Lowest Raw Score Ever on the SAT

An anonymous reader writes "Lowest Raw Score Ever on the SAT. Relax! You are practically guaranteed to have done better on the SAT than this guy! But the competition for most extreme negative raw score is just beginning..."

Comments

Re:Top 2%

[KiahZero]

My understanding is that the mean is roughly 950 or so, which means that a lot of people are very tightly packed between there and 1250.

Re:Lowest REAL SAT score?

[Scorpio1]

When I was in high school, this incredibly feeble-minded girl in my class got a combined scored of 600. I have yet to hear of someone whose combined score was lower than that and was honestly trying. I mean, one half of mine beat hers.

Re:Top 2%

[ctr2sprt]

1250 is no longer the top 2%, it's about the top 10%. At or slightly before the recentering in '95, it was probably the top 2% (because it was roughly equivalent to a present-day 1400).

That's my reasoning, anyway. I wonder if figuring all this stuff out is part of the test. (Is there a reason that what any sane person would call a "zero" is a 400 on the SATs?)

that's great -- how does liar and thief fit in?

[Anonymous Coward]

He lies to the American public. He steals money and gives it to his friends (KennyBoy, ...)

He's one swell d00d, you should be thrilled.

Re:It's been proven.

[Bastian]

I just read an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that discusses the fact that the correlation between SAT scores and college GPA is about 10%.

Re:I should have the lowest

[alba7]

> This smells like urban folklore. For one thing,
> given the one-dot-per-line restriction,
> how do you make "pacman-type characters?"

This story actually was part of "Parker Lewis Can't Lose". Kubiac (always dump and always hungry) punches "EAT NOW" into the form and scores perfect. No details on the test are known. The pattern just shows when the paper is hold against back light.

Re:Bush

[FallLine]

That doesn't change the fact that his college GPA was in the mid-C to low-B [americanpolitics.com] range...

What is your point? The average GPA at the schools at around the time he attended them was around in fact C, the way they SHOULD be, not the B/B+/A- it is today at most schools these days. In other words, his grades were at least average and probably above the average. What's more, he attained these grades at very good schools, namely, Andover, Yale, and Harvard. Being average at, say, Andover, where 99% of the class goes onto respectable 4 year schools, year after year, and most of those highly selective ones, is a lot different than being average at Podunk public high school, because virtually everyone is competing to some extent. This is especially true when the person in question was not really struggling to attain those grades (there are a lot of people that extend their performance beyond their actual intelligence by working, after a certain fashion, harder than all of their peers). Bush had a social life, other activities, and still managed to attain those grades. It's hardly proof of stupidity. Does it prove he's a real intellect? No, of course not, but it is indicative of a certain level of intelligence.

This is all besides the point though. All I care about is his job performance. I, for one, think he has performed very well, even if not perfectly. I voted for him in 2000 and I will vote for him again in 2004. Academic performance is not the same thing as intelligence and even (allegedly) high intelligence is not sufficient to succeed as a leader. There are many other factors to consider. Case in point: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, two smart people that failed in most important respects as President for different reasons.

Measure of Wealth

[parkov]

As someone who's tutored plenty of students in SAT's, I can say this: The SAT's may gauge intelligence, problem-solving ability, and test-taking skills, but just as much, if not moreso, it tests that student's resources. I've had students who are extremely bright, but due to their poverty, just don't have the resources to compete with students who have the resources of, say, a George W. Bush. Their public schooling is atrocious, they don't have the money for lots of tutoring and several retests, they don't have access to information like free tutoring, free practice tests, and resources online. The fact that so many people will take the SAT's as a cut and dry measure of one's smarts is disturbing to say the least. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the education is dependent on the child's wealth as well.

Re:Measure of Wealth

[tedrlord]

If you need to "study" and "practice" beyond one run through, you really haven't learned anything and aren't prepared to do anything other than peform rote learning.

Which is what most students studying for the test are doing. A lot of people that did well on the SAT achieved that goal by spending a long time studying SAT guides and getting SAT tutoring. For them, at least, the test proved mostly that they had learned how to take the SAT.

Re:Measure of Wealth

[heff]

I knew lots of rich kids that were dumb as bricks and subsequently failed the SAT.

At the same time, I knew lots of "poor" kids who's score nearly killed everyone.

Then they applied for financial aid, got it, and are now succeeding in college.

Re:Measure of Wealth

[spike2131]

I used to tutor the SATs, and the company I worked for charged $54 an hour for my services. At those rates, our clientelle wasn't exactly in poverty.

But I did my job well and it wasn't unusuall to bring a kids score up by close to 200 points.

Poverty may not "justify" poor performance, but higher scores can certainly be had if the parents care to shell out the money.

Re:Top 2%

[ksheff]

Is there a reason that what any sane person would call a "zero" is a 400 on the SATs?

Grade Inflation. SAT scores have been one measure of how good the school system is doing and the scores were slipping. The secondary schools didn't want to admit they were graduating an increasing number of morons and the colleges didn't want to be seen lowering their entry requirements in order to admit the same number of students per year. The 'recentering' was a cheap, easy way to 'fix' the problem.

Re:MCAT vs SAT vs ACT

[benjamindees]

On both tests you are tested on what you know instead of your ability to prepare for the specific test.

Whoa, there, cowboy. The ACT & MCAT are achievement tests, designed specifically to test knowledge. Knowledge is still, AFAIK, something you can acquire and retain almost regardless of your IQ.

The SAT and standard IQ tests, OTOH, are aptitude tests, designed to test a person's ability to solve problems and think critically. This is also something that can be learned, but only to an extent. It is not possible to memorize all of the possible questions on an SAT test, while on an ACT test it is. No matter how much preparation you go through, you cannot teach yourself to be a genius.

More info