Wise Guy wrote:
Just missed. 1450, 14:58. OP, that was an interesting thought that you had!
What else could we use? Maybe a week of mileage higher than your LSAT score?
No way, that rewards low LSAT scores. How bout a 1K time faster than your LSAT score (in seconds). This isn't as difficult as the SAT-5K stat but still impressive.
SAT 1600 (yes old test perfect!)
5k 14:22 (senior year of HS baby!)
Do you know who I am? You should because I am smarter and faster then all you stupid slow fools.
Is your name A. S. Shole? Oh, don't worry, I'm not trying to insult you. It's short for Arrogant Shart.
I was nowhere close with SAT and high school 5000m time, but I did score higher on my GRE (the two 800 sections added together), then my 5000m PR at the time (1510 to 14:56).
How would that insult me? I am smarter and faster then you. Little you can do would insult me. I look way down on you.
There is a new test (2400) and an old test (1600), but the old test scores fall into roughly pre 1996 and post 1996. Around that time they raised scores significantly, so that, roughly, a 1530 would now count as a 1600. There is a webpage somewhere that will translate old to new. At 16:04 in the 5k, I still couldn't possibly make it, but I would be closer with the adjustment.
jjjjjj wrote:
There is a new test (2400) and an old test (1600), but the old test scores fall into roughly pre 1996 and post 1996. Around that time they raised scores significantly, so that, roughly, a 1530 would now count as a 1600. There is a webpage somewhere that will translate old to new. At 16:04 in the 5k, I still couldn't possibly make it, but I would be closer with the adjustment.
I thought that was 1997... I graduated in 1997 and I remember feeling ripped off that it was easier to score higher for the class under us. I know we were the old, old score in 1997.
I've never taken the SAT or ran a 5k, but if you convert the ACT to the SAT my 34 supposedly becomes a ~1530, and if you convert a 9:10 two mile to a 5k it is ~1435, which probably isn't accurate for me since I'm an 800 runner (and I would lose a lot going from a two mile to a 5k), but I sorta guess I can claim that with college times.
Actually, I'll give you a 1/10 on the LRC trollmeter. Kind of like the SAT, you should at least get something for trying.
We both know how you know about that SAT gift to the stupid.
It was 1996. According to the chart, the verbal score would be raised quite a bit, 730 becomes 800, 720 becomes 790, while the quantitative score would be raised a bit near the top but not at all by the time you get down to 720. A 1510 might become 1600, depending on the breakdown.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Seems reasonable to me to do it that way.
Simpleton wrote:
Flagpole wrote:What if you scored 1560? There isn't a 5K time that is 15:60. Would you make that 16:00? Just curious.
To accurately compare the SAT score and 5k time, I would hold the first two digits (1,5) of the SAT score constant while collectively adjusting the last two digits (6,0) from a 100 point to a 60 point scale.
An SAT score of 1560 would become 15:36.
1500 SAT
14:22 5k.
I wonder what Bekele could score in the old SAT?
Did it, barely.
1470 SAT
14:59 5k
Never ran more than 176 miles in a week though.
Too funny.
If there is one thing that is fabricated more then PRs it is SAT scores. And when you add anonymity to the equation.
Perfect job OP combining the two.
Hmm. I did it if the last two digits of the SAT are seconds. If it's percentage of a minute, then I didn't.
The proposed 1k:LSAT comparison is way easier. I could do repeats of that.
my SAT will always be below the world record
unless you go by the new SAT (out of 2400) then i got it easily
Maybe we should do pole vaunt height PR's (in meters) and penis length. It's probably be much more interesting...and, realistic.
Finally honesty. Kick yourself in the head for failing by letsrun standards.
1410, 15:40.... I feel like a failure in this thread.