<p>800 for Chinese is 50%.</p>
<p>The way I see SAT test is it is a way for a college to see if an applicant could perform at their level, not necessary a way in trying to get the top 1%, 5% or 10% of IQ or academic level. A student doesn´t need 800 in math in order to be successful at MIT, but someone with a low 600 maybe in trouble. An applicant with 780 in math is not necessary a better math student than a student with 740 or even 720.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Math II takers are typically those who are a year ahead in math, completing precalculus in 11th grade or earlier. So these are the better students as far as math goes. The test content is not hard for those who have completed a properly taught precalculus course; when you combine that with the fact that the better students in math are taking it, it is not surprising to see a higher concentration of scores at the top.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Hogwash. You go to a less selective college that welcomes you for who you are, you excel, you get a good first job, and five years later nobody knows or cares where you went to school. </p>
<p>I graduated from a third-tier school. I had a very successful career as a self-employed consultant, working for some top companies (as well as some not-so-top companies). In 30 years I might have been asked 5 times where I went to college.</p>
<p>ucb, I don’t understand. If they are so good at math, why is it that they get 6-7 wrong and still score 800? In Lit, I think it’s only one or two wrong at most to score 800. Math 2 takers are getting break that Lit takers don’t. Doesn’t that mean Math takers are actually not so good at math?</p>
<p>boy, do I agree with annasdad. See my earlier post about college & job trajectories. There are no consistent outcomes here, and predictability regarding the relationship between undergrad location and employment placement/success may become increasingly compromised over the next 5 years minimum.</p>
<p>One of the more interesting trends in college has been transfer rates from 4-year traditional colleges to community colleges with practical programs more geared toward job placement.</p>
<p>I’m still a huge fan of 4-year institutions, regardless of eventual job field. But neither the name of that institution nor the program engaged in are guarantees of any particular job, a particular level of job, or eventual economic success (and any rate of that).</p>
<p>I think the Math 2 phenomenon is due to what College Board calls “scaling” and “equating.” Maybe so many people do so well on it because the scores are being equated to those of a past time when people weren’t as prepared (although I seem to remember this phenomenon being true 30 years ago).</p>
<p>Here’s a page with a lot of interesting info:
[SAT</a> Data Tables](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/data-tables]SAT”>SAT Suite of Assessments - College Board Research)
You can find out here, for example, that the vast majority of those taking the Chinese SAT subject test are native speakers, which is not the case for French, for example.</p>
<p>
What about the military academies? ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is possible that the Math II test is scaled extra easy so that students who completed precalculus are not penalized for choosing Math II over Math I. In other words, perhaps they are trying to avoid the question of “is a 700 in Math II better than a 750 in Math I?” by making is so that someone who can get a 750 in Math I will probably get at least a 750 in Math II if s/he has completed precalculus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did this analysis some time ago on another thread. I do not remember exact numbers now, and don´t have time to look it up, but Rutgers students employemnt rate is 50% less than Princeton´s, this is not even comparing the average first year salary. I am sure there are many Rutger graduates who become very successful (my best friend´s H, as an example), and there are Princeton graduates who are unemployed. But if you want to look at trend, there are numbers to back up those trend.</p>
<p>There are very successful people who do not even have college degree, so can we draw the conclusion that someone without a college degree is as employable as someone with a degree?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is the propensity to twist other posters’ statements a disease peculiar to CC? Where did I say “without a college degree”? :rolleyes: (Answer = I didn’t.)</p>
<p>Your question is a logical fallacy. (Does not proceed from my statement.)</p>
<p>[Best</a> Colleges, Best College Majors, Best College Degrees](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges]Best”>2023 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale)</p>
<p>Have a nice day.</p>
<p>I don´t think I am twisting what you are saying. Where did I say epiphany said, “without a college degree?” I was addressing everyone in general. We are just having a general discussion here. You agreed with annasdad, I didn´t, and I gave my reason as to why. Nothing personal. No need to get upset about it. Didn´t call anyone stupid here.</p>
<p>That’s unfortunate, oldfort, but I do take “personally” the failure of bright people not to use their well-endowed brains. It’s my occupation, and I do get upset about adults doing this especially. Sorry about that.</p>
<p>I repeat: Your question is non-responsive to my comment, as it is a question that is a logical fallacy. It does not proceed logically from my comment whatsoever. So in that sense, yes, it is “twisting.” </p>
<p>You might enjoy the website.</p>
<p>
Oh my goodness they are using affirmative action! :eek:</p>
<p>epiphany:
</p>
<p>I don’t know what the heck you do, but according to your post (hope I am not twisting here), your job is to make sure bright people use their well-endowed brains, and you take it personally any time when an adult doesn’t do that. Following your logic, a dietrician should take it personally whenever he/she sees a fat person, a financial advisor should take it personally whenever anyone makes a bad investment, a musician should take it personally whenever he/she meets a person who is tone deaf.</p>
<p>I may not be the brightest person in the world, but I am smart enough not to get that worked up over anyone’s post. How is that for using my well-endowed brain?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are indeed, but with a Chinese-style honesty - these students are less qualified but we want some, if we get only the rich ones, that’s OK too.</p>
<p>I contrast that with the argument that US affirmative action isn’t about race, it is about those incredibly compelling admission essays and fascinating ECs that only some minorities seem to know how to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>why the word “but”? What are you implying?</p>
<p>I am not implying anything, the rest of my post makes it clear. They want a quota and they get it. They decided that certain %'s provide the diversity and societal fairness that they seek.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Societal fairness is not part of Chinese-style honesty? Sad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are being deliberately obtuse. They want fairness, and they think a quota will help them to get it. Not sad at all.</p>
<p>You’re right sorghum, didn’t read your post correctly (and I am sometimes known to be obtuse). I thought you were referring to the US universities having a quota but you meant that the Chinese have a quota for different races.My bad, I need to get off my computer and go to sleep…(I love summer)</p>
<p>So you are implying that the Chinese do the same thing that you are assuming a small minority of US universities are doing but that at least they’re honest about it (at least with Chinese-style honesty but I’m not exactly sure what that means). Does this mean that you would be fine with AA (or quotas) in these US schools as long as they were just honest about it? It sounds to me that your main problem is that they are being deceitful, not that they have quotas. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many is some? How do the Chinese come up with the magic number? Can’t the US also have “some” too?</p>