|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: What was (or is presently) your highschool GPA? | |||
| 4.00 |
|
33 | 24.26% |
| 3.51 - 3.99 |
|
51 | 37.50% |
| 3.01 - 3.50 |
|
25 | 18.38% |
| 2.01 - 3.00 |
|
19 | 13.97% |
| 1.01 - 2.00 |
|
0 | 0% |
| Below 1.00 |
|
8 | 5.88% |
| Voters: 136. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#21 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dalmasca
Age: 32
Posts: 60
|
I never thought there was a correlation between GPA and intelligence. It might not be this way elsewhere, but at my high school and at the colleges I applied to they all said that the ACT or SAT reflects your overall knowledge and GPA is your willingness to work hard. Intelligence isn’t even a factor. I guess they just assume that people who work hard in school and do well on the ACT are intelligent.
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
__________________
“Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish... Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.” Christopher Hitchens |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 8,625
|
my gpa is below 1.00, and that does not refeclt my intelligence at all.
Pretty much you nailed it, but, GPA does require a little knowledge for the higher numbers, not everyone can get straight 95+'s in high school, it requires a little knowledge. Although I guess you could also say because you don't have enough willingness to learn, you didnt learn all the things the others did learn, making you not possible of getting those straight A's, were if you were willing, you would have learned it. Last edited by [TeRa]; 01-9-2008 at 12:19 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
FFR Player
|
my GPA
freshman year: 4.1 sophomore year: 3.9 junior year: 2.6 I'm going places |
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: california
Posts: 248
|
judging by the results, people obviously didnt take this poll seriously
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dalmasca
Age: 32
Posts: 60
|
Quote:
Wow I just completely contradicted myself there, didn't I. What I said does make sense, but before that I said GPA has nothing to do with intelligence. I guess it does make sense that most intelligent people would have higher GPA's, not all but most. Because if you are intelligent you should realize that the best way to have a good life is go to college so that you’re ensured a decent job, and so you would do the work to get the grade. Then you have people who just aren’t very smart, those people may not be able to get a high GPA regardless of how hard they work. So there is a correlation between the two. GPA isn’t intelligence, but they are at least loosely related. For example if there were two people, one with a 4.0 GPA and another with a 0 GPA and you had to choose the more intelligent student; almost anyone would pick the 4.0 and I'm pretty sure anyone would agree that that’s pretty sound thinking. Last edited by Dark Ronin; 01-9-2008 at 09:46 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
Having a high GPA means you're good at getting good grades, which takes a modicum of intelligence anyway. I just don't like how some schools change the scales to reflect weighting. Like some school's honors classes were out of 5.0 instead of 4.0. Back when I was in high school we used a 100 point scale and they just added 8 points for honors classes and 10 for AP. Then they translated your 100 point score into a 4 point score, capped at 4 (which sucked for everyone who got higher than a 100, which I think was 24 people out of my class of 717).
I finished high school with exactly a 100.0 and got a 3.157 at Northwestern.
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
let it snow~
|
Your GPA is a correlation between how much time/effort you put into your education and how well you can remember facts.
AKA, knowledge. Your IQ is a correlation between how fast you can think and how well you can analyze various situations. AKA, intelligence. MENSA is not loaded with people who have a 4.0 or higher. No, those are valedictorians. MENSA is loaded with people who know how to think. I was annoyed that this game show kept pointing out that this member of MENSA was having a hard time with easy questions. It's obvious! He can think analytically, not harvest every grain of information! Now, that's not to say you can't be both. All I'm saying is that there's very little correlation between intelligence and GPA. To put it in modern terms, take the good ol' MMORPG. Your level in an MMO is 95% the time you've played and 5% knowing how to play. You could even take me. Many people think I'm pretty smart. My GPA disagrees with you. I'm struggling to get myself up to a 3.0 GPA. At one point, I had a 2.2. Then again, maybe it's just that I'm an idiot after all and just lie to myself every day. I'll stick with the former, though. |
|
|
|
|
#29 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
let it snow~
|
Which is what you should do anyway.
What I'm saying is you can't go boasting that you have a 4.0 GPA and some nice SAT score (I don't even know what they're out of anymore... shows how stupid I am) and say "I am intelligent!" People confuse "knowledge" and "intellect" all the time. As someone who argues semantics down to a 't', it bugs me. With regards to that, I had an 1110 out of the old 1600 SATs. Teeheehee. I even mucked the English portion of it. 550/560. |
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I wonder how often your errors in English come from your use of writing as "Speaking in text" and thus occasionally disregard rules of written language in favour of modelling your writing as close as possible to how you would say it out loud.
As a Canadian, I'm not at all familiar with the way GPA maps onto numerical average, but unless a 4.0 is in fact only and precisely a 100% (which I doubt) I most certainly had a 4.0 coming out of highschool. Since then, in several years of university, I can only claim that I've become both more knowledgeable and more intelligent, and yet my marks are substantially lower than they were in highschool. That alone is enough to show me how GPA doesn't correlate to intelligence, or even necessarily knowledge. I find it rather akin to claiming a salary means you're a more skilled worker. |
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
FFR Player
|
For reference, here's how GPA works in America.
The majority of schools use grading systems based on percentage averages on assignments given. The total number of "points" earned divided by the total number of "points" available gives this percentage. Letter grades are attached to certain percentage ranges. These vary between schools, but here are the most common ones I've seen. A - 93-100%; 90-100% B - 85-92%; 80-89% C - 77-84%; 70-79% D - 70-76%; 60-69% F - Below 70%; below 60% Each of these letter grades corresponds to a specific point value in the GPA system. 0 for F, 1 for D, 2 for C, 3 for B, 4 for A. The average of your GPA in each class is your overall GPA. Most schools also monitor Year-to-date GPA and cumulative GPA throughout high school. So here's an example. A person got 3 As, 2 Bs, and 1 D in his classes. 3 4.0s, 2 3.0s, and 1 1.0. These average out to 3.166...if I'm not mistaken, so that's his overall GPA. So no, 4.0 is not a perfect 100%. Some schools add extra GPA points for honors, AP, or IB classes, but still consider it to be out of a 4.0 scale. So you can have a GPA higher than 100%. |
|
|
|
|
#33 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
A - 80-100% B - 70-79% C - 60-69% D - 50-59% F - 0-49% The only exception I've ever come across in Canada has been when I was in Air Cadets, when our courses put failing grades at below 60% This raises a very interesting question to me, namely: If I submit a paper in Canada, and get a 70% and thus a B, if I submitted the same paper to the same course in the same year in the United states, what mark would I get? If the difference in the system is indicative of simply a narrowing of the mark bands, then I ought to get an 85%/80% in each of Relambrien's examples, because the quality is the same regardless of who marks the paper. If however, the numbers are intended to be the same, and just the requirements to get grades are substantially more strict, then I'd still get a 70%, just I'd get a D/C as my letter grade. I'm -assuming- that the difference is cosmetic, and A-level work is A-level work in both systems, and just where I'd get an 80-100 you'd get a 93/90-100. What this suggests to me though is that our system is better because it allows for a finer distinction between each student's work. If you only have a range of 30% in which everyone who meets your expectations must fall, your marks less accurately reflect the comparison between each student's work than you do in a range of 50% |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 | |
|
FFR Player
|
For a subjective class such as English and History, grades are probably cosmetics in that case because A-level work will be given A-level grades, no doubt about that. However, for objective classes like Math, it may be a little more lenient because grades can be given based on how well you do on tests. The 80% allows you to get more errors on math tests while still maintaining that A.
However, I never went to school in Canada so I don't know how that works. ~Tsugomaru
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 | |
|
yfwdbwdsb
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,255
|
Quote:
As probably already mentioned,(I haven't read through all the posts) I don't think GPA reflects actual intelligence at all. I could probably get a 3.5 or higher if I really tried(I'm at about a 2.0). The thing is, I don't apply myself and that's why my GPA isn't that good.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
FFR Player
|
GPA has almost nothing to do with true intelligence. It just has to do with how good you are at school, no different than being good at basketball or painting. Grades are so arbitrary and subjective, that you cant use them as a measure of intelligence, just how good a certain student is at pleasing a teacher. GPA is also fundamentally flawed because it is so easy to boost. In my school, if you are in band or choir, you get an automatic A in the class, no matter how crappy or gifted you are at singing or your particular instrument. So kids just take those classes who cant even play and get A's, which is worth the same as an A in math or English, and get a boost. I know kids who are infinitely stupider than me that have higher GPA's because of this.
Have you ever seen the poster on a teacher's wall that says, "I don't give out grades, you earn them." That is the single most bull**** statement of all time. EDIT: Also, IQ is a MUCH better way of classifying intelligence than GPA. Last edited by Cosmic M; 01-10-2008 at 11:29 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
Cosmic M, you have a good point. The teachers today are weak. They acquiesce to their student's wants so they look 'cool', or so they don't get reprimanded. Teachers give grades to students when they don't deserve it.
Your GPA has no correlation to your intelligence. Albert Einstein was said to fail math (Though it isn't true, they reversed the way the system was done with measuring grades). But you get my point. People have always assumed that your GPA is a measure of your intelligence. That is just not so. IQ is better, but still a number. It is a number generated by a test that is excessively limited in what it measures, and it's from the flawed field of psychology. The brain is beyond our current understanding, and may always be. Really, GPA and IQ can't really measure intelligence. Some IQ tests have shown my IQ to be as low as 120, but I personally believe it's at least 165, if not higher. I know myself. My intrapersonal intelligence is good enough so that I can look within myself and know what my intelligence is. There is no one way to measure intelligence. GPA can show intelligence to a minimal degree. IQ is somewhat more accurate, though it fails to take in enough fields of intelligence and thought to be reliable. It's up to you, not others, to determine your intelligence. If you know yourself well, you know what you are capable of. You know what you can do and what you have knowledge of. My point is, don't let a number determine if you are intelligent or not. ~Bynary Fission |
|
|
|
|
#38 | |
|
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
I feel gypped. I got a 100.0% in high school and that translated to a 4.0. Should have gone for the 93 I guess.
EDIT: Oh yea and I have an IQ of 136 if you want comparison.
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
Last edited by All_That_Chaz; 01-10-2008 at 04:30 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
FFR Player
|
uhhhh 120 is definitely not low
and 165 is exceptionally high |
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I've had various tests with varying degrees of officialness put me anywhere from 110 to 190 (Mind you, since all the reputable tests don't actually go that high, obviously that was some shady online one that doesn't know what it is talking about)
Point is, no one test is going to tell you anything useful anyway, even if you want to assume they are accurate. You'd need to take several tests, several times each, over the course of say a year, to come up with something a little more likely to be the case. |
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|