<p>Guys, you can like it or not, you can disagree or not, but T26E4 and I are pretty indicative of the attitudes you would find in the Yale administration (and Harvard, Stanford, what have you). We’re less impressed with the “accomplishment” represented by acing multiple overlapping admissions tests than we are with the misdirection of energy that represents. No one who is smart really has an excuse for being bored, and no one who is smart ought to need artificial challenges to help him work hard and concentrate. If he can’t get excited by all the things there are to learn, and all the things that need doing in and around his home town, I’m not interested in him. I’m not saying that christiansoldier is really like that, but I AM saying that taking all these tests over and over creates a strong suspicion that he’s like that, and tends to hurt rather than help his (probably pretty good) chances.</p>
<p>I do get your point and I totally agree with you. I’m just saying it wouldn’t hurt if christiansoldier is at the same time interested in a variety of different things and passionate about “normal” stuff provided it’s not ego stroking.</p>
<p>No, it will hurt, but maybe not fatally. There’s no way to make it a positive. But, sure, there may be plenty of other positives to outweigh this negative (which, as I said before, isn’t THAT big a negative).</p>
<p>I didn’t mean in the admisions process. It’s not really that bad to look for some challenges by his definition even though such challenges may appear a bit weird to most people. We should be a bit more open-minded!</p>
<p>Are you really saying that it won’t hurt in REAL LIFE if someone keeps taking meaningless, relatively easy tests over and over trying to get perfect scores? In real life, that would be a killer. Only in college admissions is it merely a mild negative.</p>
<p>If my firm interviewed a young lawyer who, having passed the bar, was re-taking the test for the third time trying to make his score the highest ever? There is NO CHANCE that person would receive a job offer.</p>
<p>It’s not a question of being weird. It’s a question of being immature, and uncreative.</p>
<p>Actually, NFLS’s reasoning makes sense to me. If I truly took the ACT for my own gratification (which I insist I did), it would make no more sense to submit my ACT result than my high score on snake. Submitting my score would show that it was not actually for me, but for them.</p>
<p>Of course, JHS is still right too. My SAT I and Chem retakes show that I have quite a test fixation anyway. The only difference is that I was right to think I would improve those times.</p>
<p>@JHS: This is just my personal opinion (but you have expanded the scope of the discussion beyond college admissions and into personal opinions, namely of me), but I don’t think what I do is any dumber than swimming or shotputting or any other sport. What’s the point of throwing a shotput? To see how far you can throw it. There’s no point in it except for the sport. You could have used your strength as a logger or coal miner and benefited society, but instead you choose to throw a heavy ball as far as you can. And not just that, you practice all the time so you can beat other people who throw heavy balls in their spare time. I don’t see the difference between this and testing. SAT -> ACT would just be like doing discus after mastering shotput, or so it seems to me.</p>
<p>christiansoldier:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I want to make clear that the views I am expressing are not views about YOU. They are views about one particular aspect of your personality as you have presented it on this thread (the only place I have encountered you), and essentially views about a reductio-ad-absurdum strawman for whom that particular personality trait was the only important thing. I hope that’s not really the off-line you!</p></li>
<li><p>Your analogy to shotputting (and to sports in general) is somewhat off. Generally, as a matter of cultural history and contemporary attitude, we tend to value sports not so much for what they are in themselves, but for the qualities they foster: physical health, discipline, strategy, rule-abiding, teamwork (in some cases), keeping-out-of-trouble. And, increasingly, entertainment of others. We don’t actually value throwing a heavy ball a long way in and of itself all that much. If someone were pursuing shotputting without regard to its collateral benefits – say, in a way that was detrimental to health and unfair (like using steroids, or competing against women if you are biologically male), and with no connection to the Olympics or other public entertainment – that person would be condemned or pitied, not praised.</p></li>
<li><p>But the thing about sports is that it is always possible to do better – throw farther, swim faster. With standardized tests, there is an upper limit, and that upper limit is not so high. There are tens of thousands of people in the world who have scored 2400s (if you include the old Writing SAT II) or 36s, and tens of thousands more who would if they took the tests. It’s not that interesting an accomplishment.</p></li>
<li><p>Also, standardized tests don’t have important collateral benefits. Doing well on standardized tests doesn’t promote scholarship (beyond a very, very low level, that isn’t interesting at all if you are good enough to hit the limit) or discipline (it’s very artificial) or problem-solving. All it really does is let you feel superior to people who score a little lower, and help get you into college and get scholarships. But in that last aspect – which is, indeed, valuable – a few points here and there don’t make any difference. So pursuing “perfection” (meaning “hitting the ceiling on the questions asked”) once you are already in the ballpark looks like it’s about nothing but bragging rights and not being willing to accept real, more difficult challenges.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In general, I understand what you’ve said. Only one thing (Point 4) really bothered me.</p>
<p>Could lots of people do what I’ve done? Maybe. But I did it. When we die, we are judged by our accomplishments, not our potential. Maybe in San Francisco or New York, there are more interesting things to do. Not where I live.</p>
<p>CS: I agree w/JHS. The 4th point: you’re correct that few people achieve 2400. I’d also say that those who achieve that and continue to try to knock a 36 – well, that reflects on deeper issues of character in my book.</p>
<p>The point I’ve tried to make is that repetitive shots at perfecting the score make you out to be an arrogant person. If that doesn’t concern you, fine. After all, who am I? I and JHS are only a few decades your senior and “we’ve been there, done that” and have been in the situation to hire/fire people. That’s all.</p>
<p>Analyze it how you wish, make your explanations all you want. At your age and life experience, you’re entitled to that. From my side of the table, you’re dangerously tip toeing in the arrogant intellectual, stuffed shirt red zone. Some fields accept that, some even foster it. So I suspect you’ll be successful wherever you go. </p>
<p>Humility is a universally taught trait. Its absence is also recognized by other folks rather quickly.</p>
<p>I’m gonna put my kids to bed tonight – now that’s a useful venture! GN and GL, CS.</p>
<p>I apologize if I got defensive, because I never intended to be when I started this thread. You and JHS both have given me substantive advice, which is exactly what I wanted. I’d be stupid to ask for opinions and then ignore both of yours. I am keeping what you two said in mind, I just find indirect assessments like “immature” and “arrogant intellectual” a little provoking. I don’t mean to seem like I’m ignoring what you two have said.l</p>
<p>christian, I can guarantee you have as many opportunities to do challenging things wherever it is that you live as I did in the small near-Midwestern city where I grew up. Some of it was chasing girls – much more frustrating than the SAT, and I wasn’t nearly so good at it, but even limited success was very much more satisfying.</p>
<p>cs: i can see how my terms could be read. My sincere apologies to you.</p>
<p>Best of luck to you. In 5 months, not one of these things will matter a lick to you. I can almost guarantee it! LOL</p>
<p>JHS: Leave Christiansoldier alone and mind your own business.</p>
<p>
Hey, what about golf?</p>
<p>christiansoldier, I think JHS is right–but I do understand you a bit. I myself found standardized tests to be fun (weird as that is). But it really isn’t a very good use of time–you might want to take up crossword puzzles, or acrostics–they give a bit of the same enjoyment, if they’re hard enough.</p>
<p>Ummm, this is a pretty old thread. The christiansoldier admissions drama got played out a long time ago. It would be interesting to know what he thinks in retrospect, after a year of socialization in elite-college values. </p>
<p>Hunt: The golf counterexample is discussed above under the pseudonym “shot putting”.</p>
<p>Duhhh. I didn’t notice the oldness of the thread.</p>