If I'm not mistaken, the scale changed in 2005 and those on the list who are about 22 years old today were probably tested under the new scale. As for Peyton, I probably would have preferred to have that score not mentioned if I were him even if it were on the old scale
Do we need ratios for the real r****ds who dont get the new scale compared to old? Peyton Manning is obviously not dumb. Now Vince Young..
Well, you factor in all the r****ds in the U.S and it averages out. We aren't exactly known for our education prowess here....1030 is a very very bad score. I don't know any colleges that would consider that a good score or even an average score.
Well you're quite uninformed, my friend got into UT with a 1080 while I got in with a 1340, neither of us were in the top 10% in our class. I had minimal community service work and he had a ton. SAT scores are not the end all for everything. If it was a "borderline r****ded" score I doubt he'd get accepted to the McCombs school of Business. Get off your high horse bud.
You guys (and this article) really need to clarify what you mean by SAT scores. The new SAT has 3 sections out of 2400 where a 1000 is borderline r****ded, a 1300 is still pretty bad. Now lots of places (almost every college even) ignore the third (writing) section and use scores out of the old two section 1600. a 1000 on the two section scores is average. There is a slight difference between the old tests and the new two sections score (they removed analogies and made it slightly easier) but the difference is near negligible some of these athletes (particularly the one with a 1580) are 99.9th percentile and is very impressive. If these scores were out of the 2400, most likely not, then wow athletes are dumb. source: i tutor SAT
Why would any of these athletes be on the new scale. You factor in their age, and it's quite obvious, unless you are saying they graduated recently. Most of these guys are in their 30s. There are exceptions to rules. Borderline r****ded is exaggerating, but it doesn't change the fact that most colleges will not consider that a good score. Most averages were around 1200 and for the tougher majors around 1300+.
The list is completely invalidated at #1. Myron Rolle is a freakin RHODES SCHOLAR. They don't even mention it! Sorry Craig Breslow, but getting accepted to med school isn't even close to that level of accomplishment.
I think Fitzpatrick got a perfect score on the wonderlic as well as the highest SAT of the group listed. Too bad nothing is translating to onfield performance.
Well seeing how some of the players on the list are still in college... Good thing reading comprehension isn't on the SAT; oh wait...
A 1030 back in the day wouldn't even get you to Texas unless you were in the top of the class. Peyton Manning is football smart, not book smart.
Wasn't there a really smart pitcher for the astros? I can't remember his name, it started with an M I think. I think he was like a math major, and a reliever. This was probably back in 2000ish. I also remember his name was fairly long.
None, but if you look at the previous scope of the discussion it was specifically referred to Manning. In fact, SAT score was not even discussed on any other athlete but Manning. What scale could we have used? Use some common sense. If you can't figure out that Manning's SAT score was based off one used decades ago, you need to stop tutoring kids.... Oh yea, way to fail on images.
No it wasn't. The mean score was about 1000 on the old regime. In fact that's what the College Board intentionally set it at each year. "Borderline r****ded" would be what I call somebody who knows that the mean is 1000 but claims that "most averages were 1200." The fact you don't know what mean means portends badly for both your math and verbal. Double whammy for you.
