How the College Board inflating SAT scores by ~150 points over the last 30 years gave Harvard more leeway to admit not-so-sharp leftist celebrities and scions.
Maybe Harvard's brand is Famous People more than it is Smart People. David Hogg is better at making himself famous than a lot of smart people are.
About 10 or 15 years ago, Steven Pinker proposed that Harvard specialize in admitting the smartest high school students it could find. That proposal went absolutely nowhere.
We would be much better off choosing our leadership class from graduates of Perdue and Virginia Tech. Both Universities have a baked-in ethos of actually contributing something to make society better.
I'm skeptical. Harvard has always had a wider net strategy. They admit a bunch of smart people (and they still have ways of picking out the super-smart kids), and bunch of great writers, and people with political potential. I don't think they have any need to hide statistically the fact that they are taking a bunch of dummies who are woke.
More likely, that's about the time-frame the baby-bust stopped applying and the larger generation following began. More people to choose from to get the golden ticket means you can test 'em how you like, dangerous blueberry candy, lighter than air soda pop, a specially agent to to try to trick them into stealing the gobstopper.
It's one thing to have a lower net, but someone of Hogg's intelligence shouldn't even be going to college, let alone going to what's supposed to be a selective institution. Based on those converted scores, he has a half-standard-deviation lower I.Q. than noted intellectual heavyweight George W. Bush. This is a school that rejects hundreds of white and yellow applicants for perfect standardized-testing scores every year, and they bring this useless jackoff who's even dumber than the legacy kids people joked about them letting in in the past solely because he's the most shameless in his left-wing politics!
It's the most disgusting and shameful of their long-lasting-and-numerous disgusting and shameful admissions practices. I'm genuinely disgusted to see the continued rise of such useless, contemptible people. I will relish in David Hogg's inevitable Kendiesque downfall.
You could maybe derive something for Verbal score only, but I don't know how meaningful it would be. I expect the correlation with IQ is far lower if you use Verbal score only.
I dunno. I would think the SAT Verbal test could only be improved by adding in Math results. Presumably, the designers and consumers of the SAT agreed, otherwise Math would have been dropped long ago.
I think research published on SAT vs IQ is reasonably solid. Seemed to be based on some work by academics and some by various high-IQ societies, using published SAT percentiles and IQ levels. Numbers could be off by a couple points here and there, depending on what data/research they're using.
And yes, the "(M+V)/10 plus a few points" estimate is a rough approximation, but works pretty well across a wide range of scores.
they made it easier a couple of years ago by 1)making it online 2)dropping the games 3)only having 3 total sections 4)no experimental. now the top schools average mid 170s instead of low 170 medians.
The SAT brand has taken as big a hit as the Harvard brand. When you are the gold standard of testing and you water it down at the behest of the Ivies so the Ivies can let in less than qualified minorities, then you've sold out what you actually do. So now, the easiest thing for universities is just to drop the SAT altogether and admit on 'holistic evaluations'. The SAT has only itself to blame here.
I got into a good school in 1985 with a strong verbal SAT and a trash math SAT. The English department of my high school pleaded my case as a once in a generation bla bla bla. And it worked. Even, say, three or four years later, an Asian kid with a perfect score would have drunk my milkshake. Easily.
Probably in the mid 800s. Miss Claudine plagiarized the acknowledgements in her dissertation. Someone of such laziness and intellectual emptiness is unqualified to manage a Subway.
Can they keep diluting their brand forever?
Harvard has 389 years of brand building.
In the last three years, though, Harvard is finally getting challenged by MIT for top college in Cambridge, MA.
Maybe Harvard's brand is Famous People more than it is Smart People. David Hogg is better at making himself famous than a lot of smart people are.
About 10 or 15 years ago, Steven Pinker proposed that Harvard specialize in admitting the smartest high school students it could find. That proposal went absolutely nowhere.
MIT has smarter kids on average, but Harvard always had plenty of smart kids. MIT never, as far as I know, never produced a writer for the Simpsons.
David Hogg has a lot of skills at getting attention for himself and becoming a celebrity that nominally smarter kids don’t have
I don’t like the cut of his jib
Harvard, home of Lawrence Tribe, has no brand other than a cool sweatshirt. We have taken most our leaders from its rarified air and gotten bupkis.
Perhaps we should start eliminating graduates from the Ivy League and start picking people who are actually qualified to run our country.
We would be much better off choosing our leadership class from graduates of Perdue and Virginia Tech. Both Universities have a baked-in ethos of actually contributing something to make society better.
"A chicken in every pot"...Perdue is probably a good idea!
Perdue. Salisbury, MD. Frank Perdue, Honorary Doctorate.
I'm skeptical. Harvard has always had a wider net strategy. They admit a bunch of smart people (and they still have ways of picking out the super-smart kids), and bunch of great writers, and people with political potential. I don't think they have any need to hide statistically the fact that they are taking a bunch of dummies who are woke.
More likely, that's about the time-frame the baby-bust stopped applying and the larger generation following began. More people to choose from to get the golden ticket means you can test 'em how you like, dangerous blueberry candy, lighter than air soda pop, a specially agent to to try to trick them into stealing the gobstopper.
It's one thing to have a lower net, but someone of Hogg's intelligence shouldn't even be going to college, let alone going to what's supposed to be a selective institution. Based on those converted scores, he has a half-standard-deviation lower I.Q. than noted intellectual heavyweight George W. Bush. This is a school that rejects hundreds of white and yellow applicants for perfect standardized-testing scores every year, and they bring this useless jackoff who's even dumber than the legacy kids people joked about them letting in in the past solely because he's the most shameless in his left-wing politics!
It's the most disgusting and shameful of their long-lasting-and-numerous disgusting and shameful admissions practices. I'm genuinely disgusted to see the continued rise of such useless, contemptible people. I will relish in David Hogg's inevitable Kendiesque downfall.
Didn't I see yesterday that Harvard was going to eliminate tuition for families under $200k income?
Yes, and as someone on X joked this means all 2 of them.
Can you have imagined in the past that families making under $200,000 would be needing assistance to pay for education? Mindboggling.
How do we know Hogg's SAT score?
What was the difference between a pure 800 and low one?
If David Hogg were a Dick Tracy villain, his moniker would be Triangle Face.
Ain't that the truth.
I remember that a pre centering verbal over 700 was very rare. High math scores were more common.
Has anyone ever published an estimated IQ correlate for pre 95 verbal SAT scores?
For Verbal+Math, yes.
You could maybe derive something for Verbal score only, but I don't know how meaningful it would be. I expect the correlation with IQ is far lower if you use Verbal score only.
What did Harry Harpending mean in that case?
I dunno. I would think the SAT Verbal test could only be improved by adding in Math results. Presumably, the designers and consumers of the SAT agreed, otherwise Math would have been dropped long ago.
Steve has said in the past that you add the verbal and math and drop a zero. 650+650 is 130 IQ.
The two online calculators I checked added a couple of points to that (pre-recentered) total, but how could anyone tell?
I think research published on SAT vs IQ is reasonably solid. Seemed to be based on some work by academics and some by various high-IQ societies, using published SAT percentiles and IQ levels. Numbers could be off by a couple points here and there, depending on what data/research they're using.
And yes, the "(M+V)/10 plus a few points" estimate is a rough approximation, but works pretty well across a wide range of scores.
More common, yes, but not vastly more common. At least, that's my recollection from a long time ago.
I wonder whether the Law (LSAT) test has been similarly adjusted. Many lawyers are in the bureaucracy, political office, NGOs, etc.
they made it easier a couple of years ago by 1)making it online 2)dropping the games 3)only having 3 total sections 4)no experimental. now the top schools average mid 170s instead of low 170 medians.
The SAT brand has taken as big a hit as the Harvard brand. When you are the gold standard of testing and you water it down at the behest of the Ivies so the Ivies can let in less than qualified minorities, then you've sold out what you actually do. So now, the easiest thing for universities is just to drop the SAT altogether and admit on 'holistic evaluations'. The SAT has only itself to blame here.
Far too much of the entire Western world is being Hoggified.
I got into a good school in 1985 with a strong verbal SAT and a trash math SAT. The English department of my high school pleaded my case as a once in a generation bla bla bla. And it worked. Even, say, three or four years later, an Asian kid with a perfect score would have drunk my milkshake. Easily.
I wonder what kind of SAT Christine Guy would have had if she had tested in 1980. 1000?
Probably in the mid 800s. Miss Claudine plagiarized the acknowledgements in her dissertation. Someone of such laziness and intellectual emptiness is unqualified to manage a Subway.
https://bernoff.com/blog/how-bad-is-harvard-president-claudine-gays-alleged-plagiarism
I'd agree. I wouldn't even have Baldy making sandwiches.
My grandchildren are approaching their college years…taking their first tests this year.
I’m looking forward to telling them that according to the new scales, I got a 1600 on my SATs.