<p>Maybe you can give me one person who would freak out about a test, even if it were say the last question for who wants to be a millionaire, if they knew the questions were going to be 1+1.</p>
<p>Yes, SAT questions aren’t 1+1, but if you are prepared well enough, it’ll be as easy as 1+1</p>
<p>Vehicle, don’t take it to a ridiculous level. Sure, they are some people who suffer test anxiety. But it’s almost always NOTHING crippling, and most people can work through it. Given how much the “Bad test taker” excuse comes up, I can almost assure you the large majority simply want to validate their failure.</p>
<p>“Bad Test Taker” is to the SAT/ACT as Affirmative Action is to the rejected ORM applicant.</p>
<p>^That’s a pretty shallow attempt at taking a shot at highly-qualified ORMs who are rejected from top schools.</p>
<p>Both are excuses, usually neither one is true.</p>
<p><a href=“http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf[/url]”>http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf</a></p>
<p>Not true, huh?</p>
<p>
What the hell is “intelligence”?? You have this one-minded, singular definition of intelligence, as if every human in the world can be ranked on a 1-100 scale in terms of “intelligence” and that’s it.
Don’t you realize there are different kinds of “intelligence” just as there are different types of “test-takers” then? Some forms of “intelligence” might coincide better with taking the SAT, some forms of intelligence might coincide better with taking standardized or multiple choice tests in general, but if you possess “intelligence” that doesn’t coincide with it, everyone in this thread will immediately say that you’re not smart.</p>
<p>That would be called ethnocentrism. And I encourage you to look up the term to see for yourself what it entails. Yours is the thought process that, if taken to its natural conclusion, led Nazi social scientists to pursue ethnic cleansing so that they could purify the race and get rid of all those “bad test takers” who are really just “not as intelligent” as those who are “good test takers”.</p>
<p>So I’ll ask again: Who’s smarter, Shakespeare or Albert Einstein?
Do you think that maybe a good way to answer that question is to think about what their SAT scores might have been?</p>
<p>Shakespeare.</p>
<p>He made **** (**** being 1000s of words), Einstein just found **** that was already there.</p>
<p>Ok.</p>
<p>Well reasoned analysis.</p>
<p>An ability to write well is one of the few forms of intelligence I can think of that does not entail performing quickly. This is the one area in which the SAT fails; writing ability should not be measured by speed. In that sense, neither Shakespeare nor Einstein are smarter than each other; they both have their own abilities. However, the rest of the SAT is a reasoning test. For that, the intelligence:speed::knowledge:distance analogy generally applies. Of course, in order to take the SAT and score reasonably well one must expect to have an extensive knowledge in grammar rules, vocabulary, and mathematical formulas. But applying those things and being available to reason to an answer quickly is the type of reasoning intelligence the SAT, for the most part, tests.</p>
<p>rsx, I know you’re being sarcastic, but by that logic: if I claimed zargomunctory as an original word, would I be more intelligent than a mathematician who can prove or disprove Goldbach’s Conjecture?</p>
<p>Oh all right I see what you’re saying.</p>
<p>So let’s assume that Einstein and Shakespeare are both pretty familiar with the grammar, vocabulary and math formulas in the CR and M section of the SAT.</p>
<p>Then if Einstein gets a higher score than Shakespeare, by say 50-100 points, you think Harvard should probably accept Einstein but deny Shakespeare, right?</p>
<p>Yeah, that would be swell for Harvard’s reputation.</p>
<p>if people used it daily, as they do with words such as bubble and champion, and you made 1000s of words like it that people used in their lives, then yes, because Goldbach’s conjecture doesn’t affect our daily lives. Words do, though.</p>
<p>mcgoogly, of course they wouldn’t. Both are celebrities and could probably make it into any institution of their desires.</p>
<p>Knowledge of Goldbach’s Conjecture could very well affect our lives infinitely more than words. Prime numbers are still relatively obscure in the mathematical world, and it’s entirely possible that an extensive crackdown of prime numbers will lead to a discovery that could break boundaries in fields that apply, such as engineering. How does impact on daily life factor into intelligence, anyways?</p>
<p>And mcgoogly, one with writing intelligence should be able to do so with another aspect of the application: the essays. One with reasoning intelligence should expect to shine on the SAT. The SAT measures only one kind of intelligence, but to argue that bad test-takers should get a free pass isn’t fair; they should simply reflect their strengths through other ways.</p>
<p>Personally, I think a lot of the “bad test takers” took the SAT to the best of their ability, but are unable to adjust their assessment of themselves to realize they aren’t someone with 1/1000 or 1/10000 intelligence. The valedictorian from the conventional high school I left scored in the 1100s on his SAT, and insisted it must be a bogus test because as the top student in a class of 400, his SAT percentile should reflect that he would be in the top 1%, at the very least. Many people think very highly of themselves, and when they receive a “bad” score (maybe 1300s even) they insist they must be poor test takers because they are “much smarter” than their score reflects.</p>
<p>What the hell is “intelligence”?? You have this one-minded, singular definition of intelligence, as if every human in the world can be ranked on a 1-100 scale in terms of “intelligence” and that’s it.</p>
<p>Calling intelligence velocity and knowledge displacement isn’t singular. Velocity and displacement, like intelligence, are multi-dimensional. I think it’s an excellent analogy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is totally ridiculous. Saying that some people are smarter that others is not equivalent to saying that all the less-smart people should be exterminated. You seem to live in a fantasy world where everyone is equal because no one is really smarter than anyone else; we all just have “different kinds” of intelligence.</p>
<p>
For my “example” I was assuming that Shakespeare and Einstein were otherwise equally normal applicants (i.e. not celebrities… they wouldn’t have been celebrities or accomplished at all at the age of 17 anyway), to make our analysis simpler (ceteris paribus).</p>
<p>And yeah, I guess Shakespeare could show his intelligence on other portions of the application. I’ve never said that I want to get rid of the SAT by any means, I’m only trying to express how little the SAT actually does convey about a person’s intellectual capabilities. You may think I’m preaching to a choir, but the fact that people are seriously suggesting that performance on the SAT is directly proportional to hard-work and “intelligence level” shows that people actually believe this ethnocentric crap.</p>
<p>As it stands, with your line of reasoning Shakespeare will probably get denied acceptance to Harvard will Einstein will not.
Personally, I think it’d be much better if the colleges de-emphasized SAT scores when it comes to admissions and would take a more holistic approach. And no, that doesn’t mean that I think they should stop using the SAT as a factor in college decisions completely, just that it shouldn’t be valued as highly as it currently is at some of the less holistic admission offices. Which is why I agree with that admissions officer in your OP.</p>
<p>
Ok then, ANSWER me already: who is smarter, Albert Einstein or William Shakespeare?</p>
<p>You seem to live in this world where one person really IS smarter than another person. Any world other than this is “totally ridiculous.” Therefore, you should easily be able to give me an answer to the above question. Go.</p>
<p>Who is smarter? Albert Einstein. Simple. </p>
<p>Ofcourse I don’t know enough about the two, but from their works, Einstein does appear to be smarter. Shakespeare might be creative, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, and you know what? That’s exactly what I said. Go back and read.</p>
<p>
Do you even know how much SATs are worth? If not, how can you say they’re worth “too much”? Oh, and what is this “holistic approach” you talk about? What do you think would be better than the SATs?</p>
<p>Again, I’m not saying the SATs are perfect; they’re not. But they certainly are better than any other existing measurements. <em>cough</em> GPA <em>cough</em></p>