# Just got my SAT scores!



## John Q. Mayhem (Jun 22, 2004)

I got a 1410! This is the first time I've taken them, and I'm told that that is  very good! I got perfect on my verbals (surprising given the amount of time I spend on the web ), but only slightly more than 3/4ths on the math section. I understand that the highest score for each individual section is kept, which means that when I take them again to try to boost my math score, I won't have to worry about the verbal section! I am happy! Sweetness and light! Yay!


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 22, 2004)

Congratulations.  What are you planning on going to college for?  Taking the SAT ain't free, and 1410 is a pretty respectable score.  If you think you can do better, go for it, but if you're not big into flawless mathematics, I'd say you've done a great enough job already.

But again, congrats.


----------



## Psionicist (Jun 22, 2004)

Ugh, it reminds me of this horrible movie: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0314498/

Congratulations though.


----------



## Krieg (Jun 22, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> ...1410 is a pretty respectable score....



Um it's a little bit better than "respectable" it puts him in the 99th percentile.

Of course it's really a 1310 to all of us who took it before the early 90's.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 22, 2004)

It beats my 1360 (from 1991, so which side of the break am I on, Krieg?).  I'm not exactly a slouch in the testing department, either, so I'd be pretty proud if I were you.


----------



## Angcuru (Jun 22, 2004)

I got a 1200 or so on mine taken two or three years ago(799 speach/writing, rest was math).  But then again, I test horribly, and suck at non-applied math.  From what I've seen, however, it really isn't much of an indication of anything, except how much less you're going to have to pay when you attend college.   

It's frustrating that our educational system places so much time and importance on these things when they could spend that money on books that don't still show that man has yet to reach the moon, or on refurbishing school restrooms so they aren't health risks.  Honestly, all of the brightest people I've ever met have gotten 1100's and below, and go on to be wondrous successes, in contrast to a good number of 1500 achievers I know who can't keep a steady job.  I guess the lesson to learn from these failures is that you shouldn't let it go to your head.  It's just a number which gets you a bit of cash if it's high enough, nothing more.

Unless you get a perfect score, which means you're damned smart.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Jun 22, 2004)

Mine was 1340, from 1987.  A 760 in math (top 2%, but I'm definitely an applied-math man, except that I kind of enjoy calculus and number theory; got to retry calculus of complex numbers again some day), but only a 560 in English.  Math is definitely my first language.


----------



## Krieg (Jun 22, 2004)

Mercule said:
			
		

> It beats my 1360 (from 1991, so which side of the break am I on, Krieg?). I'm not exactly a slouch in the testing department, either, so I'd be pretty proud if I were you.



The "recentering" happened in April '95 (I had to look it up), so you're good! 


For those who don't know what I am talking about...In 1994 the folks who administered the SATs noticed that average SAT scores had been steadily dropping for a couple of decades (primarily because more kids from "subpar" school districts were taking it). To "fix" the problem they recalibrated the test so that the "average" was again 500. This had the added effect of inflating the scores of individuals who took the test from '95 on when compared to those who took it previously. Verbal scores were more affected since students typically score lower on the verbal portion of the test. Interestingly enough the creators also decided that SAT no longer stood for Scholastic Aptitude Test, instead SAT is just the name of the text and doesn't have any other meaning. ?!

Hmm just looked up the conversion chart...in John Q.'s case a "new" 800 on the verbal is still an 800 on the old test and strangely enough his 610 in math would also still be equal to a 610. So going by the conversion chart his 1410 would still have been a 1410. He's outscored us all so far! lol

http://www.greenes.com/html/convert.htm


FWIW Mine: SAT=1370 ACT=34


----------



## aurance (Jun 22, 2004)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> I got a 1200 or so on mine taken two or three years ago(799 speach/writing, rest was math).  But then again, I test horribly, and suck at non-applied math.  From what I've seen, however, it really isn't much of an indication of anything, except how much less you're going to have to pay when you attend college.
> 
> It's frustrating that our educational system places so much time and importance on these things when they could spend that money on books that don't still show that man has yet to reach the moon, or on refurbishing school restrooms so they aren't health risks.  Honestly, all of the brightest people I've ever met have gotten 1100's and below, and go on to be wondrous successes, in contrast to a good number of 1500 achievers I know who can't keep a steady job.  I guess the lesson to learn from these failures is that you shouldn't let it go to your head.  It's just a number which gets you a bit of cash if it's high enough, nothing more.
> 
> Unless you get a perfect score, which means you're damned smart.




Exceptions always tend to be more memorable than the rule, and are prone to exaggeration.

There is, for the most part, a positive correlation between SAT scores and performance in college. Those exceptions you know are outliers. I suspect if the people you mention took the SAT repeatedly, their scores would regress toward the mean, their "true" score, for whatever it is SAT measures.

I'm sure there is some variability, as with any testing, but if SAT really wasn't "much of an indication of anything," it would be a complete waste of time for students and examiners, not to mention a PR fiasco for politicians and education in general. Nobody has anything to gain from repeatedly dishing out an exam which measures nothing.

Lest you mention all the money ETS makes as something that would be gained, the budget of ETS is not nearly on the same order of magnitude of what it would take to overhaul the educational institutions in certain sectors of the U.S., as you imply. That's an entirely separate issue.

It's not a perfect test by any stretch of the word, and there is great room for improvement, but it's not a blind dart throwing contest.


----------



## Xath (Jun 22, 2004)

Just be happy you're taking it this year before they introduce the writing section. 

Taking the SAT's more than once is a good idea, but don't take them a whole lot of times.  Two-Three is the optimal number.  Even if colleges take your best scores, they still see all of them.   I should have taken my own advice, I only took the SATs once, but I did ok.  Also, SATII are good to take as well.  Take them right when you finish the relevent classes.  Don't wait until Junior year.

SATI: Verbal 690, Math 710
SATII: Writing 760, US History 730, MathIIC 670


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Jun 22, 2004)

Did anyone take the Achievement Tests?  Not as common as the ACT and the SAT, but it was offered when I was a kid.

I did great on the math, of course (a 790), okay on the English, but I absolutely flunked Chemistry, even having taken honors chemistry in high school.  (I went on to take Chemistry-for-Science-Majors at college, and score in the top 10%--at least, on the analysis side; luckily I had a good lab partner...).

Just looked at my scores if I had taken the "new" SAT: 1400.  Still not great  (you should see my sister's scores--National Merit Scholarship semi-finalist), but decent...


----------



## Mercule (Jun 22, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> FWIW Mine: SAT=1370 ACT=34



I don't place too much faith in my ACT score.  I got a 29, but I was up all the previous night with the flu, vomitting my guts out.  I was so sick/tired that I passed out, face down on the desk during one of the sections.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 22, 2004)

Hey, according to that conversion page, my 1994 score of 1340 is now a 1400!  I feel 60 points smarter already.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Jun 22, 2004)

I knew about the "dumbing down" of the SAT, but it's still pretty darn cool  I tend to test somewhat better than I do long-range courses.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 22, 2004)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I don't place too much faith in my ACT score.  I got a 29, but I was up all the previous night with the flu, vomitting my guts out.  I was so sick/tired that I passed out, face down on the desk during one of the sections.



For whatever reason, I always felt I did better on the ACT than the SAT, where I was disappointed with my score.  But no so much that I retook it, of course.

I don't even have the faintest idea anymore of what I got on the GMAT, though.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 22, 2004)

Perhaps out of worry of stealing John Q. Mayhem's thunder, I didn't want to post my score on the SAT (1540, as of 1999).  But enough people got this off topic, I overcame my fear of being seen as bragging.

I just graduated from college, nowhere near the top of my class, but that's because I spent time writing D&D books when I could've been studying Japanese.  I swear, that language did more to mess with my GPA than anything else.

Got a 1600 on the PSAT.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 22, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> I got a 1410!



 Cool! Congrats!

 I got a 1380 when I took the test back in 1989, but I don't know what that translates to on the conversion page, because I don't remember what I got on the individual sections. 

 What I do remember is that for that offering of the test, I got the highest score in the Jr. class that year. I beat out all the honor society kids who picked on me because I was the lone metalhead in all the advanced classes, who wanted nothing to do with their clique and their preppy clothes. For some reason, the school principal thought it was a good thing to announce the top 3 scores over the PA with the morning announcements. There was my name, 80 points higher than the other two. I was furious ( and embarrased for some reason) that he thought it was a good thing to tell 2500 students what my supposedly confidential scores were without my permission.


----------



## Dimwhit (Jun 22, 2004)

That's an impressive score. I never did take the SAT. Or the ACT (or whatever that other one is). But I doubt seriously I would have scored that well.


----------



## Krieg (Jun 23, 2004)

Has anyone noticed that almost all of the scores posted so far fall in the 1300-1400's? (Well except for Wickett but we all know he's a freak.  ) I find that interesting...


Now how about ASVAB scores?


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Jun 23, 2004)

I did well enough on the ASVABs that the Navy wanted my flabby behind to be at the controls of one of their nuclear reactors on their subs.

Yeah, that would have been good: Someone with my memory, in charge of something as dangerous as a nuclear reactor. 

"Did you remember to insert the control rods?"

"Dang, I knew I was forgetting something!"

KA-BOOM!!!!


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 23, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Now how about ASVAB scores?



 I scored in the 98th percentile (don't remember the exact score) with absolutely ZERO intention of enlisting (I was, and am, a little too fat and lazy for service).  My mother made me take it.  

 They wanted to hook me up with Military Intelligence, and in retrospect, that would have been kinda cushy.  I had a high school buddy that went into Marine Intelligence, and I think he just sits around in an Indonesian villa all day listening to radio broadcasts or something.

 Fun fact: The Army recruiter who harassed me for two years after the test sounded EXACTLY like Gomer Pyle.  I'd have paid good money to hear him say "Shazam".


----------



## Mercule (Jun 23, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Now how about ASVAB scores?



I got a 97, IIRC.  Army wanted to put me into Linguistics/Intelligence.

This was during Desert Storm, though.  Funny thing is that I was ready to go, but the recruiter talked me out of it.  Weird.  He chased me for 3 months then, when the war started, kept saying things that soured me.

Wish I'd done it, though.  I probably would've been in Monterey the whole war, anyway.  But, I do love languages and codes.  I just never have time to study them -- or someplace to practice.


----------



## Zander (Jun 23, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Has anyone noticed that almost all of the scores posted so far fall in the 1300-1400's? (Well except for Wickett but we all know he's a freak.  ) I find that interesting...



I _suspect_ that gamers score higher than average. My own SAT score, when coverted to the post '95 standard, is about the same as RW's. And that was without the benefit of having been in the North American educational system. 

One of my friends and fellow gamer when I was an undergrad had scored 1600 in his SAT - when he was 15.


----------



## Krieg (Jun 23, 2004)

My AFQT was 99 on the ASVAB, and actually did serve in the intelligence field (SIGINT/EW to be precise) in the Marines. lol


Ironically enough my original contract was for the Security Forces (Marine Security Guards = MarDets on ships, FAST Co etc) but was given the soft sell for the SIGINT community while at Parris Island and decided to switch.


----------



## DM_Matt (Jun 23, 2004)

2x post


----------



## DM_Matt (Jun 23, 2004)

dfvdfs


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2004)

Zander said:
			
		

> I _suspect_ that gamers score higher than average. My own SAT score, when coverted to the post '95 standard, is about the same as RW's. And that was without the benefit of having been in the North American educational system.



You're assuming the NA system is a benefit.   

As far as gamers go, personal experience makes me want to agree with you.  I'm pretty sure I'm at the top of my current group, IQ-wise, but everyone is probably above average.  My bets are one at 160 (me), one at 135, three in the 125 area and one at the 115 range.  That last, though, I wouldn't be surprised to find out was smarter than she appears.  She's a mechanic, and I learned a long time ago that a good mechanic is usually much smarter than they seem(my dad was a mechanic).

In college, there was another guy who I'm sure was in the same area as me, and another that is almost certainly a bit above me.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Jun 24, 2004)

No need to worry about stealing my thunder, I know I'm not the very smartest guy around  Wickett and DM_Matt? Congrats. I'm just hoping I do well in college.

EDIT: I don't know about the NA system, I'm home skooled


----------



## Zander (Jun 24, 2004)

Mercule said:
			
		

> You're assuming the NA system is a benefit.



I realise you meant that humorously, but when it comes to taking the SAT the NA system does help. Before I took the SAT, I had never sat a multiple choice test. All the exams I had taken up to that point were short answer or essay format.

After having been at college in the US for a couple of years, I took a multiple choice exam for a summer job. The test was on a subject I knew nothing about (Australian Aboriginal culture). Thanks to my two years' experience of multiple choice tests at university, I scored quite well (quite a bit higher than the average for white Australians). 

It seems that just having experience of the test format would help someone taking the SAT.


----------



## Trickstergod (Jun 25, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Has anyone noticed that almost all of the scores posted so far fall in the 1300-1400's? (Well except for Wickett but we all know he's a freak.  ) I find that interesting...
> 
> 
> Now how about ASVAB scores?




Might just be because those who scored lower, aren't too willing to share their scores. There's a fair share of intellectual types amongst gamers, but both real life and on-line, I've found there's also a fair share of less than intelligent sorts...

Anyway, I nabbed myself a 1330. 760 Verbal, 570 Math. 

Which, by conversion, puts me at a 1260. 700 Verbal, 560 Math. 

I'm fairly certain I'd score better on the mathematics now, though. However, the test's been changed yet again, and now includes the SAT II Writing portion of the test in place of analogies, I'm not so keen on retaking it. There's the cost, for one, and also the fact that I took the SAT II Writing test and only scored so-so (don't remember specifically how well I did, unfortunately). 

I'll live.


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 25, 2004)

I took the SAT in 1985 managing to get a perfect 800 on the math, but only 570 on the verbal.  According to that revised chart someone posted the link for, my 570 verbal would now translate to 640.  That's huge.

I was 3rd in my high school class, and IIRC, both folks that beat me were in the low to mid 1400's.  Both were very high on verbal, lower on math, so under that revised scale, my score would likely be almost neck'n'neck with them.  Kind of pisses me off that they didn't update this back when I took it.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 26, 2004)

Zander said:
			
		

> It seems that just having experience of the test format would help someone taking the SAT.



Quite.  I figured multiple guess was a universal thing.


----------



## The Sigil (Jul 14, 2004)

Hmm... I took the test in 1993 and landed myself a 1440; 770 math and 670 verbal.  Nowadays, it looks like that would be 790 math and 730 verbal (for a total of 1520).  I scored a 34 on the ACT.

Graduated 2nd in my HS class (behind a guy who took fewer overall classes so his "AP" classes boosted his GPA to mere percentage points ahead of mine, despite the fact that I took more total AP classes and units than he did)... and took & passed 7 AP tests.  'Course, I was also taking college classes at Cal-Irvine in Calculus and Physics my senior year in HS (having taken senior physics as a sophomore in HS).  The really hilarious thing was that even though I was studying science & math at very high levels (college-level stuff in high school), I wound up winning my high school's "outstanding liberal arts student" award as a graduating senior.  I had to laugh at that one. 

All of this was nice, I guess, when it got me a full ride through college.  I didn't really think much else of it at the time... but when I got married right before graduation, I was darn glad I wasn't saddled with student loans. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 14, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Um it's a little bit better than "respectable" it puts him in the 99th percentile.
> 
> Of course it's really a 1310 to all of us who took it before the early 90's.




So what does that make a 1480 from 1984 in the modern, devalued test?


Oh, never mind, I found the chart.  I'd be a 1520 in modern currency.  My math skills were totally stinkeroo--a mere 720 in either scoring.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 14, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Now how about ASVAB scores?




99th percentile, all areas, forget flat scores.  Got a Freedom of Choice grant from the state of Indiana for a private college and told the recruiter that I wasn't interested.  The Marines kept calling my parents home up to my senior year of college.


----------



## JPL (Jul 14, 2004)

720 verbal, 680 math, circa 1991.

So...790 / 670 in modern terms.

But brains are genetic...good character, that's what I respect.  Gotta get that the hard way.


----------



## comrade raoul (Jul 14, 2004)

Congrats to Mr. Mayhem! (And good luck with your college process! Do you know where you're thinking of applying?) 







			
				JPL said:
			
		

> But brains are genetic...good character, that's what I respect.  Gotta get that the hard way.



It's rather a technicality, but I think the concensus opinion is that one's SAT score is only very loosely related to one's overall intelligence (presuming that there even is such a thing, which may be rather suspect).


----------



## Macbeth (Jul 14, 2004)

Congrats, John Q.! Your scores remind me of my own, from just over a year ago: 1480, with a perfect verbal score. I tend to look better based on standardized test scores then my grades would suggest. Between that and my AP scores, I should be breezing through a Liberal arts college, instead I'm at a Tech school barely getting by in Calc I and II. But, dang, are the arts classes easy at a Tech school. 

Good luck! With scores like that you should be able to get a good schlarship. Where are you planning on going to college?


----------



## Kaleon Moonshae (Jul 14, 2004)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> I got a 1200 or so on mine taken two or three years ago(799 speach/writing, rest was math).  But then again, I test horribly, and suck at non-applied math.  From what I've seen, however, it really isn't much of an indication of anything, except how much less you're going to have to pay when you attend college.
> 
> It's frustrating that our educational system places so much time and importance on these things when they could spend that money on books that don't still show that man has yet to reach the moon, or on refurbishing school restrooms so they aren't health risks.  Honestly, all of the brightest people I've ever met have gotten 1100's and below, and go on to be wondrous successes, in contrast to a good number of 1500 achievers I know who can't keep a steady job.  I guess the lesson to learn from these failures is that you shouldn't let it go to your head.  It's just a number which gets you a bit of cash if it's high enough, nothing more.
> 
> Unless you get a perfect score, which means you're damned smart.




I agree, my school's gifted program had me focus on my ACT cause that was the standard Oklahoma used, I took it like 16 times (I enjoyed taking it and it got me out of school) from 8th grade on. In contrast I only took the SAT once and made enough to get the national merits...right before they changed the scoring structure. I was the last class and they decided to have the new score count against us so I ended up losing the scholarship by a few points. I was not happy, especially since I took it right before I graduated and didn't have a chance to go back and take it again.

Congrats on your score, that's very respectable and welcome to the 99th%, you are now officially one of us geeks.


----------



## Len (Jul 14, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> I got a 1410!



I don't know what these SAT numbers mean. A proper scoring system would have six separate stats.


----------



## Kaleon Moonshae (Jul 15, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I scored in the 98th percentile (don't remember the exact score) with absolutely ZERO intention of enlisting (I was, and am, a little too fat and lazy for service).  My mother made me take it.
> 
> They wanted to hook me up with Military Intelligence, and in retrospect, that would have been kinda cushy.  I had a high school buddy that went into Marine Intelligence, and I think he just sits around in an Indonesian villa all day listening to radio broadcasts or something.
> 
> Fun fact: The Army recruiter who harassed me for two years after the test sounded EXACTLY like Gomer Pyle.  I'd have paid good money to hear him say "Shazam".




We had to take it to graduate. Most of us just goofed off, not wanting to get the whole "enlistment harrassment" that everyone knows comes with a good score. The sad thing is that even goofing off (not trying, waiting till the 5 min warning, doing designs with the circles) I still scored like 80% and *STILL* got calls from the marines and navy until I was a senior in college and finally, without thinking bout it, told them I had asthma, never again did I recieve a call.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 15, 2004)

Len said:
			
		

> I don't know what these SAT numbers mean. A proper scoring system would have six separate stats.




Well, this is only the Wisdom and Intelligence scores, after all.  Simply divide the Verbal score by 37.5 and subtract 4/3 from that result to get Wis.  Do the same for the Quantitative score to get Int.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jul 15, 2004)

I took the SAT in '94 before the re-average.

My score then was 1380 and is now a 1430. Cool! 

The funny thing is my best friend got a lower score than me. He took the SAT prep class and studied for months. I walked in and took the SAT cold with zero preparation.

It really drove him nuts that I got a higher score than him.    

However, he is now an engineer working for Booz Allen Hamilton and makes close to 90K a year. I make less than half that. So ultimately he got the last laugh.   :\ 

Stupid liberal arts degree!!


----------



## tarchon (Jul 15, 2004)

800, 730, 1985 - nyeh, nyeh


----------



## tenkar (Jul 15, 2004)

620 / 570 in 1985... not great but not horrible.  Got a really small state scholarship with it 

Went on to a BA in History.  Now I'm an Un-Civil Servant


----------



## tarchon (Jul 15, 2004)

Kaleon Moonshae said:
			
		

> We had to take it to graduate. Most of us just goofed off, not wanting to get the whole "enlistment harrassment" that everyone knows comes with a good score. The sad thing is that even goofing off (not trying, waiting till the 5 min warning, doing designs with the circles) I still scored like 80% and *STILL* got calls from the marines and navy until I was a senior in college and finally, without thinking bout it, told them I had asthma, never again did I recieve a call.



Yeah, they did that to us too and claimed it was to help us choose a career. Somehow, the ideal career choice of everyone who took it turned out to be "armed services."


----------



## FireLance (Jul 15, 2004)

Well, to follow up on RW's and DM_Matt's posts, I have to admit to scoring a 1580 in 1989 - 800 math and 780 verbal. Didn't do me any good, though - I ended up going to university in England :\.


----------



## eryndel (Jul 16, 2004)

Well, thanks to RW and all the other's who've topped me, I can now post my SATs without regret.  I took mine in 1996 and got a 800 Verbal - 630 Math which recalculates to a 800 Verbal and a 630 Math.

However, it never seemed to do anything other than make my wife turn red (as I beat her 1380).  I fortunately didn't let roleplaying interfere too much and graduated (2004) near to the top of my class (probably top in my major).  Still didn't get into grad school.    Still looking for work.

Didn't take ACT or ASVABs.   Can share some GRE scores for anyone who has them.  750 Quant/650 Verbal/5.5 Writing/630 Physics.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Jul 16, 2004)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> Thanks to you, so have I.  1560 for me, no studying.  But boy do I fear the LSATs nonetheless.




I had a similar score, also without studying -- and of course without taking it twice, becasue that would have just felt wrong to me.  I had 800 math / 720 verbal.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 16, 2004)

Isaac Asimov was inducted as, like, a vice president of MENSA, or some similar position, and he wrote an article about how intelligence doesn't matter, at least no more than any other sort of talent matters.  People tend to think what they're best at is what it's _best_ to be best at.  So smart people think intelligence is important - especially the ability to learn and recite trivia of history, culture, or science.  Athletic people think that being healthy and strong is important, . . . but due to the way our culture has changed lately, they also think that being smart is very important.

There's nothing clear about being smart.  Even the definition of smart changes.  Who here is fluent in Latin and Greek?  If you're not, then obviously you're not smart, by the 1800s academia's definition.  Can you recite the Bible chapter and verse?  No?  Well, be glad you don't live in the renaissance or middle ages, you ignorant sow.

For some reason, today we value hard sciences as being the most intellectual.  Physics professors are smarter than biology professors are smarter than psychology professors are smarter than literature professors are smarter than art professors are smarter than coaches.  Nothing inherently says this is so, but our culture believes it, so it's true.

So what if you have an IQ of 140, or 160?  A few times in the past few decades, this or that researcher wanted to conduct blind studies on different races and how they score on IQ tests, with all in all what sounds like a racist agenda.  They want to _prove_ that certain races are more or less intelligent than others, of course assuming that their own race (probably white) would score highest.

Now first, this sort of testing proves nothing except that certain groups in society are better able to score well on tests designed a certain way.  Like the point made earlier, being familiar with the type of test helps you score well.  Likewise, if you've been raised in a certain style of educational culture, you'll score well on tests designed by people who had that same style of education.  All IQ tests really determine is how good you are at thinking the way that the IQ testers want you to think.

Second, and more importantly, even if the test results did show that certain groups are smarter than others, do you think we'd actually listen to the results and decide to give tax breaks to the appropriate race, or have federally-mandated pay increases?  

Consider this:  What if we ran these tests, and discovered that people from New Zealand scored higher on average than any other group?  Not that unlikely, if you took an accurate sample of each ethnic group's population, since I'd imagine most New Zealander immigrants would not move to rural areas with limited educational systems.  

If we got back that test result, do you think we'd suddenly admit, "Oh yeah, it's been scientifically proven.  Go ahead and pay New Zealanders more."  Pretty unlikely.  And if we found out that, say, people from South Africa scored higher, or that the best-scoring group was half-Indian, half-Portuguese women who live in Wisconsin, there's no way the scientific community would recognize any value in the results.

So, if we don't care that a particular race or ethnic group scores higher on IQ tests, why does it matter then if a given person scores higher?  So you're good at passing a test.  Are you good at helping your fellow man?  Are you good at singing, acting, and entertaining others?  Are you good at sleeping with lots of partners to have good offspring?  Are you good at cheating on your d20 rolls when the DM ain't looking?  There aren't tests for those (or if there are, I'm a little frightened).

Sure, it's nice to be proud of being smart.  I like being smart, at least in my own opinion, and I value learning to be smarter.  But not everyone has the same values, or measures things the same way, or even gives a damn, so be careful evaluating yourself and others on the basis of any sort of score.

By the way, my college has gone completely undefeated in football for over 100 years.  Normally, for college football that'd be so incredibly good as to be unbelievable.  But my college hasn't had a football team for over 100 years.

*wink*


----------



## reanjr (Jul 16, 2004)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> It's frustrating that our educational system places so much time and importance on these things...




It's better than basing it on GPA.



			
				Angcuru said:
			
		

> ...when they could spend that money on books that don't still show that man has yet to reach the moon, or on refurbishing school restrooms so they aren't health risks.  Honestly, all of the brightest people I've ever met have gotten 1100's and below, and go on to be wondrous successes, in contrast to a good number of 1500 achievers I know who can't keep a steady job.




That's because the SATs are a politically correct IQ test.  And IQ certainly doesn't equate to success.  Hard work and commitment lead to success.



			
				Angcuru said:
			
		

> I guess the lesson to learn from these failures is that you shouldn't let it go to your head.  It's just a number which gets you a bit of cash if it's high enough, nothing more.




Well, it does indicate that (at least verbally) he/she learns at a great rate and is a very intelligent person.  While that doesn't mean he/she will not be living in a box in 10 years, it's still something to be proud of.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 16, 2004)

Kaleon Moonshae said:
			
		

> We had to take it to graduate. Most of us just goofed off, not wanting to get the whole "enlistment harrassment" that everyone knows comes with a good score. The sad thing is that even goofing off (not trying, waiting till the 5 min warning, doing designs with the circles) I still scored like 80% and *STILL* got calls from the marines and navy until I was a senior in college and finally, without thinking bout it, told them I had asthma, never again did I recieve a call.




I never took the SAT (or the ACT, the equivilent in most states).  I'm glad I didn't.  I've never score below 99th on a standardized test in my life.  I get harassed enough as it is by recruiters.  I didn't know that was legal.  I thought the records were only forwarded to those you asked them to be forwarded to...


----------



## Belen (Jul 16, 2004)

1340 in 1994, but that was when I was smart.  Then I went to college and learned the true depth of my idiocy.  Ok, so I had a problem going to class.  It was all that perfect attendance from 4th grade to 12th grade that ruined me.  I was crying out for a break!


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jul 16, 2004)

My recalibrated 700V/680M is a 1440!  I don't really care, though, my 1380 was good enough to confirm me as a National Merit Scholar...free college, baby!


----------



## reanjr (Jul 16, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Has anyone noticed that almost all of the scores posted so far fall in the 1300-1400's? (Well except for Wickett but we all know he's a freak.  ) I find that interesting...
> 
> 
> Now how about ASVAB scores?




That's actually not as far above average as you might think.  The system isn't scaled in a linear fashion.  That's why you get percentile.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 16, 2004)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> My recalibrated 700V/680M is a 1440!  I don't really care, though, my 1380 was good enough to confirm me as a National Merit Scholar...free college, baby!




1380 will get you a full ride?  What kind of full ride?  Maybe I should rethink taking those (if I still can)


----------



## tarchon (Jul 16, 2004)

reanjr said:
			
		

> 1380 will get you a full ride?  What kind of full ride?  Maybe I should rethink taking those (if I still can)




It's really the PSAT/NMSQT - the SAT score just clinches it, but yeah, National Merit Finalist can get you a free ride to a lot of schools, especially the less prestigious ones, and it's usually worth some cash even at the big name outfits.  'S how I did it.  Really, I'd have to rate that as the #1 most important exam for scamming... er... I mean earning scholarship money.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 16, 2004)

Well, in Texas, as the valedictorian of my class, I think I could've gone to any Texas state college for free.  I chose to chase after my girlfriend, who was going to art school in Savannah, Georgia, so I went to a private college in Atlanta.  My 1540 SAT, 1600 PSAT, valedictorian butt got all of $1500 from the National Merit Scholars.  For a university that ran (at the time) $32,000 a year.

Thankfully (?) my single mother is just a poor librarian, so I only ended up having to pay about $4000 a year thanks to financial aid, but whoa, do I feel silly spending that much money on a girl who . . . let's just say we're separated.  *somber grin*

Then again, Emory's a great college.  Ridiculously diverse ethnically and culturally, though, like many liberal arts colleges, it's . . . um, . . . _liberal_.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 16, 2004)

I got around a 1200 but this was around 1987 so I don't know if that's good or not.


----------



## tarchon (Jul 16, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Well, in Texas, as the valedictorian of my class, I think I could've gone to any Texas state college for free.  I chose to chase after my girlfriend, who was going to art school in Savannah, Georgia, so I went to a private college in Atlanta.  My 1540 SAT, 1600 PSAT, valedictorian butt got all of $1500 from the National Merit Scholars.  For a university that ran (at the time) $32,000 a year.



The actual National Merit Scholarships aren't much themselves.  The value is in all the institutional scholarships that you can get for being a National Merit Scholar.  They usually go by names like "Regents Scholar" or "Presidential Scholar," that sort of thing.  Many colleges, especially in the 2nd and 3rd tiers, make their National Merit Scholar count out to be a pretty big deal in their literature, so they put a bit of a premium on attracting NMSs.  If you go to a place that costs $32,000 a year though, chances are you aren't going to get a free ride unless you're a disabled impoverished  Hispanic/Black/Asian/Native American hermaphrodite orphan with a 1600 SAT and a 6.0 GPA, who has naked pictures of the entire Board of Regents.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 17, 2004)

Kaleon Moonshae said:
			
		

> We had to take it to graduate. Most of us just goofed off, not wanting to get the whole "enlistment harrassment" that everyone knows comes with a good score. The sad thing is that even goofing off (not trying, waiting till the 5 min warning, doing designs with the circles) I still scored like 80% and *STILL* got calls from the marines and navy until I was a senior in college and finally, without thinking bout it, told them I had asthma, never again did I recieve a call.




I told the Marines that I was going to a Quaker school (which I was).  That finally shut 'em up.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 17, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Isaac Asimov was inducted as, like




Lemme guess, you scored in the 1200s or lower on the SATs...


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 17, 2004)

tarchon said:
			
		

> It's really the PSAT/NMSQT - the SAT score just clinches it, but yeah, National Merit Finalist can get you a free ride to a lot of schools, especially the less prestigious ones, and it's usually worth some cash even at the big name outfits.




It certainly wasn't a free ride at my school.  You had to be National Merit, a "legacy", a foreigner bringing in 100% cash full tuition money, or a "diversity student" (euphemism for "black") before they would look at you.


----------



## Nasma (Jul 19, 2004)

In Australia, you get a percentile score, stating what percentage of the state you finished ahead of.  70 means that you finished ahead of 70% of the state.  As you can't be ahead of yourself, the highest score is 99.95.  Maybe it's because it's the system I've grown up with, but i prefer it, as it makes it seem a bit simpler.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 19, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> Lemme guess, you scored in the 1200s or lower on the SATs...




Not that it matters, but I already said, 1540.  I was arguing about the unimportance of such statistics, though.  *grin*


----------



## Ferret (Jul 21, 2004)

In england we have SATs but they mean something different, same idea though. Instead of a score you get a level and depending on year you are in (2, 4, 6, 9) they mean different things. Also the levels are individual for english, maths and science.

(AFAIR)
In year six SATs levels are about 2-4, 2 being poor, 3 average and 4 good. You can take an '11 plus' to try and get a six but it was harder.

In year nine SATs levels are about 4-6, 3 being poor and so on. You can take a higher paper and be able to get higher levels. Like a 7 which is really good, or an 8 which is amazing.

I'm quite sure those are wrong some how. But I got an 8 in maths which is top few (5? 1%? I don't know very few AFAIR), then a 7 in science and a 6 in english.


----------



## Henry (Jul 21, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> I got a 1410!




Congratulations, John Q! That is impressive!

I only got a 1210 back in 1989, for whatever that's worth - but still scored in the top 90% or so of my class of 300. Didn't matter a whit as to business acumen, though.


----------



## tarchon (Jul 22, 2004)

Ferret said:
			
		

> In england we have SATs but they mean something different, same idea though. Instead of a score you get a level and depending on year you are in (2, 4, 6, 9) they mean different things. Also the levels are individual for english, maths and science.




I think they're more comparable to the US's ACT or AP exams.  We don't really have a national testing standard, so we have a confusing alphabet soup of regional and optional exams, of which the (original) SAT is a kind of back-door IQ test (it really relies on speed, since the required skills are very elementary), the ACT is discipline-specific knowledge and skills test, and the AP is a discipline-specific placement/college credit test.  Colleges may or may not use, recognize, or require any of them.  There are also some SAT-associated discipline-specific exams, but they aren't very commonly used.


----------



## JPL (Jul 22, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> Lemme guess, you scored in the 1200s or lower on the SATs...




Heh.

But I think Ranger Wickett makes some very good points. 

I think D&D types tend to have the kind of intelligence that tests well.  I've always done very well on standardized intelligence tests.  

But hard work?  Integrity?  Organization?  All very difficult for me, and a much better measure of a man that any IQ test.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Jul 22, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> I think D&D types tend to have the kind of intelligence that tests well.  I've always done very well on standardized intelligence tests.
> 
> But hard work?  Integrity?  Organization?  All very difficult for me, and a much better measure of a man that any IQ test.




Yes! This is EXACTLY how I am! I've been wanting to say it but couldn't figure out how.


----------



## Ferret (Jul 22, 2004)

tarchon said:
			
		

> the ACT is discipline-specific knowledge and skills test, and the AP is a discipline-specific placement/college credit test.  Colleges may or may not use, recognize, or require any of them.  There are also some SAT-associated discipline-specific exams, but they aren't very commonly used.




'Discipline-specific' meaning just a science maths and english?


----------



## JPL (Jul 23, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Yes! This is EXACTLY how I am! I've been wanting to say it but couldn't figure out how.




I think folks like us who are gifted with the sort of intelligence that shows up on IQ tests may have a harder time developing these character traits --- hard work, organization, even honesty --- simply because our big brains often take up the slack.

Hard work?  I didn't need it until college.  Coasted through high school on pure cleverness.

Organization?  Smart guys often wear their lack of organization as a badge of honor.  

Honesty?  Hey, I'm a lawyer, so I know all too well how a clever person can dance around the truth.

But I think that good character [because that's what all of these non-IQ factors add up to, really] can be developed, even by those of us who get a late start or seem to have a harder time with it.

I feel like my brain power was inherited...but whatever good character I possess, I worked for.


----------



## tarchon (Jul 24, 2004)

Ferret said:
			
		

> 'Discipline-specific' meaning just a science maths and english?




Let me see... it's English, Science, Math, and... ah yes, "Reading."  There's also an expanded version with a "Writing" section.  The AP tests are even more specific, like "Chemistry," "Art History," and such.  It's pretty hard to specifically study for the SAT, although many vendors happily sell courses for it anyway, but the ACT is a little more like a normal academic test.  Memorizing chemical formulas and learning cloud classifications could actually be useful for the ACT, but the SAT primarily tests how fast you can do low-level pre-calculus math, how well you process verbal information, and the extent of your your vocabulary.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 25, 2004)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...sts/20040725/ts_latimes/satsbigmultiplechoice

Long story short, my 1540 won't mean crap in a year, when the test's maximum score jumps from 1600 to 2400.  Oh well.  *grin*


----------



## Dogbrain (Jul 27, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> Hard work?  I didn't need it until college.  Coasted through high school on pure cleverness.




Did that, too.  It bit me on the backside when I finally hit courses that required work.



> Organization?  Smart guys often wear their lack of organization as a badge of honor.




Not in my field.  It's a fast track to not getting enough publications in juicy journals.  That means no more grants.



> Honesty?  Hey, I'm a lawyer, so I know all too well how a clever person can dance around the truth.




That's called the "discussion" section of a paper.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 28, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> He's outscored us all so far!
> 
> FWIW Mine: SAT=1370 ACT=34




Well, I was gonna stay out of this -- SAT-comparison threads are _so_ early-90s -- but then you had to go and declare a winner.

I got a 1530 in 1985.  800 verbal, 730 math.  I took the ACT in 1989 and scored a 35 ... 36s in reading and English, 34s in science and math.  Finally, I took the LSAT in 1995 and scored a 170 (99th percentile).

IMO, while the people who do well on these tests do tend to be very intelligent, it's not necessarily true that very intelligent people will do well on these tests.  There are so many factors ... for instance, if a different section of the LSAT had been designated "experimental," I would not have done nearly as well on the test, because I scored poorly on the section they were testing (and thus which didn't count).  Basically, I got lucky.


----------



## pogre (Jul 28, 2004)

Congratulations! That's a great score! I took the ACT years ago and did fine, but I was nowhere near the 99th percentile. Your parents must be proud of you! Just to echo JPL's sentiments - you have an obligation to put that talent to *work*.


----------

