<p>We are all entitled to our opinions. </p>
<p>However, with regard to the opinion of academic reputation, I would place more validity on the aggregate opinions of over 2,000 academics, than I would on the opinions of two anonymous posters named "Xiggi" and "Hawkette".</p>
<p>
[quote]
But you guys always say that the universities with the highest PA scores have more distinguished graduate school reputation, and that the grad students at these universities are the cream of the crop. So, now you're saying they're poor teachers? I thought Hawkette said you learn most from your high SAT scoring peers...well, the grad students at these universities are high SAT scoring peers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even it **were **true that the grad students at "these" universities are or were high SAT scorers, where do you get the idea that great students or great researchers are automatically great --or even adequate-- teachers? How many TA are there who consider the teaching part of their graduate studies a ... vocation as opposed to indentured servitude? When and how did they gain the necessary teaching skills? How were they trained before being asked to lead a section, stand in front of a classroom, or grade students who are just a few years younger than they are?</p>
<p>PS Are the opinions of 2000 academics excluding the 50% who refuse to return the survey and the few hundreds who have publicly decried the "state of the PA assessment?"</p>
<p>^ No, but they have expertise in the fields they are studying. Not every TA and professor needs to have a teaching credential. Teaching quality is very subjective and very hit and miss. Some profs and TAs are fantastic teachers, some are terrible, most are average.</p>
<p>How do you go about objectively measuring teaching quality?</p>
<p>
[quote]
PS Are the opinions of 2000 academics excluding the 50% who refuse to return the survey and the few hundreds who have publicly decried the "state of the PA assessment?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, USNWR says it sent out over 4,000 surveys. 51% replied.
[quote]
Synovate, an opinion-research firm based near Chicago, collected the data; of the 4,269 people who were sent questionnaires, 51 percent responded.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>51% participation rate on a detailed survey is pretty good.</p>
<p>Alexandre-No, NO, NO...if that's what you think my point was, i wasn't CLEAR:</p>
<p>Everyone can improve their SAT score. In fact they can keep improving them UNTIL they hit a max out point. A certain percentage of the test taking population will max out ~1000, some ~1050, some ~1200, 1300, etc. But EVERYONE has a ceiling. If your ceiling is a 1300, you can easily screw the pooch and score a 1100, but you can prepare for a year and never score above a 1300.</p>
<p>Surely you don't believe that every test taker is capable of a perfect SAT with studying, do you?</p>
<p>GO BLUE81-
YES, these tests are IQ tests in sheep's clothing. Mensa agrees with me, too (see link). If Asian Americans have higher scores, then yes, they in all likely hood will have higher IQ's as an aggregate. this is pretty much proven fact. I am making no claims about whether this actually equates to them being smarter in the real world, everyone can make their own conclusion and I think the debate is beyond the scope of this thread. I'm curious, why would you bring this point up? </p>
<p>Scroll to the bottom here, there is a GRE to SAT to IQ conversion calculator. It's a cool toy</p>
<p>Estimated</a> IQs of the Greatest Geniuses</p>
<p>Pre-1996 SAt to IQ. i thnk you have to subtract ~100 points from current SAT to convert to the pre 1996 score</p>
<p>Mensa IQ approved tests
American</a> Mensa | Qualifying Test Scores
Pre-Recentering</a> SAT to IQ Estimator</p>
<p>I've never taken an IQ test before and I have very little knowledge of an IQ test, and I was wondering, could you study really hard for an IQ test and increase your score like 5-10%, like on the SATs?</p>
<p>Interesting Tomslawsky. My daughter appears to have scored a little better on the SAT than her IQ would predict when she took it the first time without any studying. Dropped the second time when she did some studying. Hated the whole standardized test thing so much she never took it a third time. What does this all mean? Nothing, I suppose.</p>
<p>Hudsonvalley- remember, if she took the SAT AFTER 1996, she needs to subtract ~100 points from her score before using that conversion table. They made the test easier in 1996. Also, remember these tests aren't perfect but they are consistent. SAT tests have similar correlation with IQ tests as IQ tests have with each other when the test is repeated. </p>
<p>My point isn't to build up IQ tests as the be someone’s entire intellectual prowess, trust me. I scored an 810 the first go around. My point is that I do believe that in a POPULATION (anecdotes aside):
1)Hi SAT is strongly correlated with high IQ
2)Hi IQ is correlated with high intelligence
3) Schools with higher SAT scores, in the aggregate have smarter student bodies.</p>
<p>Yes, there is a LOT of debate on this and like I said, if I had taken my initial IQ or SAT scores at gosphel, I would consider myself borderline retarded. However, I am logical enough to know that my situation has nothing to do with the aggregate statistics.<br>
Here is an interesting read...</p>
<p>International</a> Investing SAT’s and Hedge Fund Return</p>
<p>"how would Michigan decide which scores to "keep" in your example? Gordian knot, isn't it!"</p>
<p>Xiggi, Michigan takes the strongest SAT in one sitting.</p>
<p>Tomslawsky, I agree that SAT scores matter. I don't think they always measure intelligence mind you. I have known some very intelligent people who scored very poorly on the SAT, no matter how hard they tried. But, by and large, I agree that the SAT and intelligence are loosely connected. </p>
<p>My point was that it is not telling to compare SAT scores at a school where almost all the students prepared interminably for the SAT to a school where the majority of students never prepared for the SAT. That's generally the case when comparing SAT scores at elite private universities and at elite public universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Asian Americans have higher scores, then yes, they in all likely hood will have higher IQ's as an aggregate.
[/quote]
Most of the Asian applicants I know scored > 750 in SAT math; many of them scored triple 800's in math L2 and science subjects...easily. If SAT is true measure of their quantitative IQ, you would expect these people to be brilliant mathematicans and engineers. Yet I know quite a few struggling with high level math and engineering courses in college.</p>
<p>I prefer to think that these students did well because they were more focus in math and sciences in high school. These students were drilled throughout high school in preparation for the public examination. They have mastered the art of multiple choices and past papers ... another case of practice make perfect.</p>
<p>Who do you think populate the Kumon math centers in your neighborhood?</p>
<p>
<p>Xiggi, Michigan takes the strongest SAT in one sitting.
</p>
<p>There is only a slight problem with that, Alexandre. This was your earlier example:</p>
<p>"Take student X. She has taken the SAT twice and got the following results:
Test I: 700 v, 740 m
Test II: 750 v, 690 m
The only SAT record on student X in Michigan's admissions system would read 700v and 740 m (1440 combined)."</p>
<p>So, let's go slowly through the math:
Test I: 700 v, 740 m = Total 1440
Test II: 750 v, 690 m = Total 1440</p>
<p>So, please DO tell us which one of Test I or Test II is considered the strongest since BOTH tests total 1440. And, please do not tell me that it makes NO difference in reporting the CORRECT Math and Verbal statistics.</p>
<p>Xiggi, Michigan only records one SAT score. If an applicant gets the same total twice, they will still only take one score. In this case, the latest one.</p>
<p>Alexandre, that theory makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But neither does it make any sense to push this charade any farther.</p>
<p>GoBlue- What do you want me to tell you? It's rare that someone doesn't find engineering calculus 3 and linear algebra challenging. Get unfocused and for all but a very few, throw any kind of distraction into the mx and difficulty can morph into struggling. this has nothing to do with brains, IQ or SAT score, just life.</p>
<p>Alexandre- If that is how UM reports SAT scores, I've never considered that before and I will refine my thought process on the issue. I never heard of a school doing this before. On a related note, I doubt HIGHLY that many students of elite schools will not thourroughly prepare for an SAT type of test, or any test for that matter. Think about the (neurotic) type of personality it takes to get their foot in the door..</p>
<p>This is the link I ment to post before</p>
<p>Tomslawsky, the authors of that study are professors at my two universities. Isn't it ironic! hehe!</p>
<p>"On a related note, I doubt HIGHLY that many students of elite schools will not thourroughly prepare for an SAT type of test, or any test for that matter. Think about the (neurotic) type of personality it takes to get their foot in the door."</p>
<p>That's my point Tomslawsky. Universities that clearly market themselves on their SAT results (most private elites), will attract applicants who prepare a great deal for the SAT. Schools that make it clear that SATs are of secondary importance will attract applicants who won't necessarily prepare as hard for the SAT. That's one of my two points. Comparing SAT scores of students at a university that emphasizes the SAT to SAT scores of students at a university that de-emphasizes the SAT is not revealing of the relative strengths of the students at those institutions. My experience with public universities (even the elite like Cal and Michigan) has shown me that the majority of students don't prepare that hard for the SAT. My experience with private universities indicates that the majority students prepare very seriously for the SAT.</p>