<p>Yes, I like to systematize - seeing and creating some semblance of order in the universe is a beautiful endeavor. In fact, it is the end goal of almost every academic pursuit - whether it be philosophy, physics, or history. But I fail to see how attending a world-renown research university (probably one of the five most recognizable institutions worldwide) for tuition that is less than a fourth of the tuition at a private liberal arts college is a product of that desire to systematize.</p>
<p>If what I am saying does not make sense, perhaps you ought to work on your reading comprehension.</p>
<p>‘1) why dont u consider skill in science or history to represent intelligence?’</p>
<p>First, ‘science’ is such a vague term as to render itself meaningless. But to answer your question, skills can be, and, by definition are, learned (e.g. how to balance an equation or interpret a ancient Chinese document), while intelligence is not something you learn. Skills are very well and good - they ought to be taken into account with high school grades and tests like the SAT-II and APs. They are distinct from intelligence, however. The facets of intelligence that account for easy development of skill in history and science are represented on IQ tests (and thus, per the Frey/Detterman study, the SAT.)</p>
<p>“the whole job of admissions counselors is to know the schools theyre reviewings reputations so theyd take the podunk factor into account”</p>
<p>That’s an utterly ridiculous, and unnecessary, I may add, expectation to have of admissions counselors. It’s one thing if you’re a huge university that receives tens of thousands of applications a year, most from a single state, like the University of California does. In that case, it is probably possible to develop a strong correlation between grades from students from a particular school and the college GPA its alumni receive. But what happens in the case of a small liberal arts college that only gets a single student from a school a year (or has never had an applicant from the school)? Or what happens in the case of the student who attends a high school that gives out A’s for being sentient, but has a very high GPA that he would have received had he even gone to the most rigorous prep school in the nation, but is assumed to be less worthy because of the lax academic character of his high school? The point in both these examples is that there is no replacement for nationally-administered standardized tests, whether they be curriculum, or intelligence-based, in determining academic success and potential. </p>
<p>‘3) rather than avoiding my question, why dont u actually answer it’
What question am I not answering?</p>
<p>“4) i guess ill reiterate since you again managed to avoid answering my question- why on earth would i consider this subject to be important enough to make up a story for?”</p>
<p>You want to prove a point and there is no downside to lying, perhaps. I have better things to do than speculate on the motivations of some guy on an internet forum. Either way, I don’t actually care if what you say happened or didn’t - an anecdote proves nothing; scholarly studies like the one I cited that say SAT coaching does little do prove things. Now go play in the sandbox with the rest of the children who fail to understand the difference between an anecdote and data.</p>