A higher score on SAT than your 5k time

Sorry didn't mean to single you out. As for why anyone would lie on an ANONYMOUS message board I have no idea but it is one of the things that adds spice to this one. By your question do you really think no one lies on this board?

Sure, people lie, and I'd guess at least a couple of the replies on this thread are probably fabricated (for comedic purposes or people are delusional/think they're impressing someone). But a lot of posters, on this or other PR threads, have impressive resumes that you could verify through the search function/google if you were so inclined.

For this particular thread, I went to a small D3 school that most people here have never heard of, so I'd imagine that quite a few of the guys from Ivies/Stanford, etc. every year would meet the criteria quite easily, not to mention a good mix of other random people, so if you add those all together you'll get a pretty decent number, and that's also the demographic that's probably most likely to frequent letsrun.

15:32 1550. A mile lower than unweighted GPA? Hell no

Okay maybe it is because I am old and not so smart. But back when I took the SAT a score over 1500 was pretty rare even over 1400 was MIT type.

I like this quote "The older SAT (before 1995) had a very high ceiling. In any given year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. A score above 1580 was equivalent to the 99.9995 percentile."

And when I combine that with having to beat that score on a legit 5k course in high school given how many opportunities are even available to do that in time trial fashion...

Maybe the scoring system became so much easier after '95 and before the new system with 3 scores I don't know. Is that when you took the test?

Or maybe I just was too dumb and slow to see all the fast smart people around me at the time.

Wow there are a lot more studs out here than when I was in high school! I was a CT state scholar-athlete with a 1420 and 15:05. I didn't come close, but it seems a ton of people on this board crushed it! This is an interesting metric and certainly is a very high standard for any high schooler. I wonder if even studs like Don Cabral from CT and now at Princeton did it. His HS PR was probably low to mid 14s but I am not sure what his SATs were. There are very few who have attained this mark. What did Dan Chenoweth at Harvard run in HS?

By the way I am not saying people here do not have impressive resumes. I just think that the SAT score might be the one thing people fabricate more then their PRs even on anonymous message boards.

My hats off to anyone who actually accomplished this goal. I of course would need to see actual documentation to believe it though.

This is - by far - the most pretentious post on this site - ever! Everyone give yourself a nice pat on the back.

not at all wrote:

15:32 1550. A mile lower than unweighted GPA? Hell no

3:59 mile

4.0 gpa

Obviously the mile was run in college...

Most people who were smart enough to score in the 1500s on the SAT know what it means in the real world in terms of intelligence: not much.

Most people who ran close to 15 flat have enough knowledge of the sport to have a pretty good idea where that puts them in the running world: at the fast end of the hobbyjoggers.

I find it interesting that people think folks would lie about this! Look at schools like Williams (my alma mater) and Amherst, Harvard, Columbia, other Ivies. You've got a collection of maybe 50 guys every year running close to 15 flat. How many of those scored in the 1500s on their SATs? Probably 5 or 6.

Now how about an MCAT higher than your 400m time.....

SAT: 1600 (old test)

5k: 15:26 (college) 17:22 (HS)

Though there may be an overall correlation between distance running and academic achievement in high school, that does not imply there is also a correlation at the extremes. It's just a question whether either of the two performances already requires a degree of specialization that would make it less likely to also excel at the other.

(For example, there is clearly a correlation in the general population between 5k time and long jump performance, but there are probably fewer who are in the top 0,01% of both sports than expected from a randomized distribution).

How about GPA > minutes:seconds for the mile? :)

The underlying causal relationship which correlates the 5k and the long jump is top end speed; this clearly becomes a trade off with the 5k at some point where as it is always beneficial for the long jump.

There are a variety of likely underlying causal relationships which correlate distance running and academic achievement. The first is both respond well to a compulsive personality; this would indeed inhibit correlation at the true extremes, as there is only so much time in the day. However, the main correlations are most likely that those capable of introspective thought and those who can concentrate for long periods of time are drawn to both academics and running. (These would also correlate very highly with basic intelligence). These would still correlate at the extremes. (At the vary least, they wouldn't become inversely correlated). Standardized testing would more closely correlate with these latter traits (basic intelligence and ability to concentrate for a long period of time) than it would for compulsiveness, so I would actually expect many extremely good runners to be extremely good standardized test takers.

If you take high school weighted GPA and college times, I got the GPA>mile time. I bet 100's more do as well. I also know someone with a better unweighted high school GPA than his college mile time (converted from a 1500).

deleuze wrote:

I find it interesting that people think folks would lie about this! Look at schools like Williams (my alma mater) and Amherst, Harvard, Columbia, other Ivies. You've got a collection of maybe 50 guys every year running close to 15 flat. How many of those scored in the 1500s on their SATs? Probably 5 or 6.

Think about how many scored 1460 or higher. Maybe half or close to it at those schools? Everyone who breaks 15 for 5k gets counted then.

deleuze wrote:

Most people who were smart enough to score in the 1500s on the SAT know what it means in the real world in terms of intelligence: not much.

Most people who ran close to 15 flat have enough knowledge of the sport to have a pretty good idea where that puts them in the running world: at the fast end of the hobbyjoggers.

I don't think people meant to suggest they were hot sh*t by talking about this. I think it was just a sort of goofy fun sort of thing to talk about.

Here is one for you ACT people - better ACT than your 10K.

Can we at least all agree that if you had a higher score on your SAT than your 5k in high school you were not getting laid, at all?

15:00 5k, 1390 SAT.

Darn.

Physics SAT II = 780, Math SAT = 720 = 1500, does this count? haha

dumb, slow and satisfied wrote:

Can we at least all agree that if you had a higher score on your SAT than your 5k in high school you were not getting laid, at all?

I doubt that's true. I'll bet someone who is bright, motivated and athletic enough to pull this off was getting laid like mad (if they wanted to).

This thread is the most fabricated on the history this site. I've devised an equation to determine true PRs and SAT based on posted figures. Take the 5k and subtract 2 minutes, take the SAT and subract 300 points. I have friends in Ivys that didnt get over 1500. Half the people on this thread are lying out their asses.

Legit stats:

17:20

1310