Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SAT: Getting the lowest score possible

colinfahey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: SAT: Getting the lowest score possible

#41

Post by ComputerGuru »

biscarch wrote: post #24
ComputerGuru wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's clear (to me at any rate) that you're being sarcastic. But, speaking as someone who once was a SAT taker and now is in a position to hire people based on their SAT scores, your sarcasm is unwarranted and you're looking at the SAT in an incorrect light: the SAT, all things considered, does reflect something . It's not a random number the College Board pulls out of their backside. At the end of the day, havin…

"(believe me, it takes MONTHS (or even years) of dedication to actually ace the PSAT or SAT)" I'm disinclined to believe this statement. Would you mind taking the time to prove this for me? Also, what is considered an "ace" score? In my experience the PSAT and SAT were tests that measured how well you can take tests and I do not consider my personal test scores to be the result of years of hard work and dedication.

The PSAT is (in my anecdotal opinion) much harder to "ace" than the SAT. NMSQT qualification was around ~215/240 for last year, that would definitely count as flying colors. I'd say anything over 205ish would be "acing" the PSAT.

I've met many highly-talented individuals who did really great on PSAT/ACT/etc, but none of whom could have achieved a 200+ on the PSAT without studying (for) the test extensively beforehand. In fact, I'd bet there isn't a single NMSQT scholar who didn't kill themselves in preparation for the PSAT.

Re: SAT: Getting the lowest score possible

#43

Post by [deleted] »

tokenadult wrote: post #19

A lot of the comments here are related to the idea of whether or not the SAT can be regarded as being much like an IQ test. It can, and psychologists routinely think of the SAT that way. Despite a number of statements to the contrary in the various comments here, taking SAT scores as an informative correlate (proxy) of what psychologists call "general intelligence" is a procedure often found in the professional liter…

[deleted]

Re: SAT: Getting the lowest score possible

#44

Post by WildUtah »

[deleted] wrote: post #43
tokenadult wrote: post #19

A lot of the comments here are related to the idea of whether or not the SAT can be regarded as being much like an IQ test. It can, and psychologists routinely think of the SAT that way. Despite a number of statements to the contrary in the various comments here, taking SAT scores as an informative correlate (proxy) of what psychologists call "general intelligence" is a procedure often found in the professional liter…

[deleted]

West Germany and East Germany, North Korea and South Korea, China and Taiwan

These nations exhibit a strong difference in adult height also. The reason is well known to be mass childhood malnutrition in command political-economies.

Ethical studies cannot reproduce the effect because malnourishing children is not ethical. Relationships between environment and heritable factors in human development are heavily dependent on context and cannot be objective by definition. When that context includes an overwhelming factor like childhood malnutrition or childhood lead exposure, the results will be extreme. The usual randomized controlled trials or twin studies or genetic marker studies cannot adequately deal with that kind of effect and are not really intended to.

Modern academic studies of IQ seem to refer to populations of well fed, healthy, well cared-for, children raised with free education according to a uniform curriculum in free liberal nations. That is very much a formula for shrinking environmental effects by shrinking environmental variance. It's the reverse of a twin study; you make the environment uniform so all the difference in outcome must be a result of heritable factors. Such studies often indicate that g is 60% heritable.

If you threw in some lead poisoning -- as was near universal in the 1950-1975 generation -- or childhood malnutrition -- very common before the twentieth century everywhere -- you would get a very different result. That's not a defect; it's built into the nature of these studies.

Re: SAT: Getting the lowest score possible

#45

Post by biscarch »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #41
biscarch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"(believe me, it takes MONTHS (or even years) of dedication to actually ace the PSAT or SAT)" I'm disinclined to believe this statement. Would you mind taking the time to prove this for me? Also, what is considered an "ace" score? In my experience the PSAT and SAT were tests that measured how well you can take tests and I do not consider my personal test scores to be the result of years of hard work and dedication.

The PSAT is (in my anecdotal opinion) much harder to "ace" than the SAT. NMSQT qualification was around ~215/240 for last year, that would definitely count as flying colors. I'd say anything over 205ish would be "acing" the PSAT. I've met many highly-talented individuals who did really great on PSAT/ACT/etc, but none of whom could have achieved a 200+ on the PSAT without studying (for) the test extensively beforehand…

Thank you.

I was an NMSQT semi-finalist, but not a finalist, so I'm fairly certain I don't qualify as an NMSQT Scholar however, by your definition, I probably aced it. The extent of my studying (for any standardized test) was taking an SAT book from the common library in the house and placing it on the shelf in my room.

I've never put much stock in it, but if what you're saying is true, it has ramifications for my worldview in general. I guess what I'm trying to say is thanks for giving me some perspective, I have some thinking to do.

Re: SAT: Getting the lowest score possible

#47

Post by pcwalton »

jlgreco wrote: post #39
tokenadult wrote: post #19

A lot of the comments here are related to the idea of whether or not the SAT can be regarded as being much like an IQ test. It can, and psychologists routinely think of the SAT that way. Despite a number of statements to the contrary in the various comments here, taking SAT scores as an informative correlate (proxy) of what psychologists call "general intelligence" is a procedure often found in the professional liter…

Has the SAT been found to have a disparate impact on protected minorities, like other "IQ" tests have been? I know employers usually consider any sort of "IQ test" in America to be legally risky for discrimination reasons; I wonder if Universities could face similar issues. A lot of those things, particularly the reading comprehension sections, seem like they could be heavily influenced by culture.

There have been a lot of accusations of that over the years, which was part of the reason why the analogies section was dropped. Here's an article from 2003 mentioning probably the most infamous SAT question in this regard ("runner : marathon :: regatta : oarsman" -- the issue of course being that wealthy students are more likely to know what a regatta is): http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/27/local/me-sat27

Re: SAT: Getting the lowest score possible

#48

Post by [deleted] »

biscarch wrote: post #45
ComputerGuru wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PSAT is (in my anecdotal opinion) much harder to "ace" than the SAT. NMSQT qualification was around ~215/240 for last year, that would definitely count as flying colors. I'd say anything over 205ish would be "acing" the PSAT. I've met many highly-talented individuals who did really great on PSAT/ACT/etc, but none of whom could have achieved a 200+ on the PSAT without studying (for) the test extensively beforehand…

Thank you. I was an NMSQT semi-finalist, but not a finalist, so I'm fairly certain I don't qualify as an NMSQT Scholar however, by your definition, I probably aced it. The extent of my studying (for any standardized test) was taking an SAT book from the common library in the house and placing it on the shelf in my room. I've never put much stock in it, but if what you're saying is true, it has ramifications for my wo…

[deleted]

Re: SAT: Getting the lowest score possible

#49

Post by aggie »

imjk wrote: post #34
tokenadult wrote: post #19

A lot of the comments here are related to the idea of whether or not the SAT can be regarded as being much like an IQ test. It can, and psychologists routinely think of the SAT that way. Despite a number of statements to the contrary in the various comments here, taking SAT scores as an informative correlate (proxy) of what psychologists call "general intelligence" is a procedure often found in the professional liter…

How do you reconcile the large leaps in SAT scores that people achieve through preparing for the test? For example, while I had a fairly respectable score in high school, after I spent a little time working as an SAT tutor in college, I was regularly scoring perfectly on all practice tests and recently release new tests. Surely my IQ hadn't jumped drastically. Just curious for your take on this.

Your IQ could see a similar jump if you spent a lot of time practicing for and taking IQ tests.

IQ is a psychometric measure of a construct, intelligence, so when you increase your IQ by getting better at taking the test, you are not actually increasing intelligence, just influencing the measure of it.

Re: SAT: Getting the lowest score possible

#50

Post by brianchu »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #41
biscarch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"(believe me, it takes MONTHS (or even years) of dedication to actually ace the PSAT or SAT)" I'm disinclined to believe this statement. Would you mind taking the time to prove this for me? Also, what is considered an "ace" score? In my experience the PSAT and SAT were tests that measured how well you can take tests and I do not consider my personal test scores to be the result of years of hard work and dedication.

The PSAT is (in my anecdotal opinion) much harder to "ace" than the SAT. NMSQT qualification was around ~215/240 for last year, that would definitely count as flying colors. I'd say anything over 205ish would be "acing" the PSAT. I've met many highly-talented individuals who did really great on PSAT/ACT/etc, but none of whom could have achieved a 200+ on the PSAT without studying (for) the test extensively beforehand…

I second what biscarch said. It is most certainly an over-generalization to imply that highly-talented individuals must have studied for the PSAT in order to have done well. In my experience, it is quite common for intelligent people to do very well (NMSC Finalists) without studying, especially because that was true for me and several of my friends.
Post reply on HN