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: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?)

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: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.