Lowest Raw Score Ever on the SAT 747
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..."
Re:Top 2% (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lowest REAL SAT score? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Top 2% (Score:5, Informative)
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?)
that's great -- how does liar and thief fit in? (Score:0, Informative)
He's one swell d00d, you should be thrilled.
Re:it's easy, just double bubble! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's been proven. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:it's easy, just double bubble! (Score:2, Informative)
Correct answers - any correct answers - are one point. Incorrect verbal answers = -.25. Incorrect five-choice math answers = -.25. Incorrect four-choice math answers = -.33. Incorrect student-produced response (fill in the blank) = 0. Blank questions = 0.
However, you are correct in thinking that questions with more than one bubble filled in are regarded as blank.
The "fraction of a point" effect you are seeing comes from the fact that it is possible to (as this guy did) receive a negative raw score from getting all questions wrong. The scaling accounts for this. Therefore, getting ALL of them blank will result in a higher score than getting all of them rwrong.
The grandparent is completely wrong, and needs modding down. I'm sure the individual in question here did think of that.
(Qualifications: I've taken the SAT twice now and will be doing it a third time in June. Perfect verbal the second time; going for the perfect math next. Trust me, I know their scoring system.)
Re:I should have the lowest (Score:3, Informative)
> given the one-dot-per-line restriction,
> how do you make "pacman-type characters?"
This story actually was part of "Parker Lewis Can't Lose". Kubiac (always dump and always hungry) punches "EAT NOW" into the form and scores perfect. No details on the test are known. The pattern just shows when the paper is hold against back light.
Re:Bush (Score:5, Informative)
This is all besides the point though. All I care about is his job performance. I, for one, think he has performed very well, even if not perfectly. I voted for him in 2000 and I will vote for him again in 2004. Academic performance is not the same thing as intelligence and even (allegedly) high intelligence is not sufficient to succeed as a leader. There are many other factors to consider. Case in point: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, two smart people that failed in most important respects as President for different reasons.
Measure of Wealth (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Top 2% (Score:2, Informative)
Is there a reason that what any sane person would call a "zero" is a 400 on the SATs?
Grade Inflation. SAT scores have been one measure of how good the school system is doing and the scores were slipping. The secondary schools didn't want to admit they were graduating an increasing number of morons and the colleges didn't want to be seen lowering their entry requirements in order to admit the same number of students per year. The 'recentering' was a cheap, easy way to 'fix' the problem.
Re:MCAT vs SAT vs ACT (Score:4, Informative)
Whoa, there, cowboy. The ACT & MCAT are achievement tests, designed specifically to test knowledge. Knowledge is still, AFAIK, something you can acquire and retain almost regardless of your IQ.
The SAT and standard IQ tests, OTOH, are aptitude tests, designed to test a person's ability to solve problems and think critically. This is also something that can be learned, but only to an extent. It is not possible to memorize all of the possible questions on an SAT test, while on an ACT test it is. No matter how much preparation you go through, you cannot teach yourself to be a genius.
More info [uscollegeprep.com]
Re:Measure of Wealth (Score:3, Informative)
Which is what most students studying for the test are doing. A lot of people that did well on the SAT achieved that goal by spending a long time studying SAT guides and getting SAT tutoring. For them, at least, the test proved mostly that they had learned how to take the SAT.
Re:Measure of Wealth (Score:2, Informative)
At the same time, I knew lots of "poor" kids who's score nearly killed everyone.
Then they applied for financial aid, got it, and are now succeeding in college.
Re:Measure of Wealth (Score:2, Informative)
But I did my job well and it wasn't unusuall to bring a kids score up by close to 200 points.
Poverty may not "justify" poor performance, but higher scores can certainly be had if the parents care to shell out the money.