/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10464789
I dont know. That sentence doesn't make sense because the last part compares (with the word than) two completely unrelated concepts.

>>10464789
than it is OF
guy forgot a word.

>>10464789
their kids were extra dumb outliers, the SAT has become progressively less and less correlated with the G factor, and the ACT even moreso.

Lol. You can still have dumb kids when you're rich who fuck around and dont even do the bare minimum they need in that demographic to get into a place like USC.
This guy just wants justification for the six months of study he had.

>>10464789
if you consider intelligence to be education then, yes

>>10464789

Literally one of the first things our proctor told us on the orientation before the SAT was given was that the test was designed specifically to discriminate against blacks.

Tests measure how well people know subject matter, but not exclusively- they also measure how well people take tests, and test design can be made to make otherwise intelligible material considerably less easy to apply. Just ask my Capstone professor...

>>10464789
No. US specifically grants colleges/universities the ability to racially discriminate against minorities like Asian-Americans(if the baseline majority is white).

>>10465293
>being a proctor makes you qualified to opine about anything other than sitting in a quiet room and looking for cheating

>>10465293
it's specifically designed to discriminate against the low iq, which is of course synonymous with blacks

>>10465293
Yes, it's all a big conspiracy

>>10465293
But what job or function can a person who cannot score highly on a standardized intelligence test offer society? Dribbling?
The discrimination charge is incoherent. A black person who actually knows the material will do fine. There is no point at which scores are atered based on skin color. The "discrimination," like Holder's disparate impact nonsense, is the result of those people being dumb and lazy.

>>10464789
imagine being rich and sitting down to study, or sitting through a 4 hour exam. Their time is worth more than the results, hence how they bought their degrees. It's only a problem now because they were caught, no one cared to even question their credentials before.

>>10465373
it's simply a cover for nepotism which has always existed in business and government

No, the SAT can be practice for and taken multiple times thus undermining itself as being an objective measure of intelligence (it is NOT encouraged for people to take official IQ tests multiple times in a short period of time let alone practice for one). What the SAT actually is a academic readiness test, if you score low colleges can still accept you under the caveat that you take remedial courses. If you score high they will offer scholarships because having high mark students raise their status.

The reason the wealthy throw money at schools for their kid is because they only care about the credentials and status. They see no reason for their kids to make an effort when ultimately they aren't going to be stuck doing lab rat work. Obviously it's bad because it takes slots away from other kids who actually care about the opportunity.

>>10465384
all your scores get reported to the college you apply to when you take the SAT multiple times
admission officers know that you can game the test in this way and so are more likely to ignore an abnormally high test score

off topic and hearsay but sort of interesting https://www.unz.com/isteve/college-admissions-advice-from-a-former-employee-of-rick-singer/

>>10465397

If the main goal is to get into college then it doesn't matter. Most people just care about getting in not scoring abnormally high. Which is why you can't really use the SAT (even though they do) as a objective measure of intelligence because it's clearly meant for readiness.

>>10465381
SAT is a cover for nepotism? How does that work? And why would nepotism need to be covered, colleges call it legacy.

>>10465293
lol, good thing stereotype threat failed to replicate or that could have harmed the scores of minority students.
But anyway, they do item analysis and carefully remove questions that might be discriminatory against minority students. And the SAT isn't under-predictive of black success like you would think if it was discriminatory.

>>10464789
But I thought intelligence was correlated with wealth?

>>10465752
Yes but but wealth also correlates with your kids becoming spoiled shits.

>>10465375
>Their time is worth more than the results
I don't understand what you mean by this. Pls explain.

>>10465544
>legacy
a MASSIVE class-action suit waiting to happen

>>10465381
but people with perfect SAT's also have higher iq and are more capable of getting advanced degrees in STEM subjects, are more productive, and more likely to be high earners and stay out of trouble with law enforcement. You think literally all of that is just social pressures and systematized bias on their behalf? Like if a very bright white kid from Arizona who went to a middle class school had perfect ACT scores you would assume it was because he was only good at taking tests? That doesn't seem stupid to you?

>>10465879
ACT is not particularly well correlated to g and the SAT is increasingly less so

>>10465879
I got a 36 on the math and a 26 on the science of the ACT. Pretty good at taking tests but it was because I'm good at math.
As a side note, I got 34 on English and 29 on Reading. Ironically, I ended up studying science because it's my passion, though according to the ACT it's my "worst" field.

>>10465293
Maybe niggers should stop being so retarded then.

>>10465384
The SAT costs money to take all those times. Poor people don't have that kind of money.

>>10464789
Rich people can afford to take expensive preparatory classes for SAT where they are taught to hack the SAT by people who have set the SAT or people who have sat the SAT so many times that they’ve been unfazed by anything collegeboard throws at them. Their learning curve is so much shortened that they literally have to turn up for the classes and just one shot clear the SAT with a high score.

>>10466055
True, but even with that some still can't manage to force their spoiled prat into college so they have to resort to bribery.

Intelligence and wealthy upbringing are correlated. But at the same time I know people who had shit GPAs in HS and got scores in the 30s, so it's not completely wrong.

>>10464789

no.
SAT is a test of accumulated knownledge.
If we assume that the correlation between knownledge accumulation and IQ is 1.0 then SAT is a test of intelligence.

ITT: lazy millenials complain about having to study for tests

>>10466287
It doesn't correlate with intelligence if you study for it

>>10465626
Hmm.. maybe it was a reverse psyop and the based proctor wanted to ensure the blacks failed

>>10466315
They might be if you had to integrate the basic knowledge with your own capabilities.

>>10464789
No. The typical argument the other way is that test scores for people from less affluent backgrounds are lowered due to that background, not that afflient people always do well. However, there is another obvious point to make: those scores from people 'abusing' the system don't show up any differently to people who don't abuse it, he's arguing from a weirdly idealised position that invalidates the test results in a lot of ways if you want to be consistent.

>>10465934
Science ACT is least g loaded portion of the test, which is why universities don't ask for it. You scored high because of your high innate intelligence, not because you are good at math and english.

>>10465397
You can take multiple practice tests that are run by test preparation companies before going to take the real test.

These admissions test are so bad in measuring this supposedly inate and static power of intelligence (IQ). Some of the comapnies that make the test straight up tell you that you can study for it and try to push their own test prep material during checkout when you buy a seat to take the test. So much for the idea of a static IQ. How impressive is one's IQ when one day he could score 140 and another day he could be 110?

>>10467146
>company selling product claims product is effective
Holy shit anon

>>10467221
So do standard tests measure IQ in some way? If we believe that IQ is constant or at least insignificantly variable and we also believe that these tests somewhat measure IQ, then either we contradict the word of the test companies, hopefully from a position of better understanding than the test makers themselves or that these tests are a bad measure of IQ and are a bad predictor of success in college or graduate school.

Still makes you dumb. Why go to college in the first place

>>10464789
You must of went to peanut University if you don't believe this guy

>>10465871
Money makes money, hard work makes someone else money because your money pays for their work. Hard work for yourself like studying or taking exams costs money and time.

>>10466315
Yes it does.The SAT tests your crystallized intelligence (intelligence derived from information you have acquired in the past)

>>10467281

>>10464857
It's basically a test of

>do you have the ability to procure study materials for the test?
>Can you get a tutor?
>Does your school actually have shit to help out it's students?
>Do you know the test's culture? How they format and design the question (biggest factor to uni success, knowing how your prof stylizes their questions)?

>>10464789
This has been going on for years. People are genuinely surprised? When you hinge something so lifechanging on a test of course people will do what they can.

>>10465934
reading english math science 34 34 35 36

studied by playing dota 2 in my basement all summer before senior year, telling my parents im studying for act. you literally have to be retarded to get a low score

>>10465399
>off topic and hearsay but sort of interesting https://www.unz.com/isteve/college-admissions-advice-from-a-former-employee-of-rick-singer/
bumping this b/c i think it's legitimately of interest to current HS students

>>10464789
Yes. Genetics has a much larger influence on IQ, and thus educational attainment, than SES does, unless your environment is completely fucked up. Genetics is partly causal for SES, but standardized testing is an easy way to sort it out.

>>10467823
SES is pretty vital though.

>>10467588
>DotA 2
Ask me how I know you're lying?

>>10467385
money is a necessary condition to make money, but it is not sufficient.

>>10464789
No, if you get away with cheating on things on tests that test things which you will never need to know in succeed in life, then you should do so. It's stupid to not use the advantages you were born with (ie wealth, intellegince, etc.) to advance in life. People will only care if you get caught, so don't get caught and that in itself will be a proof of your intelligence.

>>10465293
Your proctor is retarded and you're even dumber for swallowing.

It's more a measure of how trainable you are/inclined to train than intelligence or g factor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elhyo-_fR0E

These actors, these Hollywood types, they can't go to MIT. They can't go to Wharton finance. Bad genes. They buy admissions to USC. Cheater genes. Bad, bad genes.

>>10464789
complete retards can get high SAT scores. It's literally just a measure of how well you can study for a test. Colleges know this, and allow you to combine scores.

>>10471259
If you can't figure out what he's saying here then you're actually retarded

>>10471259
I agree Mr Trump. Trump 2020

Yes. But remember the SAT cannot be extrapolated to anything other than university admissions and doesnt speak for all standardized admissions tests. But its pretty good at what it does seeing as you literally have to be rich to even attempt to get around it

>>10467396
There are so many assumptions you've got to make with crystallized intelligence tho, and if you're already trying to measure a SD above the mean you're going to be getting a lot of noise even assuming you can write/design a good test.

To give you some idea of what I'm getting at, someone who's grown up in the projects is going to have been exposed to extremely different information to some whitebread from a gated community because it's about what information you happen to have passively picked up from your environment by being smart. One of the classic arguments goes along the lines of "Is wicked an antonym or synonym of good?", to which the answer for a lot of people would be "both".

>>10465934
26 math 36 science here (hadn't taken math in 2 years). 30 English 34 Reading.
Now we have to meet up and fight each other or something

>>10471336
Post data showing that you can meaningfully prep for the SAT and I'm inclined to believe you, maybe
I took the test cold, once, because I fell for the prepping doesn't help meme

The "rich kids get better scores because they can buy endless test prep" is just a proxy cope for the eternally lagging scores of black students. Tell me why I can grab Nab Thim Ton Dwin of Hanoi at age six off the street, feed him nothing but ramen and water for 11 years and send him to a public school and the moment he steps into a test room he is going to blow everyone the fuck out.

>>10472602
Fuck you zipperhead

>>10464789
No - I took tutoring classes back in high school and jumped approximately 400 points (from 1920 on my first try to 2340 on my second). If it was an objective measurement of intelligence, this wouldn't be possible.

Yes, rich people committed felonies to try to avoid legitimate means of boosting their kids scores - they're the edges of the bell-curve with kids that are both rich and extremely stupid/lazy. The other 99.9% of rich folks just spend thousands on aggressive tutoring regimens.

Let's take the socioeconomic argument out of this as well - if the SAT was an authentic measurement of intelligence, why does it predominantly cover algebra I/II and reading comprehension? The brilliant kids in high school are the ones doing multivariable calculus, peer-reviewed research, and publishing their own writing - how exactly does the SAT measure any of that?

>>10472596
>Post data showing that you can meaningfully prep for the SAT and I'm inclined to believe you, maybe

Argument by economics - if tutoring didn't raise people's scores by significant margins, then people wouldn't be shelling out thousands on it. It surely helped everyone in the class I took.

>>10472647

Funnily enough I underperformed the math section of the ACT since I'd only been doing calculus for 2 years and forgot a lot of algebra.

>>10472658
Which is exactly why I think it's a silly means to stratify student achievement - it gives schools a convenient means to throw out a lot of applications, but it doesn't really select for the smartest students.

It's starting to lose utility even as a stratification tool as well - go through any board on the internet about undergrad admissions and you'll see that there's almost equal numbers of top-scoring students (1500+/33+) being admitted/rejected.

This admissions fraud case is especially compelling because it wasn't just test scores - they falsified resumes, ECs, sports participation, etc.

What is probably more important to note here is that the SAT is a poor predictor of success in academics for those who score above the standard deviation, so that the difference in an SAT score for most college bound students is not a rational measure of success.

Furthermore, aside from the elite schools which provide connections more than education, what school you go to makes almost no difference after the first five years of a career.

The takeaway here is that competition in education has not resulted in any better students, but only in a higher cost of education (and a much greater profit for the financial sector) and a loss of opportunity for those who could be successful if not for a few points on a one time test taken as a child.

>>10472655
>homeopathy is real
>expensive crystals and magnets have curative powers
&c
fuck off retard

He isn't saying anything out there in the slightest. SAT measures intelligence better than it measures parents' wealth (which this sociopath is obviously inferring but making objectively muddy i.e. (privileged upbringing; poorly defined but invokes a common meaning while also being able to change meaning if OP gets cornered).

>>10472759
>sociopath
wat

>>10472763
He is unconsciously making the most important feature of his thesis a logical trap which can help him 'win' the argument. If pressured he can fall back on the muddiness of the term, but if not everyone will assume it to mean what he wants. He is not interested in furthering general understanding, he is interested in other people respecting his status.

>>10472822
>280 character shitposter on twatter is disinterested in scientifically formulating his argument; ergo, is sociopath

>>10472647
>The brilliant kids in high school are the ones doing multivariable calculus, peer-reviewed research, and publishing their own writing
I'm an undergrad and most of my peers don't even do this. Show me the peer reviewed papers published by high school students

Anyone have data about this?

>>10472828
Well if we degrade him to a shitposter with 2k genuine likes he's automatically a path, don't even need to dissect where he puts his mud.

>>10472757
That would be a fair point if the placebo effect actually applied to standardized testing. You get a number after you take the SAT - you don't get a number after you take a sugar-pill for your sore ankle.

It's possible for people to think that a sugar pill works because there's a psychosomatic phenomenon that explains that. If a rich kid takes a tutoring class and sees no improvement in their scores, the parents will tell other parents not to spend their money on it.

You all just poor and jealous. I'm glad my parents bought this university

>>10472846
I got published in a respectable journal as a high school student (as a data contributor/researcher, not the actual author of the manuscript).

If I could revise, brilliant kids are more the ones who take really advanced coursework and also make active, worthwhile projects in the things they're interested in. Whether that's a peer-reviewed paper, or a newspaper article, or a home robotics project, etc.

>>10464789
>Is he right?