Famous SAT scores. Amazing!

1. 83

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   Paul Allen - 1600
   
   Bill Gates - 1590
   
   Bill O'Reilly - 1585
   
   Rush Limbaugh - 1530 (???)
   
   Al Gore - 1355
   
   George W. Bush - 1206
   
   Bill Clinton - 1032
   
   Al Franken - 1020
   
   Howard Stern - 870
   
   http://www.powerscore.com/sat/help/celebrity_scores.cfm

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I wonder where they got those numbers. Some of them don't look correct to me, especially George Bush's. I smell a GOP rat. I simply don't believe that Bush's score is higher than Al Franken's and certainly not higher than Clinton's. I find it hard to believe Limbaugh's score also.

      replyreport
2. 76

   WryLiltposted 14 years ago

   I think I was 1100 or something. WOOT I beat Bill Clinton! (Wait, is that even worth being happy about?)

   replyreport
3. 83

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   I would love to know the score of the POTUS, but he won't release it.
   
   I've never listened to Rush. Is he really that smart??
   
   I was surprised that W scored higher than Clinton. Maybe Bill just had a bad day. I'm not saying W is stupid - I think he's smarter than most people give him credit for...
   
   I read somewhere a while back that Nixon had an IQ of 180! Reagan's was only like 105, I think, and Carter's is around 150.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Nixon was very smart. So was Carter. Clinton was among the smartest and more important, street smartest. So was LBJ. SAT scores are correlate with parental income, biasing the scores in favor of privileged children, assuming they get good parental attention, and against poor ghetto kids.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         wildernessposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not sure I follow you, Ralph.  It has been many years indeed since I took a SAT (I actually don't remember if they were used when I graduated from high school), buy my imperfect impression of the current ones is that they are intended to give an indication of the scholastic learning in school.  A measurement of the knowledge base of the student in particular areas the test designers feel would assist in higher education.  They are not an IQ test but rather a knowledge test limited to narrow fields of scholarly endeavor rather than life experiences.
         
         If that is correct I would certainly expect "privileged" children with attentive parents to score better than poor ghetto kids but that is not biased, it is an accurate measurement of knowledge.  Very few "poor ghetto kids" could be expected to accumulate large stores of knowledge in the areas being tested, but that is simple fact, not bias.  I suppose the SAT's could include tests to see if the kids understood gang emblems and how to avoid police cars, but I doubt that would be very valuable knowledge to gaining more knowledge from the classes offered in colleges, and isn't that what the SAT's are all about?  Or am I misunderstanding the SAT entirely (certainly possible!)?

         replyreport
      2. 80

         Patty Inglish, MSposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         When my HS junior class took the tests, boys took the SAT and girls took the ACT, so for some years in Ohio. gender bias was added, I think.
         
         An aquaintance made his daughter take the pre-SAT then SAT every six months from ages 13 - 17, pushing for the perfect score. She was worn out and depressed.

         replyreport
4. 76

   Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

   Is a SAT score really important? To me things like that and IQ are really meaningless. It's what you do in University and after that counts.
   
   That is not to attack you but just my opinion

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think IQ is meaningless at all.   There ought to be a minimum IQ for a whole lot of jobs.   

      replyreport
      1. 83

         habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Oh, I sooooo agree with that! Such jobs should include working for the IRS! lol

         replyreport
      2. 86

         K9keystrokesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I think this is a brilliant idea! ...IRS...hilarious!! 

         replyreport
      3. 80

         Patty Inglish, MSposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Inanimate objects have an IQ of 12. Is that high enough? lol

         replyreport
5. 82

   camloposted 14 years ago

   I'm a bit tired today ...
   What's a 'SAT' score?

   replyreport
6. 87

   Len Cannonposted 14 years ago

   1200 isn't that great if you have the opportunities GWB did, although none of it matters.  An SAT score of 1600 doesn't mean you'll do better in life than someone who scores a 980.  SATs aren't universal measures of intelligence, either.
   
   Don't get me started on the problems with the IQ test.

   replyreport
7. 76

   Mighty Momposted 14 years ago

   SAT scores absolutely reflect the quality of high school education as well as how diligently said education is absorbed (and perhaps valued) by the student.
   
   Case in point:
   
   Clinton went to Hot Springs High School in Hot Springs, Arkansas.
   W went to private prep schools in Houston , TX and Andover, Mass.
   
   Clinton managed to overcome his relatively poor SAT scores and graduate Yale Law School AND become a Rhodes Scholar.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Clinton is very smart, and he's great with people. Obama is smart, but he doesn't have the "people gift" that Bill has. And say what you want, but W isn't as dumb as you think! Carter is very intelligent, and Nixon was brilliant, which just goes to show that you need more than smarts to be an effective leader.

      replyreport
8. 76

   Mighty Momposted 14 years ago

   And that 1020 was good enough to get Al Franken into Harvard.
   Hmmmm.

   replyreport