Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike M2 who wrote (77111)	3/7/2000 12:40:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

mike, intelligence depends upon economic backgrounds and economic backgrounds depend upon one's parents. therefore, choosing one's parents correctly is a HUGE determinant of intelligence -ng- what happened to gztr? ugggh!

To: Mike M2 who wrote (77111)	3/7/2000 1:31:00 PM
From: Dave Feldman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Totally agree that the SAT test does measure something, and that something resembles what we call "aptitude" or "intelligence." And agree that a dumb person is not going to get a 1400 on the SAT test (a brilliant person is more likely to do badly then the other way around, because some brilliant people have trouble taking tests). And there is also a high correlation between good SAT performance and success at college, just not as high as some other criteria. I think it's a really interesting question whether colleges should give more weight to the student who has less innate ability but has worked hard in high school. That student's POTENTIAL might not be as high as the "underachiever," but I have a feeling that the overachiever tends to continue to overachieve, and that we have a tendency to coddle the bright underachiever.