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

Top 2%

[Taral]

Is 1250 really a top 2%? There's something really disturbing about that...

(That's only about 2.5\sigma from the mean...)

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:Top 2%

[darien]

Interesting to note that the top 2% of the population includes people who chose names like "Motherfucking Shit."

Re:Top 2%

[ichimunki]

Sometimes makes you wonder if the large number of "2% smartest" people are related to the large number of people who think they are in the "top 5% wealthiest" category. :)

That said, our society doesn't generally deal well with extreme intelligence. As soon as it is realized that you score well on standardized tests (which is what these measures actually measure, not "intelligence"), there is extraordinary pressure not to "waste" that intelligence. It is usually assuming that a rigorous program of schooling-- and usually in schools controlled by people who are decidedly average intelligence-wise-- is the best course. This is probably a mistake.

Most schools are not designed to nurture independent learning (or thought, really). The medium is a large part of the message and that message is, "obey arbitrary authority, move around at the sound of the bell, you are smart enough to learn the world's history, physics, and advanced match, but you are not smart enough to manage your own time or decide who should teach you what."

Is it any wonder, then, that some of the nation's brightest stars get bored or upset or choose fairly antisocial ways of expressing themselves? The worst case is when those "smart" kids come from otherwise average families. Those parents may act like they've hit the lottery, or simply continue to apply pressure (apparently even subtle sticks are more common than any kind of carrot in these situations) to urge the kid to "use their full potential" or whatever. It's a bit like a gardener who would try to grow his plants faster by sitting in the garden and pulling on the tops of the plants.

Re:Top 2%

[Anonymous Coward]

That about describes my experience.

I got mid 170s in an IQ test that the school/state put me in for - at the time I didn't even know I was doing an IQ test. I was just doing fun and fairly easy spatial and verbal puzzles for an afternoon - some part of which was talking to an entertaining and interesting person (an educational psychologist).

If I had realised the implications of what I was doing I would have flunked it. Twenty-two years later I can look back at a lot of bad-times and finger that test as a cause.

It is usually best that most people do not think of you as belonging to a privileged group.

Schools are awful - merely open prisons for children, ways of keeping them of the streets while their parents work society's treadmills, while preparing them for the same life of indentured servitude. :-)

Read some Ivan Illich . He frames his arguments better than I do.

"Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby "schooled" to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new. His imagination is "schooled" to accept service in place of value. Medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for the improvement of community life, police protection for safety, military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work. Health, learning, dignity, independence, and creative endeavour are defined as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends, and their improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question." Ivan Illich Deschooling Society (1973)

Re:Top 2%

[PetWolverine]

I've witnessed two really smart people get totally tired of school and come close to flunking and not graduating from high school. They were me and my brother.

The odd thing, from my perspective, is that most of my friends get along just fine. I tend to consort with people about as smart as I am (146 IQ, 36 ACT, 1490 SAT, if you think standardized tests have much to do with intelligence), and they don't have the problems I have. I think my failure, and my brother's before mine, has more to do with the type of habits we've learned from our parents than with our intelligence. My parents are both fairly anti-establishment, and have both made relatively successful careers despite (or in my dad's case, because of) that. They've taught my brother and me to hold similar views.

While I call them anti-establishment, I don't mean in a knee-jerk kind of way. There are elements in the System that my parents believe in, and there are elements that they don't believe in. They taught my brother and me to weigh the facts and decide for ourselves what we believe and how to behave because of it. Now, I can't vouch for my brother, but a big part of any explanation for my poor performance in high school isn't so much apathy for learning itself as for demonstrating that I've learned something. I love reading Shakespeare, but I'm not much for doing some silly homework assignment meant to prove to the teacher that I've done the reading. I read books about physics in my spare time, so why should I bother completing some little bit of physics homework? My biggest complaint is classes that grade based on attendance. Quote from my piano teacher this past semester: "I am sure this section was the only one you could fit into your schedule, but if you ever have a chance to take another class piano course, try to schedule for later time; so that your grade will reflect what you can on the keyboard [sic], not when you wake up." That was in an email informing me I had gotten a C in the course. Now, why should what time I wake up ever, ever affect my grade in a class? I obviously came to class enough that she knew I could play the instrument as well as...well, as well as a bassoon major can be expected to; why should I get a C because I didn't come any more often than that? And this is in college!

Too often, performance in school reflect not a person's ability, nor their commitment, nor anything else that's relevant, but instead their ability to get up in the morning, follow a set schedule, do what they're told, and not get into any trouble (since suspensions, at least at my former high school, count as unexcused absences which then affect a person's grade adversely).

Best line

[GreggyBUIUC]

As I can only assume that this page is going to be slashdotted in the next few minutes, I feel its important to share with everyone the best part of the page...

Premise -- dude tries really hard to do really bad on the exam, ends up by accident getting 2 questions right, and scores a 400 on the exam.

"This experiment grew on me as time passed by, and now I am thinking of other
funny angles, like asking Princeton Review or Kaplan if they would be interested
in being able to make the claim that a person who participated in their SAT
preparation course improved his test score by 1200 points!"
--------

Re:Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

George W. Bush got a verbal score of 566 and a math score of 640, for a combined score of 1206. According to this site, this means he has an IQ of approximately 129. This places him in the 97th percentile, assuming a normal gaussian distribution with mean 100 standard deviation of 15, or the 96th percentile, assuming a standard deviation of 16.

What does it measure though?

[GreggyBUIUC]

Scoring well on the SAT, or any other standardized test does little more than to prove that you can do well on standardized tests.

I'm in college now, and did relatively well on my SAT, but I'm a slacker... especially when it comes to academics. Just a plain lazy bastard.

The thing is that I had alot of friends who didn't do so well on the SAT, but they got into their undergrad school and worked their butt off and are now on their way to Med school. Now granted, in order to get into a good one, you still have to go through a nasty little M-CAT, something I know nothing about.

It seems though that something like the SAT shows little more than how you prepare for a very specific test and how you perform on a very specific day. What it shows to a lesser degree is your level of persistence, self discipline and perhaps most notably, your common sense. I have alot of friends who are going to be sucessful at what they do someday, but just don't do well sitting in a room answering multiple choice questions for three hours.

Perhaps this is why its a blessing that your standardized test scores are not the only critieria for admitance into higher learning institutions.

Re:Standardized tests

[Trurl's Machine]

Give me a break, people -- standardized tests measure *something* well, but we're not sure what.

Standardized tests measure very well the ability to solve standardized tests. The question is - can they measure anything else?

MCAS vs SAT

[Anonymous Coward]

On standardized testing being a joke: According to the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System for those of you outside of the state, a test that aims to determine graduation eligibility and falls...short.) I'm supposed to be *barely* average in math and below standard in english. SAT I Verbal : 800 (99%) SAT I Math : 790 (99%) SAT II Lit. : 770 (97%) SAT II Math IIC: 760 (81%) SAT II Math IC : 730 (93%) Currently, a rather frightening percentage of Mass. high school students are being denied their diplomas because of MCAS scores...and I picked up a total of some $100,000 per year in academic scholarships from six different colleges...and I'm currently getting $26,000/year from the one I chose to attend. The class one year before me had to pass the MCAS in order to graduate. Were it not for that one year...I might still be a high school senior. Standardized tests are a joke...and aren't really that funny.

My experience...

[crashnbur]

When taking the PSAT during my sophomore year in high school, I decided that the school didn't need to know my ethnic origin, whether the information was gathered for statistican purposes only or not. The choices were typical (White/Caucasian, Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, etc...), and there was a seventh blank marked "Other", suggesting anyone of any ethnicity not listed to list their brand name. I thought I did a very noble thing for a white boy in urban central Georgia, and I checked the "Other" box and wrote in, "I'm human. What does it matter?"

The test proctor, a Geometry teacher, didn't like this very much and sent me to the principal's office. I gladly took my test answer sheet up to the principal's office and told them the story I wrote here. The principal took the answer sheet and showed it to a couple of people around the office, presumably to get second and third (reinforcing) opinions, and then returned the test sheet to me and told me to get back to class, finish the test, "and if she has any further problem with this, send her to me."

My first reaction was, whoa, "send her to you"?! I don't have that authority. She made me understand that I had done nothing wrong and should definitely not be punished for it. (To be honest, I do not remember if my main purpose was to be a smartass or to promote social colorblind-ness, but it shouldn't matter if anyone reads it properly.)

Anyway, the moral of this story is: if you let them get used to you simply falling into line and always doing the expected thing, you get locked into it. On the other hand, if you let them know you're just less than predictable, and perhaps even a bit crazy or eccentric, then you can get away with much more and even get them to think harder about things. I succeeded that day, and my ego swelled from that of a skinny, nerdy white boy into that of a taller, more confident, skinny, nerdy white boy. :-)


p.s.-- my favorite line from Colin Fahey's site:

So, in this latest experience, when I worked very hard to determine the correct answer for each question, and then proceeded to pick the exact WRONG answer (in fact, the most RIDICULOUS answer), I had a very strong emotional reaction. For a while I worried that this new peculiar feeling of freedom was in fact insanity; I was finally making the transition to madness.

Yeah, I feel that ALL the time. Marching to the beat of a different drum is liberating, but self-liberation is viewed as insanity until it catches on...

Re:My experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be great if someone would take the test in 2005, and answer the essay question:

"I refuse to answer the essay portion of this test on the grounds that any answer I give will be judged subjectively and any grade not given by a machine is arbitrary. As proof I submit that if I were to grade my answer to this question, I would give myself full credit."

I feel sorry ...

[WeeBull]

... for the guys either side of Colin in the examination room ... glancing across ...

"He answered 'D' on Question 26? But, I'm sure it's 'B'! Shit ... uhm, maybe it IS 'D'. *rubs out, ticks 'D'*. WHAT? 'A' for Q27?!? SHIT SHIT SHIT! *rubs out*"

Disclaimer: Don't cheat on tests, cheating is bad, mmmmkay?

Offtopic advice

[chrisbro]

Young SAT takers...the only advice I have to give concerning this test is take it over and over and over and over. Dot it so much that you memorize the spoken instructions. Take the PSATs as often as you can. Then take the SAT as often as your budget will let you.

I went to a magnet high school that seemed to be little more than a college-entry factory and we prepped for the SAT from the first day of my freshman year. The more familiar you become with it, the better you'll be at it.

Also, from what I understand, your score is variable on how everyone else did as well (kind of like a curve in a class of many thousands). So depending on when you take it, your score could go up. My 4 PSAT/SAT scores were: 1240, 1260, 1340, 1420. Screw people who say you can't jump up like that - just keep taking the thing and you have a good chance of at least marginally increasing your score.

Oh, and get there on time too. Flying around town at 90mph to go back and get your ticket was^H^H^His not fun.

Re:Standardized tests

[theLOUDroom]

This doesn't mean that i'm "smarter" than most others (my spelling is horrible and degrading rapidly), but I must point out that it is always people who test average or below (or, in general, are unsatisfied with the results of thier own tests) who make these statements, or say that it only tests "test taking" ability, or "book smarts".

Nope, not true. I scored a 1450. I think I'm in the top (some low number) percent of the population as far as intelligence and knowledge goes. I do not believe that the general SAT is valid test of anything other than SAT-taking ability.

I think I'm pretty qualified to say that too, given that I'm 2 weeks after from my degree.

I don't think the test is properly designed. I think I've taken much better tests that guaged general ablities, especially math.

The SAT only tests really basic math skills. I don't think this is a valid measure of someone's abilities.

Put simply, I don't think the spread between the easy and the hard questions is wide enough. I took the test as a junior, and I still hadn't been in any of the courses it is designed to test in two years. Yeah, I did fine, but how are those who are truly ahead of the curve supposed to show their abilities?

This isn't a problem limited to just the SATs either. In NYS we have state-wide Regents test for various subjects. I got a perfect score on all three tests. (I'm not saying this to brag, but I need to prove a point.) I used to think this was cool. Know what I realize now? That those tests were a waste. I should have been taking harder tests and harder courses.
Looking back now, I bet I could've taken my first two collesge math courses in high school and done allright. I'm not counting the AP Calc I did take in HS, either.

There is something wrong with putting everyone in the same class, or having them take the same test. People have different levels of abilities at different things. They should be taking a test which recognizes that. We should have been taking a different test. The number or questions that seperates a 1500 from a 1600 is just not statisically significant. When you start talking about this guy missing 2 questions out of several hundred and that guy missing 1, it's idiotic to separate those two people's scores by 1/14th of the total availible score range. Then admissions people go ahead and treat the 1600 as if it was a much better score than the 1500, even though scores that far off the norm aren't well enough determined for them to have that information. (And you can't call this bitterness either, I got into every school I applied to, and I'm about to graduate from a top school in my field.)

The questions I had to answer on the SAT just didn't really relate to anything I did in college. Yeah, they tested some basic skills that I needed in college, but they we not testing my potential. They weren't even testing if I had the skillset necessary to succeed.

If I had gone to college with only the math skills tested by the SAT I, I would have been fucked. No doubt about it. If it had really taken those extra years to learn those basic skills, and been that far behind, there's no way I could have kept up with the pace of my college courses.


(*)Sorry as in, sorry that nature and evolution are cruel. I, however, am not cruel, so don't get too upset by this post. =)

That's a pretty messed up thing to say. "Evolution" is not the reason most people do poorly on tests. There are plently of people out there with the same or greater potential than you, who never get a chance to fullfill it, through no fault of their own. Maybe their school was shitty. Maybe their homelife was shitty. Maybe they were just flat out homeless.

I friend of mine dropped out of school in 10th grade. He was living on his own, supporting himself completely at age 16. He scored a 1400 on his SAT. He's a smart guy, Imagine how well he would have done given a better

Re:Bush

[Zeinfeld]

Personally, for my choice as president, I'll rather have a man with an IQ of 129 that has excellent intrapersonal/leadership skills and the abillity (and humillity) to suround himself with advisors smarter than him over an egotistical "I'll do it all myself" type with an IQ of 180.

I would prefer an honest President to either. No IQ score that is above the mean has much significance and if you go more than an SD above the mean there is NO significance. IQ tests were developed to measure the progress of mental patients under various therapies. They were never designed as general purpose tests.

Stephen Jay Gould gives the definitive debunking of IQ tests in The Mismeasure of Man. There is a big history of junk science, mostly in the service of racist theories of eugenics. Lots of untested facts being repeated for decades etc.

One of the many IQ myths is that you can't improve your score with practice. That is absolute rubbish. I had to practice IQ tests every week when I was 10 to take the exam for the senior school. I ended up with perfect scores on the multiple choice questions for several weeks in a row.

Getting back to his fraudulency, the guy has no character and no honesty. He lied to sell his tax cut and he lied to get his war. He promised not to bust the budget and then did exactly that, he even lied about the alleged 'trifecta' of exclusions to his promise. He never told the US people that there were exceptions, it never appeared in any press release of speech. Not only is he a liar, it is a character issue, he is in effect saying 'I had my fingers crossed behind my back'.

Before Bush's war the justification given was scary weapons of mass destruction. After the 'proof' that nuclear material had been bought from Niger was shown to be a fraud he invades anyway (or at least orders the army to). Then afterwards the story changes 'oh it was just regime change all along'. I wonder what the story is going to be once the funddies elect an ayatollah.

I suspect that after he looses the 2004 election the aircraft carrier antics are going to be seen in a different light. He is campaigning on his national guard stint - risky at best when daddy pulled strings to get the place and especially so when you then went AWOL for a year.

It is really difficult after being lied to to believe anything the man says.

Closed Universe

[Lord Grey]

I thought this was one of the better comments in the article:

It is possible that people with the same subjective influences and implicit assumptions do well in college, because college faculty belong to the same dominant species of irrationality. So, the value of the verbal section of the SAT as a predictor of performance in college might be quite high. However, the side-effect of optimizing a test to better predict success in college is that truly objective minds might be punished for not keeping up with the latest delusions.

I've always felt that the U.S. education system "taught to itself," meaning that much of what you learned in school was directly relevant to school, but nowhere else. It's like the schools inhabit their own closed universe.

My 13 year-old son spends an inordinate amount of time in school studying and practicing for a thing called a TAKS test here in Texas. You have to pass it or you don't graduate to the next grade (that's the intention, anyway). What skill, exactly, is he learning? As far as I can tell, the skill is "how to take the TAKS test" -- something very useful in the post-school world, I'm sure.

Very frustrating, at times.

Re:The reason

[Bastian]

The truth is, SAT scores fall on a range of 400-1600 because they are calculated by rolling 4d4.

Extreme Intelligence is Overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I had an IQ test (in the twightlight of my HS years), I believe I fell within the top .1% of the population. (I can really be an ass and say that the score was probably a tad lower then what my real IQ was at the time - since I went for speed in taking the test.)

So, I'm a smart person. Yah! A very super-duper intelligent person. Am I doing better in life because of it? Nope.

Intelligence does influence how successful you'll be in life, but it is not the only factor. Social skills (which I'm lacking), confidence (lacking again), and an extroverted nature also plays a huge factor in your success in life.

I'm currently sitting back at a crappy job, watching the world go by at the age of 24, while I try to figure what the hell I want. My former classmates, some with more drive then me, are probably pulling down 5x what I make in a year.

Intelligence is overrated...