom, thanks for providing a source :rolleyes:</p>
<p>that source seems incredibly legit, what with all the grammar mistakes and all. most minority grous have iq < whites</p>
<p>exceptions are. asians.</p>
<p>Mea, just by reading the first four paragraphs I can tell your totally missing the point. Yes, I intentionally parodied your title. I copied the format you were using to compare boys and girls scores and changed the subject of the comparison you were doing to something stupid to show how ridiculous it is to assume that all groups of SAT scores should be getting the same score. I can see how you could have mistaken my post as a response to your original post, but considering that I've told you about five times exactly what it is, I don't understand why you won't just get over it. Moving on</p>
<p>I don't mind changing the test if the reason is that the test is flawed, but I do have a problem with them changing the test for some politically correct reason so that they can make everyone equal. It seems like the test has been around for a long time without being changed, and I know that my personal preference would be for there to be no essay or writing section on the SAT. If the test is so flawed, it seems like they would have changed it a long time ago, and there was always the SAT II writing comp test if you needed to prove your writing ability, but they're changing it and that's that. </p>
<p>The SAT is somewhat a measure of inteligience and in general "smart people score higher than dumb people" but once again I was just using this as an exaggerated example to show a point, and i don't believe that it is necessarily true. </p>
<p>"Jwvccal and tetra must be upset that poorer people can't just find some other way to show what they've got."</p>
<p>It seemed to me that you were implying that I was not one of the "poorer" people and that I had enough money to pay for prep classes to go ahead and take the SAT as many times as I please, but apparently, I was wrong. </p>
<p>Anyway to sum up I agree with you for the most part except for you saying that I said that women are stupid.</p>
<p>Plain and simple: Guys have better reasoning skills than girls. </p>
<p>The SAT consistantly underpredicts the performance of girls in college and overpredicts the performance of guys because girls work harder than guys. </p>
<p>Yes, I'm a girl, and yes, I actually said that. That doesn't mean that all guys have better reasoning skills than girls, but generally male and female brains are innately focused towards different things - girls are usually more emotional than logical beings. Sure, the SAT and PSAT are geared more towards guys in general, but I am fine with that because I still got the highest PSAT score in my school!</p>
<p>so...if there are less girls getting those really high SAT scores, does that mean that getting a high score means more to admissions officers if you're a girl?</p>
<p>Just a thought...</p>
<p>Meganova: to answer your question, yes. some colleges will actually pick a female over a male with similar scores.</p>