Yes, currently a miniscule 69.7% of high school graduates start college in the year after they finish high school.

Let me clear up some confusion. When educated people say that the SAT doesn't mean much that isn't what they are really saying. Rather it is that it doesn't mean much when the scores conflict with your grades.

Well first of all that doesn't happen too often. So if admissions officers ignore the SAT it is rare that they ignored competing information. Secondly it IS true that your grades at a good high school is a better predictor of future results than your SAT score. So that is another reason why ignoring the score will result in few errors.

Where people screw up is when they don't realize that the above paragraph does not imply that the SAT is not a very good predictor of future results even though it is not as good as grades. So if an admissions officer was somehow not privy to grades but was privy to SAT scores he would be crazy not to use those scores. There is a HUGE difference between an 875 score and a 1360 score. But since the high school grades will almost always reflect that difference people can get away without acknowledging it.

You must have misunderstood my post. I am saying that individual college's students are almost all within 150 points of each other. If all the students at Carleton U. were forced to go to MIT instead, their lower grades would be a lot more related to their SAT than the 15% you mentioned.

It does turn out that a measure of whether you are prepared for college (the SAT) is correlated to whether you are prepared for college (classes taken and passed with good marks in high school).

Still, with a huge percentage (69.7%) of high school graduates entering college immediately following high school, we aren't seeing some sort of cream of the crop phenomena causing the quite modest correlations.

They're actually arguing against (or refusing to state they accept) the BOLDED part, not the more subtle part. I'd already aimed at your general point in #97, and I'd absolutely expect the correlations to success to be quite a bit lower the further along in the degree/PhD process you got no matter how wide a range was initially given a shot at it.

Except that they aren't almost all within 150 points of each other. This is particularly true for nearly all colleges and universities, given that none refuses admittance for those with top scores.

The GRE predicts about 4% of the first-year variance in GPA for people seeking an advanced degree.

The claims being made by the academics in this thread are so bizarre and reality-denying, that David has trouble accepting that academics are actually making them. lol.

I am not sure what you are saying. I contend that 1000 scorers who managed to graduate Fresno State would have been at least even money to flunk out of Yale given the same major. Do you disagree?

They wouldn't be prepared for Yale. The SAT is a measure of academic preparedness. I'd imagine that you or I would have also dropped out of Yale. Those idiots work far too hard at boring ass **** and I'll be damned if I'm going to try to wear a cravat* or learn how to ride a horse.

To bring it back to your earlier point, the school with the tightest range of SAT scores is Harvard. The middle 50% has a range of 170 points. That is quite enough of a range to find a strong correlation if one existed there.

*I might be confusing Yale with the characters of Scooby Doo.

My ruler measures dicks better.

Due to squeamishness, I will not be comparing my ruler against your ruler.

I will reiterate that if masculinity is naturally correlated to coding skill, then we'd expect that google is filled with dudes that just make girls quiver at the sight of them.

I think Black Peter is not doing this. He admitted that freshman grades correlate with SAT scores. He also elaborated on his claim that he ignores scores by adding "especially" for foreign students. That would imply that he would not ignore a particularly low score on an American one.

#182/#188/#190/#191/crickets

Do you think its merely coincidental that countries drop penis-shaped missiles on each other?

Or that dick measuring contests appear ubiquitous - whether you're dealing with the smartest academics in the world or peasants and brutes?
Probably.

But metaphors, just sometimes, could speak more truth than facts.

This is probably right, and I will definitely spend some time rethinking my position.

You've said this three times and I've ignored it because it's transparently ridiculous, but you seem to believe it means something.

That male brains have superior spatial analysis skills has nothing to do with whether the most muscled men have better spatial analysis skills.

Let me give you analogy. Men crush women at tennis on average and at the high end due to genetic advantages. Does this necessarily mean that those men who are the most muscled are going to dominate tennis? No, of course not.

So I have no idea why you'd imply the same weird outcome that's not even true for a physical sport like tennis, must be true of men in coding?

You are the one who posited the weird evolutionary pressure thing and that . It is quite obvious that the peoples who had more evolutionary pressure for sexual dimorphism would be more masculine overall.

I disagree completely. Sexual pressures act in multiple ways. Females are selection pressured to have neotony in their features (showing youth, attractive to male brains), at the same as they're selected for psychological traits to be good child nurturers. They're not necessarily related or selected in the same way. There are multiple ways to solve the problem of breeding, and there can be multiple traits, even competing traits, that arise of pressures creating sexual dimorphism.

Your claim that muscular men must therefore be better at coding is as silly as suggesting that women who are childlike in their features must necessarily be better at raising children. Muscularity can be a selected for sexual dimorphism, at the same time spatial analysis could be. Just like neotony or hip ratio in women.

it seems like all the people spouting absurd social construction theories are a combination of signalling virtue and demonstrating low social skills. anyone observing the world around them long enough to become an adult should easily understand men are different than women. it seems like a generation of home schooled kids that haven't left the basement yet commenting on their expertise of social issues while simultaneously ignoring science

this article is worth a read

http://www.weeklystandard.com/pc-cor...rticle/2009393

You read words. I read minds.

Tooth and I already knew he knew he was wrong. If you could read minds (or words), you would have known that.

Well thank you. Although such words should have been written here approximately 13,750 times, you are only the second one ever to do that (after Lestat.) and I appreciate it.

There's a reason David gets more of the good stuff than many of the far younger members of this forum.

I wouldn't **** David's regs with somebody else's dick.