What'd you get on your sat/act and where did you go to college

1350, 32

2:03

4:36

10:17

Mary Washington (DIII)

2080 (720 CR/ 700 M/ 660 W) = 1420 M + CR

Currently studying biochemistry/biophysics at Oregon state university

1250/1600

Princeton. I was recruited.

The twist is that UNC and UVA both said my SAT scores were too low. Can't complain about how thigs worked out.

I got a 28 on my ACT and go to the University of Michigan. I didn't get recruited here but did receive a lot of attention from other schools but couldn't pass up the academics here.

Hi Billy

Jamaica Pond Scum wrote:

LOL^n wrote:

I love it when people say that they graduated from Harvard as if that is supposed to impress someone.

"Well, I can't impress you with the power of my ideas so perhaps I should mention that I am from Harvard."

Great. That and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

MIT people are much more blatant about it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard random old dudes around Boston mention that they went to MIT apropos of nothing (see what I did there?).

Anyway, 1580/Warshington Univarsity in San Luis

Shit. I mean hi Billy

1680 (500 math, 600 Reading, 580 Writing) in 2005 the first year of the 3 score test.

Recruited and went to small university in New England.

35 ACT

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Was not recruited, but did walk-on in my second year.

Early 1990's SAT, I got a 1300 (800 math, 500 verbal). Full ride at Stanford. I likely wouldn't have gotten in without my running resume, but I succeeded with a 3.7 GPA (top two of my major's graduating class).

sampsonite wrote:

Funny how nearly everyone who has posed so far is either in the 95th percentile if not 99+. Either runners are much smarter than average or we have some serious self selection going on.

1400 / 31

.

Yeah the only reason people have for remembering their IQ,SAT scores & other attached numbers is that they factored into opening up doors that were restricted to high scorers.

My HS councilor wanted me to retake the SATs. I said based on my 14oo low scores I will not be restricted from applying to anything but a couple of Ivy Leaguers because of a low threshold score. I had no plans to go to college and had my post HS target job secured.

33 ACT, was remarkably average HS runner, went to the only school that recruited me (prestigious D3 in Midwest) and competed in my first XC Regional this fall

13:44 5k pr wrote:

36 ACT. Undergrad at Harvard, Masters at Yale, PHD at Oxford.

I also date Swedish Bikini models and make $360k/year

This is the typical lets runner too ^^^

I am a little above average however, make closer to 500k a year in investment banking. 36 ACT Penn Undergrad, U of Chicago MBA

1430 / 1600 (from 1970s, prior to recentering of scores) -- recruited by the Ivies and similar schools, ended up at Stanford

13:44 5k pr wrote:

36 ACT. Undergrad at Harvard, Masters at Yale, PHD at Oxford.

I also date Swedish Bikini models and make $360k/year

plastic hair ftw

Hingle McCringleberry wrote:

1340/1600 and 31.

Accepted to UF with a full academic scholarship. Suck on that losers.

How did you get a full academic? I got a 33 and UF offered me $0.

456104615 wrote:

Hingle McCringleberry wrote:

1340/1600 and 31.

Accepted to UF with a full academic scholarship. Suck on that losers.

How did you get a full academic? I got a 33 and UF offered me $0.

Bright Futures.

I got kicked out of my session b/c my farts were disturbing the other test takers.

I didn't even get a refund.

I didn't do that well on the SAT, probably because I never took it seriously. However, I knocked the tops out of the GRE's a couple of years after college (which I heard was a bit tougher than an SAT). Based on my GRE Score, my SAT score should have been 200+ points higher than it was...what can I say? I was lazy in high school. But, after minoring in education, and taking quite a bit of learning psychology, I can tell you that test scores only mean one thing: how well you can remember stuff under a time constraint. That's it. That's all. It's not necessarily a measure of brute intelligence or intelligence capability (which develops as you learn - for as you learn, your ability to learn more increases as well through association and allocation with respect to 'old' knowledge).

As evidence: my old high school offered one of those SAT-Prep courses two days a week after school for five weeks leading up to an SAT Test date. Twice during the five weeks they had the kids take a full SAT (using parts of past tests). They found that with an extra hour (back then you had like three hours, so they got like four)...kids scored like 100+ points higher...simply by having more time. They also found that kids scored another 100+ points higher by taking the class...which indicates that if you specifically prepare for the information (or similar information your mind will 'associatively' recognize) and the time constraints, you're going to do much better.

I was recruited by some schools out of college...and what miffed me was that a runner with similar times as mine, but lower SAT scores and grades...somehow got more money! WTF to that?

I didn't do that well on the SAT, probably because I never took it seriously. However, I knocked the tops out of the GRE's a couple of years after college (which I heard was a bit tougher than an SAT). Based on my GRE Score, my SAT score should have been 200+ points higher than it was...what can I say? I was lazy in high school. But, after minoring in education, and taking quite a bit of learning psychology, I can tell you that test scores only mean one thing: how well you can remember stuff under a time constraint. That's it. That's all. It's not necessarily a measure of brute intelligence or intelligence capability (which develops as you learn - for as you learn, your ability to learn more increases as well through association and allocation with respect to 'old' knowledge).

As evidence: my old high school offered one of those SAT-Prep courses two days a week after school for five weeks leading up to an SAT Test date. Twice during the five weeks they had the kids take a full SAT (using parts of past tests). They found that with an extra hour (back then you had like three hours, so they got like four)...kids scored like 100+ points higher...simply by having more time. They also found that kids scored another 100+ points higher by taking the class...which indicates that if you specifically prepare for the information (or similar information your mind will 'associatively' recognize) and the time constraints, you're going to do much better.

I was recruited by some schools out of college...and what miffed me was that a runner with similar times as mine, but lower SAT scores and grades...somehow got more money! WTF to that?