|
With the help of a certain someone I came to the conclusion that the GPA vs ICCup rank would be an inviable comparision due to the many many many uncontrolable variables. So i was forced to reconsider and come up with two new topics to compare and analyze, SAT Scores(the standardization helps a lot with controling the variables) and the NUMERICAL value of your highest ICCup rank.
I also decided to reduce my sample size to fifty, for the small minority of people in the TL community who took the 1600 SAT's, just post your score and i will convert your old scores to the 2400 proportion.(unless of course you feel the urge to do this math yourself)
Please format your responses in the following format:
SAT Score: EX:2100
Highest Numerical ICCup Ranking: EX: 3240
Thank you, i hope to get 50 samples as soon as possible. Sorry for those of you who took your time to post in my other post.
If you do not know the numerical value of the highest rank you reached, please try to guess, without the actual value the data is useless.
|
|
|
United States2916 Posts
ok, i was wrong earlier. there are 3 things bound to generate lies.
|
|
|
9999 99999 olympic rings.
|
Old format SAT: 1560
ACT: 34 (if you care to know)
ICCUP: D+ (like 300 points shy of C- IIRC)
|
If you do not know the numerical value of the highest rank you reached, please try to guess, without the actual value the data is useless.
|
never took the sat
act: 30
iccup: d+
|
old format sat: 1510
pgt: a-
|
|
|
I have no idea what my SAT scores were, it's been like 6 years since I have taken an SAT but I was always invited to the California Gate program for gifted kids through it, especially in math. I'm not sure if GATE is for people who think / learn uniquely or for people who are smart but either way it was considered good o.O
My ICCUP high is something like 9700 A-
|
|
|
|
|
Baa?21245 Posts
2360 SAT, 1100 iCCup. Lol.
|
2150
6150
Everyone's SAT is insanely high...
|
On May 20 2009 14:11 eekmice wrote:
pgt: a-
Wat.
|
SAT 1920 well this was my psat score :/
iccup: 2050 D+
|
I took my SAT in 2003 (so its out for 1600) I got a 1320 (could be 1300 or 1340) its been a long time so I know it is within 30~ of 1320 and not under 1300.
Iccup HIGH 6876
|
This assumes that people try equally hard to better their ICCUP rank.
Everyone tries hard at SATs but not at ICCUP.
|
2160 SAT
2160 ICCUP (as zerg, no joke)
2500 ICCUP (as protoss)
800 on math section in case it means anything.
|
2030 SAT (retaking it zomg)
2100ish iCCup
|
SAT: 2210
Iccup: 2500
I'm pretty sure there's response bias around here.
|
SAT: over 9000
iCCup: way over 9000
|
SAT: 1920
ICCUP: around 7100
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
|
I'm interested to know what you're trying to prove. Before I go on a rant or make assumptions: What are you trying to prove? What's your aim/hypothesis?
|
Korea (South)11598 Posts
SAT 1550
ICCUP around 5600
|
2380 sat
iccup around 2800
|
SAT (old) : 1210 / 1600
Iccup : 1300ish -_-
|
|
|
SAT: 1830
ICC: 1923 was my highest T_T
|
2130 SAT
1450 max ICCup. =(
I'm pretty sure there's response bias around here.
+1 ... Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
hey guys sure is flawed survey around here durr hurr
|
On May 20 2009 15:41 gettodaroflchoppa wrote:
SAT: over 9000
iCCup: way over 9000
its over 9000?!
|
|
|
You're gonna fail whatever this is for. You can't just convert the 1600 to the new one lol
There's still huge variables with the sat, even if you eliminate the old farts. Someone could be a math wiz, but totally incapable of writing, or vice versa.
Race used would probably have to be considered as well.
|
|
|
SAT: (never took it) 26 on act?
Iccup: 7123
|
Correlation doesn't always mean causation
Sat: 2000
ICCUP: 1500
|
SAT - 1350 Old one.
ICCup - 3000
|
|
|
SAT: 1380/1600
ICCUP: 2200
|
United States4126 Posts
2170 SAT
I have no exact number, but if I had to guess it'd be ~2500 for my ICCUP ranking.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
1600 on old SAT + 800 SAT II Writing (back when it was still around) = 2400 new SAT presumably
D Protoss
|
0 and D- protoss
wow im terrible
|
On May 21 2009 04:53 GrandInquisitor wrote:
1600 on old SAT + 800 SAT II Writing (back when it was still around) = 2400 new SAT presumably
D Protoss
wow!
Smart guy~!
|
United States10774 Posts
2300 on the new SAT
~7500 B
|
|
|
On May 21 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna fail whatever this is for. You can't just convert the 1600 to the new one lol
There's still huge variables with the sat, even if you eliminate the old farts. Someone could be a math wiz, but totally incapable of writing, or vice versa.
Race used would probably have to be considered as well.
There is a mathematically accepted procedure to convert the old SAT scores to the appropriate proportions of the new SAT scores. Although it is not perfect, it gives people a rough estimate of what they would have gotten if they had taken the new SAT.
|
On May 20 2009 15:53 MaZza[KIS] wrote:
I'm interested to know what you're trying to prove. Before I go on a rant or make assumptions: What are you trying to prove? What's your aim/hypothesis?
My parameter of interest would be the Teamliquid community
I am hoping to get at least a 100 points of data from a 100 individual people then randomly selecting 50 in order to establish the basic conditions needed for a Chi-Square test.
My Null hypothesis: There is association between SAT scores and skill level of starcraft players
my alternative hypothesis: There is no association between SAT scores and skill level of players
And of course there are outlets to give way to bias, skewed data/information and what not but there is of course a section of the project that tells me to state any and all possible ways that my data or information had been skewed in any way. So for all the people not actually contributing to the topic and saying negative things about my project, please either say something negative then offer a solution to the said negative thing or just post your info. Thank you.
|
1550/1600 old SAT
D- Iccup almost as long ago
I also have a 12 inch penis if that's helps you correlate SAT scores with Iccup rank.
|
United States4126 Posts
New SAT has a differently formatted English section and added topic into the Math section iirc. Plus, the test was so much longer due to more sections + writing section, so it's hard to find a relation between old SAT + new SAT scores.
|
|
|
SAT Score: 2140
Highest Numerical ICCup Ranking: 1238
|
39 valid responses, I still need 61 more. Tell your friends to post their info as well please.
|
On May 21 2009 07:15 akechi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2009 15:53 MaZza[KIS] wrote:
I'm interested to know what you're trying to prove. Before I go on a rant or make assumptions: What are you trying to prove? What's your aim/hypothesis?
My parameter of interest would be the Teamliquid community I am hoping to get at least a 100 points of data from a 100 individual people then randomly selecting 50 in order to establish the basic conditions needed for a Chi-Square test. My Null hypothesis: There is association between SAT scores and skill level of starcraft players my alternative hypothesis: There is no association between SAT scores and skill level of players And of course there are outlets to give way to bias, skewed data/information and what not but there is of course a section of the project that tells me to state any and all possible ways that my data or information had been skewed in any way. So for all the people not actually contributing to the topic and saying negative things about my project, please either say something negative then offer a solution to the said negative thing or just post your info. Thank you.
See this is where I got worried:
There is association between SAT scores and skill level of starcraft players
See, hyopthesizing is not random. You have to have an AIM first. You have to ask yourself the question WHY? Why am I doing this? Is there any rational reason why I want to ascertain this information. i.e., if I ascertain this piece of information X will be solved.
In my view, you're looking at e-sports and the characteristics necessary to succeed in esports.
I propose that, rather then SAT or IQ, the major component of e-sports success will be dedication., i.e. hours spent practicing.
In fact, I've seen that already (quite briefly) in some of the results posted. I mean, it makes sense:
study hard --> less bw --> lower ICCUP level (less time to practice mechanics), but higher grades
less study --> more bw --> higher ICCUP score, but lower grades
It's a simple level of explanation that can be extrapolated with some logic. See, I THINK , (and this is strictly my opinion) that you're trying to prove something that can be logically ascertained. What is HARD to ascertain is the balance. For example, what is the MIX of brains + dedication necessary, or something of that sort. Just saying, you don't need brains to be awesome at SC is obvious. Why? Because you can just copy progamer builds, get really good at it and ascertain a fairly high level without ever having any creativity in your play...
From experience, it's the planning stage that matters the most... It's corny but, "if you fail to plan, you plan to fail". There's some truth to that and I don't think you've planned your assignemnt out at all.
If it was my assignment I'd look at the characteristics required to be a succesful e-sports (or starcraft player). I would take these characteristics from general sports and add some specific to e-sports (surely there are studies out there on successful atheletes and their characteristics). Then I'd ask the appropriate question and come up with the ranking system of necessary characteristics. This would then (perhaps) allow comparison with regular sports to highlight differences/similarities:
i.e. you require the same level of dedication but more brains for e-sports ... or something of that sort.
Again, I don't know what level you're doing this research at, but it looks like it's just high-school/college and you're just looking to get the grades and let that be that....
|
1500 exact on the new SAT
B- highest
edit: oh fuk i don't know what the numerical value i had..i think it was like 6070 (if B- is 6k I can't remember)
|
1300 on old SAT
D+, ~2500 ICCUP
|
2080 SAT but retaking it soon >.>
2300 iccup
How are people getting less than 1000 as their highest iccup numerical value since you start at 1000.....
|
2280 (new) SAT, 1480 iCCup
|
fuck all you guys with awesome SAT scores and awesome iccup ranks ;(
|
United States20665 Posts
|
zomg LR is imba. teach some SC skillz pl0x =d
|
well I took the old SAT and got 1500, but if you combine that with my sat II in writing (which became the third part of the new SAT) then I'd have a 2300 on the new one.
ICC: um, 324? Or I guess 1000 but I never got any higher than that... I always was and will be D-.
|
YOU STILL HAVE THE BIAS IN THIS STUDY
FAIL
|
SAT Score: 2360
Highest Numerical ICCup Ranking: 1724
|
l10f
United States3241 Posts
SAT: 2220 ICCUP: 3270
Those of us who are wayy past the age for taking SAT's will probably score around 2400 by now, with high iccup rank.
|
|
|
definitely response bias
1580/1600 sat, 1700 iccup
but anyone with a rudimentary basic understanding of statistics (or iccup) knows this "survey" is bullshit
|
|
|
|
|
3861 Posts
AHAHAHAH notice how only those who got over 2000 on the new SAT will post. All the non 2000 scores now are too embarassed. Either the SATs got easier (actually, I think they did - I've taken the old ones and have taught the new ones) or TL just has a lot of smart kids OR ya'll are liars.
|
2140/2045
i need to play more, never find the time to.
i took the old sat in 7th grade, got a 1220, if that means anything to you guys.
|
|
|
United States10774 Posts
On May 27 2009 10:50 lilsusie wrote:
AHAHAHAH notice how only those who got over 2000 on the new SAT will post. All the non 2000 scores now are too embarassed. Either the SATs got easier (actually, I think they did - I've taken the old ones and have taught the new ones) or TL just has a lot of smart kids OR ya'll are liars.
hahahah there's definitely a response bias but i don't think the test got any6 easier. i have tried both, and i think english got harder while math stayed about the same or slightly easier.
|
3861 Posts
The writing section is a joke. The essay, at least. The grammar is annoying as fuck but as long as you've brushed up on all the stupid grammatical rules (the obscure ones) you're fine.
The short reading passages are nice, sure better than the fuckin' analogy section they used to have.
|
United States10774 Posts
eh the writing section was a bitch for me because of the harsher curve and all the little grammar rules that can trip you up. i personally prefer the old english section with analogies and such to the new sentence completion/passage format, but i guess that depends on the individual. it doesn't make sense to say that standardized tests got "easier" to start with. your score depends on how well others do, so it doesn't mean your score will be higher on the new one than the old. if the problems really are easier, then one error will cost you more.
|
SAT: 2090
ICCUP: 1100
agree with lilsusie about the SAT; I barely tried and got that score; Starcraft is much more difficult than the SAT imo XD
|
17068 Posts
On May 27 2009 11:25 OneOther wrote:
eh the writing section was a bitch for me because of the harsher curve and all the little grammar rules that can trip you up. i personally prefer the old english section with analogies and such to the new sentence completion/passage format, but i guess that depends on the individual. it doesn't make sense to say that standardized tests got "easier" to start with. your score depends on how well others do, so it doesn't mean your score will be higher on the new one than the old. if the problems really are easier, then one error will cost you more.
Eh, the analogy section was shoved (I think) because the test writers believe it was too biased towards people who could actually spend money to prepare for the test or were of a higher socio-economic class.
Example?
Marathon is to runner as regatta is to what?
...
Yeah like any inner city kid is going to know what a regatta is.
|
SAT: 2110
ICCUP: 1050 or something terrible.
|
|
|
This seems like a fun project, but it will be a pain to record all these scores. I doubt it'll be possible to do it programatically with the haphazard way in which the responses are given.
My data:
SAT: 2360
ICCUP: 2100 but a projected C- 
|
|
|
Can you clarify which SAT score you want? For example, it's not hard to pull the 1600 score from the new test (just forget about the essay afaik), but it's impossible to generate a 2400 score from the old test.
That said:
Old SAT Score: 1320
New SAT Score: 1950
Iccup MAX: 1200
Also there are other factors. For example, I drank the night before both of my SATs, didn't study and couldn't really be bothered, but there are people who invested money and time into it and actually prepared.Those make a difference, as it wasn't a test about knowledge but who actually studied the book and dumped any form of money into it.
|
1.6k range.
iccup high : aehhh i believe its around 5580?
|
1.6/2.0 on Swedens equivalence of SAT. 19/22 and 20/20 for the math related parts.
My ICCup rank would probably be D- as i rarely play SC and don't even have an ICCup account.
|
|
|
Anyone here happen to know how to do a Regression t test?
|
No but I'd just save myself the trouble and say "not significant".
Also, I've never heard of a Regression t-test (I've heard of regressions and t-tests, but never together. Both are easy as hell to do with excel).
|
On May 27 2009 11:57 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2009 11:25 OneOther wrote:
eh the writing section was a bitch for me because of the harsher curve and all the little grammar rules that can trip you up. i personally prefer the old english section with analogies and such to the new sentence completion/passage format, but i guess that depends on the individual. it doesn't make sense to say that standardized tests got "easier" to start with. your score depends on how well others do, so it doesn't mean your score will be higher on the new one than the old. if the problems really are easier, then one error will cost you more. Eh, the analogy section was shoved (I think) because the test writers believe it was too biased towards people who could actually spend money to prepare for the test or were of a higher socio-economic class. Example? Marathon is to runner as regatta is to what? ... Yeah like any inner city kid is going to know what a regatta is.
I didn't prepare at all for the SAT and I got a perfect score on the analogies. I have no idea what a regatta is either, but if you're smart enough, you can always use process of elimination to narrow it down. Besides, I think they took stuff that blatant out of the test years ago.
|
1850 SAT
2872 ICC (going up :o)
|
|
|
17068 Posts
On May 28 2009 14:14 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2009 11:57 Empyrean wrote:On May 27 2009 11:25 OneOther wrote:
eh the writing section was a bitch for me because of the harsher curve and all the little grammar rules that can trip you up. i personally prefer the old english section with analogies and such to the new sentence completion/passage format, but i guess that depends on the individual. it doesn't make sense to say that standardized tests got "easier" to start with. your score depends on how well others do, so it doesn't mean your score will be higher on the new one than the old. if the problems really are easier, then one error will cost you more. Eh, the analogy section was shoved (I think) because the test writers believe it was too biased towards people who could actually spend money to prepare for the test or were of a higher socio-economic class. Example? Marathon is to runner as regatta is to what? ... Yeah like any inner city kid is going to know what a regatta is. I didn't prepare at all for the SAT and I got a perfect score on the analogies. I have no idea what a regatta is either, but if you're smart enough, you can always use process of elimination to narrow it down. Besides, I think they took stuff that blatant out of the test years ago.
Let's be honest here, even though you didn't prepare at all for the SATs, you most likely lived a comfortable lifestyle with parents who fostered a love for learning, and a competent school which prepared you well for the future. Many people who aren't brought up in such circumstances don't have those luxuries.
And regattas are boat races. Usually they're some sort of yacht racing, and mostly wealthy people take part in them.
|
My old sat was 1500ish (don't remember exactly). 790 Math...
My best iccup rank is c-.
|
|
|
On May 27 2009 11:57 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2009 11:25 OneOther wrote:
eh the writing section was a bitch for me because of the harsher curve and all the little grammar rules that can trip you up. i personally prefer the old english section with analogies and such to the new sentence completion/passage format, but i guess that depends on the individual. it doesn't make sense to say that standardized tests got "easier" to start with. your score depends on how well others do, so it doesn't mean your score will be higher on the new one than the old. if the problems really are easier, then one error will cost you more. Eh, the analogy section was shoved (I think) because the test writers believe it was too biased towards people who could actually spend money to prepare for the test or were of a higher socio-economic class. Example? Marathon is to runner as regatta is to what? ... Yeah like any inner city kid is going to know what a regatta is.
From a different perspective, after 8 books worth of analogies, I didn't even have to know what the words mean and could pretty much eliminate 2-3 choices from the answers alone. There was a definite pattern and tendency in the analogies section (and I would know, 800 verbal), guessed on 1 analogy (correctly) after narrowing it down to 2 choices easily.
|
SAT 1920
iCCup 1830 or something.
|
SAT 2110
iCCup 3020 (about)
why are u guys so fcking smart.
|
On May 21 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna fail whatever this is for. You can't just convert the 1600 to the new one lol
There's still huge variables with the sat, even if you eliminate the old farts. Someone could be a math wiz, but totally incapable of writing, or vice versa.
Race used would probably have to be considered as well.
22 is an old fart? and I don't recall my iccup rank before reset. If I had to guess it'd be 2005. SAT=1490/1600
|
I think this thread shows more about how people who play Starcraft are nerds.
Anyway, my SAT was 1500/1600. And I suck at ICCUP. D/D- back when I played.
|
SAT 1510 (Out of 1600!)
iCCup 3000
I'll be very surprised if you actually do find a correlation. But if you do, maybe it'll be because those people that are likely to lie are likely to inflate both of their stats?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
