<p>I stand corrected, thank you. I had never thought of that conotation. I apologize for thinking you were a student.</p>
<p>@ OP
so SAT and AP scores say it all?
If so, then you are the worst student and person to walk the surface of the earth.
I knew I would meet so much nonsense if I came here, I never bothered. </p>
<p>Let me tell you this, students can be tested by the SAT and all that. One can get a 2000, another gets a 2350 and the third one gets a 1900. Nobody is stupid, and if you ask them you may see that one of them studied on her own. The other two may have had tutors or books. </p>
<p>Too many fools walk the earth, and I think you would light up as red when the fool-proof test is administered.</p>
<p>truth salute!</p>
<p>wow, look how much one can miss when they attend a college that revels in its academic oppression. i never imagined my thread would take on a life of its own. i figured it would die a slow boring blase blase death with the uninsightful ramblings of bdkap who is hung up and fixated upon inconsequential studies that are irrelevant to the basic premise of the thread, which as a reminder, is that the sat measures everyone on one single standard at one single moment in time, regardless of how they got to where they are educationally or economically. the sat's are thus a useful tool for universities and colleges to form a compelling class of equals that cannot be accomplished strictly with gpas.</p>
<p>to collegedad, if you truly are an "educator" as your postings seem to indicate, then i can understand why the american educational system has so fallen behind the south asian countries and the far east. your attempt to mock me re the "duh" in my screen name indicates to me that s1 must take after you while s2 takes after mom. as it is apparent to everyone with high sat scores, the "duh" in my screen name is a play on the learned "da"vinci. since i chose to use the "duh" as opposed to "da" it seems that your insightful play on my screen name was previously noted by another, namely me. so as clever as you may feel you are, i'm sorry to say that it is much more revealing of you than you may have wished, duuhh. next, nowhere in your diatribe about best friends rejecting swat for skidmore or other best friends that currently or will be attending swat was any reference as to whether s1 actually had a choice between swat and skidmore. i surmise that there was no choice. a word of advice, i would cease trying to make the case that swat and skidmore are on equal footing whether academically or in the amount of work presribed by each institution. to continue to compare the two as equals will seriously hurt your credibility (credibility as to what, i don't know.)</p>
<p>bdkap: here is my basic problem with your citations to a million studies as a means of proving your positions. when you get here next year, and you try that crap in class, you will be roundly spanked. it reveals your innate inability to think for yourself. the studies in and of themselves do not prove the validity of your position. in many instances, if not most, an opposing study of equal import can be presented to support the opposing viewpoint. more to the point, i truly feel that you missed the premise of the thread and like most lower scoring sat readers here, default to the kneejerk position that the sat's are biased and does not measure the true worth of the low scoring individual. once again, my premise is that gpa's are easily manipulated whereas the sat is a uniform standard applied to all that reveals where everyone stands without discussions about why or how it came to be. it just is.</p>
<p>bluewhitepuppy: on what basis do you come to the conclusion that i am the worst student and worst person to walk the surface of the planet? does that mean to imply that if i were to walk underground, become a subterranean, so to speak, that i would improve from being the worst? i never said the sat's say it all. i certainly know nothing about the act, didn't take it. i did say, that in my limited exposure, i found that higher sat scoring people were able to maneuver intellectually a lot faster than lower scoring sat scorers. i never said anything about anyone being stupid, but if your argument is, as your post states, that there are no stupid people, i disagree. reading your post seems to disprove your assertions. i also don't quite get your preoccupation with walking. in the 21st century, there are many ways to traverse the globe without walking. i also don't think your not bothering to apply to swat was because of people like me, but because of low sat scores or maybe it was your intolerance of opposing viewpoints? hmmm.</p>
<p>Duhvinci, I feel like this conversation ended a while ago. If you really want to resurrect it, I guess I could keep going, but it seemed like, by the end, everyone just started repeating themselves a lot, and while there were a lot of AWESOME points made on both sides throughout, by the end, everyone had said what they needed to say. Like, your whole thing about the SATs being more objective and harder to manipulate than grades has been addressed by me probably in the double-digits number of times. I have mentioned it probably once every post. And I have defended why I use studies and quotes and stuff at least 5 times. I've already been through this. I remember you saying you don't really ever bother to read most of my posts, so if that's the case, it would seem pointless to respond again. The fact that you think that I can't think for myself, and do nothing but cite studies shows that you haven't really read anything I've written, or else you wouldn't say that. I looked back and found that throughout the entire debate, I cited 4 studies. I'm SURE I addressed the issue of grades being subjective more times than that, so it's useless to argue when you read what I say in such a narrow manner.</p>
<p>Though I don't think it would be that useful for me and duhvinci to continue duking it out, if someone else were to argue against him, or new people could offer opinions, then maybe the conversation could go in a different direction or something.</p>
<p>Duhvinci's defense rests on two points: 1) that SATs are objective and 2) that they are fair. You can argue both points until the proverbial cows come home and never agree. And, I suspect he knew that when he created the thread.</p>
<p>johnwesley: i never said the sat's were fair. in fact, i believe that because of cultural and economic variables, the sat's may actually be unfair. that, however does not change that the test measures where we are at the end of junior year/beginning of senior year. i also believe that once one plateus on the exam, unlike body building, you cannot break through and score higher. yes, there are times when it happens, but not as a norm. the exception is clearly high schoolers who are esl students. the test does not accurately measure them because of their english proficiency. my main point however was, as you accurately state is the test is objective and universities need that in forming a class of equals. tangentially, the discussion turned upon my characterization of high scoring sat takers as somewhat faster on the intellectual draw. i believe it is this position that has wounded the naysayers. probably because it is true, but noone with lower scores want to think of themselves as substandard intellectually. the truth of the matter is that they are not and for the most part, i truly believe that the higher scoring achievers would happily wait for the bulb to click on before proceeding further with the conversation. i would.</p>
<p>for those without a funny bone, i was kidding in the last sentence. really.</p>
<p>see, this is what I don't understand. Swarthmore has the highest concentration of people who score highly on the sat anywhere on the planet and yet you clearly have no problem finding all the low-scorers. What is it you're doing wrong?</p>
<p>I wouldn't necessarily call it wrong that I like to go intellectually "slumming." it's also easy to find the low scorers if you know where to look. i tend to find the largest concentration of them at haverford.</p>
<p>Duh, you seem like a very angry and unhappy young man. Maybe time to lighten up a tad? Life is too short to be angry all the time. I extend my hand to offer a hand shake, a smile and I will agree with you that Swarthmore is an incredible college. You are correct about one thing though, S2 did take after his mom.</p>
<p>collegedad: thank you for your handshake and smile. no, i am neither unhappy or angry. i am very priviledged and very appreciative of that fact. i will admit that i am stressed and under a lot of pressure. lighten up a tad? are you kidding. i attend swarthmore, not skidmore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
see, this is what I don't understand. Swarthmore has the highest concentration of people who score highly on the sat anywhere on the planet and yet you clearly have no problem finding all the low-scorers. What is it you're doing wrong?
[/quote]
Where did you get this information? The average SAT score at Swarthmore is well below that of many other colleges. Swarthmore is still considered a safety school in some circles, you know.</p>
<p>Duhvinci: Some people get it; some people do not. This is something you're going to have to just accept, but I think you already know that. You go to Swarthmore; I went to Swarthmore. I hear you talking. There are a lot of clowns around here.</p>
<p>Oh no! Anything but a clown!</p>
<p>Is this supposed to be satirical? Or serious? For what it’s worth, I’m pretty anti-standardized tests…but I don’t really want to delve into the argument. I love the all the brazen comments about Swarthmore’s intellectual superiority.</p>