Bush v. Kerry IQ

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Thiebear

[...]They are both part of the good ole boy system of the 70's...

I know you weren't saying otherwise Thiebear, but the Good Ole Boy network in the US is as old as the country itself. Probably the first formal showing of it was the Buttonwood Accord which was the founding document by which the New York Stock Exchange was started in 1792. In that document, the 24 parties (all wealthy American families with English roots) agreed to trade with each other before trading with anyone else. Although this agreement was a business arrangement, it echoed or, at least, established a precedent that dictated both social and business relationships. The network is still alive and well, if not as powerful as it once was.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne

I thought "recentering" was an adjustment made to better reflect the current society's intelligence? Just like the IQ has ratings associated with scores (i.e. 100 is average or something), I think the SAT has some concept of that as well- if you score a 500 on either test, your performance is considered "average" - the recentering they do every so often is the adjustment of that average as years pass.

In other words, the SATs (and IQ tests for the same reason, I'd imagine) are probably not very comparable across multiple years, and they aren't meant to be. They (presumably/supposedly) measure your intelligence against your peers only.

source about the 500=average:

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/scores/understanding.html

relevant quote:

For example, if you scored close to the mean or average-about 500 on SAT verbal and 500 on SAT math-admission staff would know that you scored as well as about half of the students who took the test.

Actually, there are many more high scores than there used to be, in large part because people prepare for the SATs so much more than they used to. In my graduating class at McLean High in 1980, there was no one who scored over 1500 on the SATs. At the time, McLean and Langley were the two best high schools in Fairfax County. Nowadays an SAT score of better than 1500 is quite common, and every good suburban high school has sveral people who get at least that.

Not to say that I have any idea what a 1206 in the mid 1960's meant.

It is certain that both of these men are very intelligent.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Predicto

Actually, there are many more high scores than there used to be, in large part because people prepare for the SATs so much more than they used to. In my graduating class at McLean High in 1980, there was no one who scored over 1500 on the SATs. At the time, McLean and Langley were the two best high schools in Fairfax County. Nowadays an SAT score of better than 1500 is quite common, and every good suburban high school has sveral people who get at least that.

Not to say that I have any idea what a 1206 in the mid 1960's meant.

It is certain that both of these men are very intelligent.

So what do the percentiles mean? When it says "15xx" and "9x" percentile, what does that mean, because I'm pretty sure, again, that the numbers are kind of tailored to roughly approximate your "intelligence" relative to your peers (with the baseline being 1000). So when you say "1500 is quite common" it's a little confusing to me; if you're somehow right, then it would seem either the percentiles are wrong or the percentiles have lowered to something more representative of a "common" score than being higher than 9x% of your peers.

I understand what you're saying, but the reason I posted that link was to show that the college board recenters to make the average score 1000. I'd think that means that the SAT would have to adjust if a trend caused an imbalance. It is possible, of course, that people who would have gotten 1200s or 1300s in the past now get 1500s. This would mean the percentile number has gotten lower, but still has to be higher than 50, and is likely pretty high. If you're right, then a single question or two could mean little difference in SAT score but a bigger difference in percentile. Really, though, I am not sure what you're considering as your total set; the percentiles I'm referring to are obviously based around the nation's SAT takers; the population you appear to be considering are specific high schools' students. I think the percentiles for a 15xx score are still high 90s (because it considers the American SAT taking population), which I think I would consider uncommon.

[cfujskins]

Wow. We take the ACT here and I scored a 21 on it which is equivalent to a little over 1000 SAT, so whoever said that the SAT is just to see if you are college material is correct in that sense because my IQ is significantly higher than these two men. But there is no way I am smart enough to run a country. No way. Like a black man would stand a chance anyway:rolleyes:

[buzzlightbeer81]

whatever, my SAT's were higher then Bush's, doesnt mean i could be president, this IQ thing is a political joke, its just dumb ****.

Disclaimer= *I in no way support Bush -or- Kerry*