Hierarchy of LI High Schools? (Gates, Italy: community college, professionals, bill)

[dman72]

SAT scores are an attempt at having a standardized test that predicts potential academic achievement in a University setting. It's not any more complicated than that. They are neither designed or meant to predict someones capability of being a good Quarterback, pizza parlor owner, or violin player.

While I'm not a fan of putting so much emphasis on one test, to me, does anyone have a better idea that puts everyone on the same playing field?

[LIOC]

Originally Posted by NYCAnalyst

What about people in the New York Philharmonic Orchestra? Generally, they don't compose their own music, they play somebody else's score - it's all practice and muscle memory. You could argue that they are not very intelligent.

Or an NFL Quarterback - the ability to break tackles, read the secondary coverage, call audibles, pick up the blitz, etc - all on the fly. You can argue - that is talent which does require brainpower, so all NFL quarterbacks must be intelligent, for example Michael Vick.

Are all NBA point guards intelligent for similar reasons? As "floor generals", it is their job to run the team's offense by controlling the ball, reading the defense, setting up plays correctly, and making sure his team scores - in the matter of 24 seconds. You could argue that Stephon Marbury and Sebastian Telfair are two very intelligent people.

I think you just made the best argument to why your limited view and standard (SAT score) is flawed as a definitive measure of intellect.

[azzurrony]

Originally Posted by dman72

SAT scores are an attempt at having a standardized test that predicts potential academic achievement in a University setting. It's not any more complicated than that. They are neither designed or meant to predict someones capability of being a good Quarterback, pizza parlor owner, or violin player.

While I'm not a fan of putting so much emphasis on one test, to me, does anyone have a better idea that puts everyone on the same playing field?

Dman...I don't think anyone here is saying we should do away with the SAT. What I'm saying is that it is not the sole indicator of intelligence.

The problem I have with NYCAnalyst is that he puts too much weight in the SAT as an indicator of intelligence. One could be very bright, but not have formal education and therefore they would score poorly on the SAT. Someone else could be quite mediocre, and yet with some tips, tricks, and memorization of patterns, they could do quite well on the SAT...without the ability to critically think, laterally think, and come up with creative ideas.

Improving your reading speed or memorizing patterns in math problems is not that impressive to me.

[Jdawg8181]

Originally Posted by azzurrony

This is ridiculous. Beethoven composed music and "played the piano". You don't think that took intelligence?

I scored quite high on my SAT. Itzhak Perlman probably wouldn't score any better. Yet, I consider him to be much more intelligent than me. He's a genius at what he does. His brains ability to interpret tones, piece them together, and output them in a fantastic way is something my brain nor yours can do. He also happens to have have incredible hand eye coordination and skill, but that doesn't erase the brain power necessary to do what it does at a genius level.


Talent which uses brainpower IS indicative of intelligence. That's what you aren't getting. Talent which doesn't use brainpower (ie. slam dunking a basketball) is NOT indicative of intelligence.

----

Let's take another example. We all know that people with a gift for gab...the smooth talkers if you will of the world...generally find a great deal more success than the introverted. I see it all the time in the corporate world. The ability to think quickly on your feet, assess your environment, and have your brain allow you to say the right thing at the right time is a form of intelligence. That person may do poorly on the SAT, but their ability verbalize and connect with others is at a very high level. They are using a part of the brain that some strong SAT test taker may not be using. They too are intelligent but for different reasons.

Reading comprehension, vocabulary memorization, and math problem solving are but 3 of countless indicators of intelligence.

Not only that, Beethoven was deaf. It's pretty amazing to not only compose your own music, AMAZING music at that, but to be able to compose said music while you can't even hear it! He was able to do it just by feeling the vibrations.

[hotkarl]

The SAT really is not a very good indication of intelligence levels.
Some people are dumb as a box of rocks, yet are good "test takers", and obviously on the flip side you've got people who are brilliant that couldn't perform on a test to save their life.

[azzurrony]

NYCAnalyst,

Michael Vick can't read defenses...so he's not intelligent.

I would argue that even musicians who don't compose music are intelligent. It takes brain power to read music that quickly, process it, and then output that kind of skill. That's why very few people can do it no matter how much practice.

I would also argue that very few people in the world can be an elite NFL Quarterback. It's a combination of the brain power and raw skill. Yes, intelligence is required to play the position properly. Hell, there is a backup QB in the NFL from Harvard (Ryan Fitzpatrick) who has very limited skill, but he's in the league because he can read defenses and process information very quickly. Now, are QB's highly intelligent? Not many. Offensive coordinators design most of the plays anyway, but there is intelligence involved in their position. QB's aren't going to always be studious and "book smart", but they clearly have to use their brains and cognitive skills at a high level on Sundays.

Basketball isn't a good analogy because that is not as structured as football. It's way more free wheeling and takes much less intelligence.

[dman72]

Originally Posted by azzurrony

Dman...I don't think anyone here is saying we should do away with the SAT. What I'm saying is that it is not the sole indicator of intelligence.

The problem I have with NYCAnalyst is that he puts too much weight in the SAT as an indicator of intelligence. One could be very bright, but not have formal education and therefore they would score poorly on the SAT. Someone else could be quite mediocre, and yet with some tips, tricks, and memorization of patterns, they could do quite well on the SAT...without the ability to critically think, laterally think, and come up with creative ideas.

Improving your reading speed or memorizing patterns in math problems is not that impressive to me.

I think maybe he/she puts weight on it because it's an indicator of what school his/her wannabe elite kid is going to get into...doesn't seem to me like he/she cares much about anything other than being able to thumb his/her nose at people.

[Jdawg8181]

Originally Posted by hotkarl

The SAT really is not a very good indication of intelligence levels.
Some people are dumb as a box of rocks, yet are good "test takers", and obviously on the flip side you've got people who are brilliant that couldn't perform on a test to save their life.

Precisely. This is what I have been saying all along, lol. At least someone gets it!

[hotkarl]

Intelligence is such a relevant term.

If you had me perform brain surgery, you'd be calling me complete idiot before the operation was even completed.
On the opposite end, if you took the brain surgeon and asked him to change the sparkplugs on his vehicle, you'd be calling him a complete idiot before the job was done.

So, one man's stupidity is another man's specialty.

What would all the Ivy Leaguer's do without Jiffy Lube?
What would the Jiffy Lube mechanic do without H&R Block?
Get it?

[dman72]

How this ended up being about what intelligence is or how it is measured, I'm not sure, but what I do know is that this analyst dude wants his kid to go to an Ivy league school so he can brag about it, and that's pretty much it.