Get rid of the SAT - General

[QUOTE=Errorproxy;23657728] Worse yet, there are few other kinds of scores to counterbalance the SAT. Of the many talents and virtues that people possess, we have good measures for quantifying few besides athletic and intellectual ability. Falling short in athletic ability can be painful, especially for boys, but the domain of sports is confined. Intellectual ability has no such limits, and the implications of the SAT score spill far too widely. The 17-year-old who is at the 40th percentile on the SAT has no other score that lets him say to himself, “Yes, but I’m at the 99th percentile in working with my hands,” or “Yes, but I’m at the 99th percentile for courage in the face of adversity[/quote] Most jobs that rely more on working with your hands than actually thinking about what it is you are doing don't really require extra education past a high school level anyway

only had to take the act

I took both the ACT and SAT, got a perfect on both with the first try. But I have to take it again to confirm results.

[QUOTE=Errorproxy;23658012]1700 before taking thousand dollar courses. I'm still in a course right now.[/QUOTE] You seriously paid 1000 dollars on an SAT prep course Are you fucking stupid

But I live in sweden :3:

[QUOTE=N0s855;23657742]get rid of you you queer ferrishwheel suck a dick wow no one cares you douche just like your face and your genes you know what also goes down most of the time? your mom. on my dick oh wow your so smart i wish i was just like you thousand dollar courses? wow your poor one of my car's rims is worth 4 times that [/QUOTE] :colbert:

[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;23658185]You seriously paid 1000 dollars on an SAT prep course Are you fucking stupid[/QUOTE] are you fucking poor? hahahaha

[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;23658185]You seriously paid 1000 dollars on an SAT prep course Are you fucking stupid[/QUOTE] Parents of friends recommend. Parents listen. Spread like wildfire. [editline]07:09AM[/editline] What the hell is NOs855 doing. [editline]07:10AM[/editline] [QUOTE=The GeneralSYD;23658111]You've wasted more time on the text when you could be doing a assignment or studying.[/QUOTE] I copy and pasted that. Look at source.

[QUOTE=Errorproxy;23658234]Parents of friends recommend. Parents listen. Spread like wildfire. [editline]07:09AM[/editline] What the hell is NOs855 doing. [editline]07:10AM[/editline] I copy and pasted that. Look at source.[/QUOTE] wow you my name has a 0 in it not an o you fuck

You're seriously asking Facepunch to help you on a petition... boy, you've come to the wrong place.

[QUOTE=N0s855;23658296]wow you my name has a 0 in it not an o you fuck[/QUOTE] Oh ok, sorry.

I did absolutely no studying whatsoever and got one three and two fours Wait, wrong test :v:

i got 710 on my english and 620 on my maths for what it's worth

Before I can focus on the ignorance that abounds in SAT's conjectures, I must qualify SAT's character, its sources, and even its personal frame of mind towards me. Before I begin talking about specifics, let me just mention that when people see vindictive braggadocios behaving like vindictive braggadocios they begin to realize that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that in SAT's quest to thrust all of us into scenarios rife with personal animosities and petty resentments it has left no destructive scheme unutilized. To Hell with SAT! Did it ever occur to SAT that it could use some etiquette lessons? The answer should be self-evident so let me just point out that SAT says it's going to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds one of these days. Is it out of its mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that its ideologies command as much respect as the tales in the supermarket tabloids. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. I might have been dreaming but I believe I once heard SAT admit, sotto voce, that it has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but many members of SAT's little empire believe that SAT would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform an ill-natured act. Even worse, almost all of SAT's apple-polishers believe that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. (One would think that the mammalian brain could do better than that, but apparently not.) My point is that SAT's behavior might be different if it were told that what goes around comes around. Of course, as far as SAT is concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that I'm at loggerheads with it on at least one important issue. Namely, SAT argues that might makes right. I take the opposite position, that it may seem difficult at first to denounce SAT's prank phone calls. It is. But my long-term goal is to straighten out our thinking and change the path we're on. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, I need your help if I'm ever to rage, rage against the dying of the light. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, SAT is trying hard to convince a substantial number of picayunish, conniving hoodwinkers to abuse science by using it as a mechanism of ideology. It presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite small-minded, destructive spouters to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that SAT doesn't care whose lives it destroys while it enriches itself in a vitriolic display of gluttony and venal avarice. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: I recently checked out one of SAT's recent tracts. Oh, look; it's again saying that the few of us who complain regularly about its generalizations are simply spoiling the party. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, before SAT initiated an obstructionism flap to help promote its amoral mottos, people everywhere were expected to sound the bugle of liberty. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that I thrive on debates, statistics, and getting the facts right. And the facts in this case indicate that there is more at play here than SAT's purely political game of shattering other people's lives and dreams. There are ideologies at work, hidden agendas to carry out "preventive operations" (that means "targeted killings") against SAT's opponents. Let's play a little game. Deduct one point from your I.Q. if you fell for SAT's ridiculous claim that it has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. Deduct another point if you failed to notice that some people profess that I, not being one of the many insincere layabouts of this world, exist in a never-ending state of constant revulsion over SAT's deification of the most deplorable saboteurs I've ever seen. Others believe that wanton desperados like SAT have no right to live under the protection of our laws. In the interest of clearing up the confusion I'll make the following observation: When SAT was first found inculcating careless analects, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that SAT is planning to manufacture outrage at its adversaries by attributing to them all kinds of obnoxious practices, I'm decidedly terrified. I like to say that the costs of SAT's memoranda outweigh their benefits. It never directly acknowledges such truisms but instead tries to turn them around to make it sound like I'm saying that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of scurrilous stereotypes. I guess that version better fits its style—or should I say, "agenda"? I have a problem with SAT's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, it doesn't need to prove its claim that its beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society; it merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, some organizations are responsible and others are not. SAT falls into the category of "not". SAT has vowed that by the next full moon it'll withhold information and disseminate half-truths and whole lies. This is hardly news; SAT has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that it's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, SAT tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. In general, SAT's half-measures are very much in line with yellow-bellied exclusionism in that they batten on the credulity of the ignorant. Sure, there are exceptions, but if it were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that it is lying to itself if it thinks that it has the trappings of deity. It follows from this that there's something I've observed about SAT. Namely, it may not know how to spell "philosophicotheological", but it clearly knows how to steal the fruits of other people's labor. I've further observed that today, we might have let SAT depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will expose SAT's insults for what they really are. While SAT is hopeful, even enthusiastic, about jujuism becoming commonplace, I find myself experiencing profound doubts about its benefits. More precisely, the devastating ramifications of widespread jujuism make me wonder if it isn't simply the case that if the people generally are relying on false information sown by grotesque, uncouth ninnies, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. Instead of friends, SAT has victims and cult followers who end up as victims. I unmistakably feel sorry for the lot of them. I also feel that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to analyze SAT's drug-induced ravings in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion. If SAT is going to supplant one form of injustice with another, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, it is—for lack of a better word—infantile. And second, far too many people tolerate its ebullitions as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that combative, featherbrained suborners of perjury are more susceptible to SAT's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that without checks and balances, what I call rebarbative pikers are free to mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: SAT has called people like me odious perverts, annoying, ignorant vagrants, and manipulative, sanctimonious dweebs so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. SAT definitely continues to employ such insults because it's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that SAT seems to have recently added the word "barothermohygrograph" to its otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose it intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that the time has come to choose between freedom or slavery, revolt or submission, and liberty or SAT's particularly baleful form of exclusivism. It's clear what SAT wants us to choose, but all of its protests contain snotty elements. An equal but opposite observation is that it may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I consider SAT to be a weapon of mass destruction itself. SAT has for a long time been arguing that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Had it instead been arguing that I am sick to my stomach of its pettiness and simple ignorance, I might cede it its point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in SAT's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because I have one itsy-bitsy problem with SAT's antics. Videlicet, they enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. And that's saying nothing about how many people respond to its sullen morals in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. SAT ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, it tends to utter so much verbiage about terrorism that I can conclude only that all of SAT's forces are thieves—idle, envious, and ready to plunder and enslave their weaker neighbors. It's therefore not surprising that SAT holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City—sterile obstacles to progress who change the course of history. Some of you may feel a little sheepish about seeking some structure in which the cacophony introduced by SAT's musings might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. Don't. We must all work together towards that end if we're ever to condemn SAT's hypocrisy. Let me offer some free advice to SAT's representatives: Stop ruining people's lives! One can only speculate how much worse things would be if SAT were to scrap the notion of national sovereignty. Am I saying that its spokesmen don't want to make their own decisions but want SAT to do their thinking for them? Yes. That it's shocking just how juvenile SAT can be? Maybe. That SAT's harangues are based on some deep-rooted personality disorder? Definitely. Now that this letter has come to an end, let me remind you that it was intended to provide an accurate, even-handed, and balanced discussion of SAT and its words. Please do not contact me with insults, death threats, or the like because I will ignore them. If you disagree with my arguments or can provide further information about SAT, please contact me and I will endeavor to make any necessary corrections to this letter.

[QUOTE=Sputn!k;23658377]I did absolutely no studying whatsoever and got one three and two fours[/QUOTE] What? So is your score 1344 or 344? [editline]07:22AM[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;23658384]i got 710 on my english and 620 on my maths for what it's worth[/QUOTE] What was the full score then? [editline]07:22AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Handsome;23658386]Before I can focus on the ignorance that abounds in SAT's conjectures, I must qualify SAT's character, its sources, and even its personal frame of mind towards me. Before I begin talking about specifics, let me just mention that when people see vindictive braggadocios behaving like vindictive braggadocios they begin to realize that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that in SAT's quest to thrust all of us into scenarios rife with personal animosities and petty resentments it has left no destructive scheme unutilized. To Hell with SAT! Did it ever occur to SAT that it could use some etiquette lessons? The answer should be self-evident so let me just point out that SAT says it's going to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds one of these days. Is it out of its mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that its ideologies command as much respect as the tales in the supermarket tabloids. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. I might have been dreaming but I believe I once heard SAT admit, sotto voce, that it has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but many members of SAT's little empire believe that SAT would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform an ill-natured act. Even worse, almost all of SAT's apple-polishers believe that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. (One would think that the mammalian brain could do better than that, but apparently not.) My point is that SAT's behavior might be different if it were told that what goes around comes around. Of course, as far as SAT is concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that I'm at loggerheads with it on at least one important issue. Namely, SAT argues that might makes right. I take the opposite position, that it may seem difficult at first to denounce SAT's prank phone calls. It is. But my long-term goal is to straighten out our thinking and change the path we're on. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, I need your help if I'm ever to rage, rage against the dying of the light. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, SAT is trying hard to convince a substantial number of picayunish, conniving hoodwinkers to abuse science by using it as a mechanism of ideology. It presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite small-minded, destructive spouters to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that SAT doesn't care whose lives it destroys while it enriches itself in a vitriolic display of gluttony and venal avarice. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: I recently checked out one of SAT's recent tracts. Oh, look; it's again saying that the few of us who complain regularly about its generalizations are simply spoiling the party. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, before SAT initiated an obstructionism flap to help promote its amoral mottos, people everywhere were expected to sound the bugle of liberty. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that I thrive on debates, statistics, and getting the facts right. And the facts in this case indicate that there is more at play here than SAT's purely political game of shattering other people's lives and dreams. There are ideologies at work, hidden agendas to carry out "preventive operations" (that means "targeted killings") against SAT's opponents. Let's play a little game. Deduct one point from your I.Q. if you fell for SAT's ridiculous claim that it has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. Deduct another point if you failed to notice that some people profess that I, not being one of the many insincere layabouts of this world, exist in a never-ending state of constant revulsion over SAT's deification of the most deplorable saboteurs I've ever seen. Others believe that wanton desperados like SAT have no right to live under the protection of our laws. In the interest of clearing up the confusion I'll make the following observation: When SAT was first found inculcating careless analects, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that SAT is planning to manufacture outrage at its adversaries by attributing to them all kinds of obnoxious practices, I'm decidedly terrified. I like to say that the costs of SAT's memoranda outweigh their benefits. It never directly acknowledges such truisms but instead tries to turn them around to make it sound like I'm saying that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of scurrilous stereotypes. I guess that version better fits its style—or should I say, "agenda"? I have a problem with SAT's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, it doesn't need to prove its claim that its beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society; it merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, some organizations are responsible and others are not. SAT falls into the category of "not". SAT has vowed that by the next full moon it'll withhold information and disseminate half-truths and whole lies. This is hardly news; SAT has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that it's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, SAT tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. In general, SAT's half-measures are very much in line with yellow-bellied exclusionism in that they batten on the credulity of the ignorant. Sure, there are exceptions, but if it were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that it is lying to itself if it thinks that it has the trappings of deity. It follows from this that there's something I've observed about SAT. Namely, it may not know how to spell "philosophicotheological", but it clearly knows how to steal the fruits of other people's labor. I've further observed that today, we might have let SAT depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will expose SAT's insults for what they really are. While SAT is hopeful, even enthusiastic, about jujuism becoming commonplace, I find myself experiencing profound doubts about its benefits. More precisely, the devastating ramifications of widespread jujuism make me wonder if it isn't simply the case that if the people generally are relying on false information sown by grotesque, uncouth ninnies, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. Instead of friends, SAT has victims and cult followers who end up as victims. I unmistakably feel sorry for the lot of them. I also feel that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to analyze SAT's drug-induced ravings in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion. If SAT is going to supplant one form of injustice with another, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, it is—for lack of a better word—infantile. And second, far too many people tolerate its ebullitions as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that combative, featherbrained suborners of perjury are more susceptible to SAT's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that without checks and balances, what I call rebarbative pikers are free to mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: SAT has called people like me odious perverts, annoying, ignorant vagrants, and manipulative, sanctimonious dweebs so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. SAT definitely continues to employ such insults because it's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that SAT seems to have recently added the word "barothermohygrograph" to its otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose it intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that the time has come to choose between freedom or slavery, revolt or submission, and liberty or SAT's particularly baleful form of exclusivism. It's clear what SAT wants us to choose, but all of its protests contain snotty elements. An equal but opposite observation is that it may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I consider SAT to be a weapon of mass destruction itself. SAT has for a long time been arguing that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Had it instead been arguing that I am sick to my stomach of its pettiness and simple ignorance, I might cede it its point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in SAT's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because I have one itsy-bitsy problem with SAT's antics. Videlicet, they enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. And that's saying nothing about how many people respond to its sullen morals in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. SAT ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, it tends to utter so much verbiage about terrorism that I can conclude only that all of SAT's forces are thieves—idle, envious, and ready to plunder and enslave their weaker neighbors. It's therefore not surprising that SAT holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City—sterile obstacles to progress who change the course of history. Some of you may feel a little sheepish about seeking some structure in which the cacophony introduced by SAT's musings might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. Don't. We must all work together towards that end if we're ever to condemn SAT's hypocrisy. Let me offer some free advice to SAT's representatives: Stop ruining people's lives! One can only speculate how much worse things would be if SAT were to scrap the notion of national sovereignty. Am I saying that its spokesmen don't want to make their own decisions but want SAT to do their thinking for them? Yes. That it's shocking just how juvenile SAT can be? Maybe. That SAT's harangues are based on some deep-rooted personality disorder? Definitely. Now that this letter has come to an end, let me remind you that it was intended to provide an accurate, even-handed, and balanced discussion of SAT and its words. Please do not contact me with insults, death threats, or the like because I will ignore them. If you disagree with my arguments or can provide further information about SAT, please contact me and I will endeavor to make any necessary corrections to this letter.[/QUOTE] Good job.

SATs are training kids to pass tests. Not to have depth and understanding of the subjects at hand.

[QUOTE=Wyrmdraken;23658426]SATs are training kids to pass tests. Not to have depth and understanding of the subjects at hand.[/QUOTE] What I was trying to say.

[QUOTE=Errorproxy;23658390] What was the full score then? [/QUOTE] i took sat subject, i don't have a full score [editline]12:28AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Wyrmdraken;23658426]SATs are training kids to pass tests. Not to have depth and understanding of the subjects at hand.[/QUOTE] but that's what college is, a series of tests

Hahahah shit I suck 570 Reading 640 Math 600 Writing

Standardized. This shit is basically what you learned from High School. I scored 1500. I need to kick it up a few hundred more points. 500 Reading 500 Math 500 Writing. 10 on Essay

[QUOTE=Sputn!k;23658498]Hahahah shit I suck 570 Reading 640 Math 600 Writing[/QUOTE] Well on average you scored higher than 60% of the nation.

[QUOTE=thisispain;23658483]but that's what college is, a series of tests[/QUOTE] Except the SAT is exploiting students.

[QUOTE=Errorproxy;23658517]Except the SAT is exploiting students.[/QUOTE] it's all just preparation for being exploited later on in life

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;23658512]Standardized. This shit is basically what you learned from High School. I scored 1500. I need to kick it up a few hundred more points.[/QUOTE] Here, the UC's want 1900 and above, and with more and more people wanting to get into UC's the scores just keep getting higher. Thus, spending more money on courses.

[QUOTE=thisispain;23658513]Well on average you scored higher than 60% of the nation.[/QUOTE] Orly? OP, I didn't do any studying, and this guy says I did ok

lmao i got a 2300 on the sat and a 6 on the essay owned.

did you study?

[QUOTE=thisispain;23658524]it's all just preparation for being exploited later on in life[/QUOTE] But exploit so early.

who the hell studies, just pay attention to your classes.

[QUOTE=Sputn!k;23658533]Orly? OP, I didn't do any studying, and this guy says I did ok[/QUOTE] well considering that UC's want the top 10% (probably less) it doesn't mean much