Are we to assume that every Ivy grad with a high SAT score is of “genius intelligence”? Does one have to be “near genius” in order to be very smart and to be worth talking to? Can a non “genuis” engage in lively, intelligent interactions? Is someone like that automatically unworthy of life partnership with “authentic” Ivy league individuals?
Your attitude displays the stereotypical mentality which gives Ivy grads a bad rap: that of the elitist, pedantic boor who thinks he is superior to everyone else, that he is always the smartest person in the room, that higher SAT score necessarily means superior intellect, that others with non Ivy educations are lacking in comparison.
If this woman was so inferior intellectually, your “smarter” Ivy league friend should have been able to figure that out pretty quickly. Maybe he actually knows more than you do.
The last conversation I had with my friend who is a Princeton grad was about “Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” vs. “Vanderpump Rules”. I’m sure someone with a 1100 SAT could have kept up with that conversation just fine.
Because (horrors!!!) the (fictitious) kid apparently chose Alabama over it–at least in the mind of the CC personnel who decided to make this a “featured discussion” and added the visuals as click-bait, I presume.
The original post in this thread was about choosing the University of South Carolina over Colgate, but I guess that wasn’t inflammatory enough, so they substituted Alabama for USC and Amherst for Colgate.
I don’t think the full photo is still available but I posted a question about it in #229.
" Very top students may have difficulty fitting in at an average school."
Interesting to note that many very top ( I am talking about those who never had a single “B” in their entire life) actualy cannot stand to be surrounded strictly by intense acadmically focused crowd. They want non-pushy “normal” kids around them that they can simply talk and be friends. Both of my D. and grandD. have been dealing with this issue. D. said that if she chose to attend at expensive private (she was accepted at one with huge Merit of 27k / year), she would be among the same type of kids as in her rigorous private HS. but she wanted variety of people around her. that was one of her reasons to choose in-state public and even there, she decided to have a Music minor and be in sorority because she did not want to be strictly with intense pre-med crowd all the time. GrandD. said that she is on gymnastics team in her HS because these are the only kids that she can talk “normally”. She is at test-in HS in NYC that normally have more than 30 aaplicants for each spot of freshman class. Both of them never had an experience of having a “B” in any class, if they like the subject or not was always irrelevant. These kids do not want to be “pushed” by thier peers, they motivated enough by themselves. They are seeking grounded kids with very wide range of interests like themselves. They are seeking group that have an unspoken rule of not discussing academics and academic achievements, they do not care to compare themselves to others, they only know how to achieve at perfection level that is set by them personally.
You don’t need to know someone’s IQ, SAT, or where he/she went to school to know if he/she isn’t that bright. I could tell by having a brief conversation. I would prefer my girls to marry someone with higher IQ for my grandchildren’s sake .
“to know if he/she isn’t that bright.” - this is the whole point. Some very top caliber students do not want to be surrounded strictly by those who consider themselves “bright”, they do not choose their friends by judging their mental capacity, they simply want to have a good time and be with great variety of people with wide range of interests, they wnat to relax and enjoy their friendships, they do not care about “intellectual” conversations, there are lots of very high density of intellect in their academics, enough is enough.
These discussions about whether elite schools open doors or not are a bit silly. I think they reveal more about the psychology of the people discussing it than they do about the schools.
They are really pretty much the same as a discussion of whether it will help a woman’s social life if she dyes her hair blonde.
The statement was made that an 1100 SAT does not indicate near genius or something to that effect, and I am saying that I don’t think an SAT score is a good indicator of overall intelligence. One measure, but certainly not a complete measure as there are many reasons why one may have scored low on the SAT.
@happyalumnus, I have read plenty of your posts where you brag, so you can stop with the holier than thou …I was making point about SAT not necessarily correlated to IQ. if it makes you happier I scored 1575 on 2 part SAT and my IQ is 89. I can see how it came across as a brag of my own, but was not my intent, so I recant
New response - SAT is not a reliable indicator of an individuals overall level of intelligence. End quote.
“SAT is not a reliable indicator of an individuals overall level of intelligence”
SAT is a low level test that checks a basic education primarily at the middle school level. Some top caliber kids do not do as well as expected becuase they do not realize that they needed to re-fresh the academic material from the middle school. Anybody who sits down with the kid and looked over what is actually on the SAT will figure this fact right away. I do not know what intelligence has to do with k - 12 education, SAT exam and actually with UG education. Hard working kid who does the homework on time and does it well will get an A in the class, there are no exceptions. Intellegence factor is way overrated and especially in connection with the academic level in American k - 12 that does not prepare kids for college at all.
I’m just making the waggish point that if somebody came here and asked if she should dye her hair blonde, the responses would include:
Yes, blondes definitely have more fun, and you will have more fun if you become a blonde.
I know a blonde person who doesn't have fun at all, and a brunette person who has fun, so clearly blondes don't have more fun and you don't need to dye your hair.
Studies clearly show that (a) blondes have more fun and (b) blondes do not have more fun.
Why does anybody care what color somebody else's hair is in the first place (Pizzagirl will post this one.)
Some blondes may indeed have more fun in some circumstances. (This would be my post).
My cousin is blonde, and has no more fun than my brunette cousin.
At Miami of Ohio, hair color doesn't matter; hard work is what determines whether you have more fun or not.
My relatives include both blonds and not blondes. Only a prestige%^&* would conclude that there is any difference in outcomes between the blonds and the not blondes. And yet- if you can become a blond for free, thereby saving your money for plastic surgery later, only an idiot would pay good money to become a blond.
