Ranking of intelligence of poly posters

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by MRT144


These aren't perceptions, they are TEH FACT!

Yep, and that even measured by the standards of the Krazyverse

[VetLegion]

I can't say I agree with the rankings. Proteus_MST isn't fairly ranked. And you forgot to rank BeBro. Your Anglo bias is showing KH, you're unfair to Germans here

[DinoDoc]

You like me! You really like me!

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I'm sure many of us can remember him posting as Tyrant Lizard King,

I'm touched you actually remember that name change.

It was one of about 3 before I came back to my OG name.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Dauphin
Drogue

I'm going to be *so* ribbed for this at the next Polymeet

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I ceilinged out a pair of IQ tests (given when 4 and 7 years old) at 155 (SD=15)
1590 SAT (800 math, 790 verbal)
2360 GRE (before introduction of analytic writing section; 800 quantitative, 800 analytical, 760 verbal)
910 subject GRE (physics)

Which is very high. However I still know two people who are higher on the first 2, of which one is also equal on the third

Although a 760 verbal GRE is impressive!

Originally posted by Asher
Especially considering most of Europe's universities are awful -- they just ride on their histories.

Yep, consistently ranked right at the top and regarded by many to have the very best undergrad degrees (due to specialisation). Plus the tutorial system, I'd *love* to see you cope with a real tutorial here.

But either way, the key part is how hard they are to get in. Even if they were mediocre, they'd still have great students.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
He's the best sniper on Poly.

I have to admit that I am but a child in the art compared to some of the masters of the art that populate this forum. I've never had a forum thread made by a poster dedicated to how much he hated me as Kuci has for instance.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well I just have to let KrazyHorse have his fun.

Rank me please.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I bet Asher can make the same thread only about penis size.

He'll post himself, and then rank people arbitrarily (or.... maybe he knows some people here )

I know surprisingly quite a few measurements on this site.

I'm also very adept at playing the gay guessing game. That is, in crowded areas (or lectures), I'd IM with friends:
"Guy third row from the top, red shirt, blond hair. Uncut, bottom, totally gay."
A friend would counter-guess and then we'd explain our rationale.

Very seldom do we get to find out the answers, but sometimes we do...and I'm very good.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drogue
Yep, consistently ranked right at the top and regarded by many to have the very best undergrad degrees (due to specialisation). Plus the tutorial system, I'd *love* to see you cope with a real tutorial here.

What's the "tutorial system"?

Over here, tutorial is synonymous with "extra help". I suppose this is mandatory in the UK?

But either way, the key part is how hard they are to get in. Even if they were mediocre, they'd still have great students.

I'm told it's a joke to get into the sciences over there.

Didn't PH go to some prestigious UK university...

[Asher]

I googled Tutorial System:

At both University of Cambridge and University of Oxford, undergraduates are taught in the tutorial system. Students are taught by faculty fellows in groups of one to three. At Cambridge, these are called "supervisions" and at Oxford they are called "tutorials." One benefit of the tutorial system is that students receive direct feedback on their essays in a small discussion setting.

Student tutorials are generally more academically challenging and rigorous than standard lecture and test format courses, because during each session students are expected to orally communicate, defend, analyze, and critique the ideas of others as well as their own in conversations with the professor and fellow-students. As a pedagogic model, the tutorial system has great value because it creates learning and assessment opportunities which are highly authentic and difficult to fake.

Obvious conclusions:
1) This is identical to what we call tutorials over here, which are reserved for "special" students who cannot gain all they can from a traditional environment
2) This is a hugely inefficient system that teaches the same material in the end, the difference is it'll cost a lot more and ensures people who aren't smart enough to learn in the lecture can still pass the course with lots of individual attention
3) This isn't the best approach, which is probably why only two universities in the world are stupid enough to do it.
4) I would likely find these environments easier, not harder. I find myself very good with oral academic arguments -- in fact, frequently I've had to bring up tests with professors and have done this kind of argument easily and effectively.

I wouldn't fret such a situation, especially at a dinky modern-CS school such as Oxford.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher

I know surprisingly quite a few measurements on this site.

I'm also very adept at playing the gay guessing game. That is, in crowded areas (or lectures), I'd IM with friends:
"Guy third row from the top, red shirt, blond hair. Uncut, bottom, totally gay."
A friend would counter-guess and then we'd explain our rationale.

Very seldom do we get to find out the answers, but sometimes we do...and I'm very good.

THat would come in handy I guess. For the heteros you also have to assess how promiscuous/easy she will be. That just doesn't seem to be an issue for the gay guys

[Asher]

Sometimes it'd be too easy. Eg, Norm Feinstein with the big nose, "I'm not gay, my boyfriend is" shirt.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Asher
Sometimes it'd be too easy. Eg, Norm Feinstein with the big nose, "I'm not gay, my boyfriend is" shirt.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Asher
What's the "tutorial system"?

Over here, tutorial is synonymous with "extra help". I suppose this is mandatory in the UK?

No, it's what makes Oxbridge special. Rather than classes, like most universities, we have 2-3 very small class tutorials each week (one tutor to 1-3 students). It's a very intense form of studying. For an arts subject, you do two essays a week, that the tutor marks and you defend in the tutorial. It's also partly why we have such short terms, as it's very intense.

There was a great article written by a visiting Princeton student about the difference, for the Princeton newspaper, but I can't find it. This page gives an indication, except visiting students only need to do 1 essay per term if they come for the 2nd semester, as it's twice as long as the first (we have 3 terms, not two semesters, but US universities split it that way for their visiting students).

Originally posted by Asher
Obvious conclusions:
1) This is identical to what we call tutorials over here, which are reserved for "special" students who cannot gain all they can from a traditional environment
2) This is a hugely inefficient system that teaches the same material in the end, the difference is it'll cost a lot more and ensures people who aren't smart enough to learn in the lecture can still pass the course with lots of individual attention
3) This isn't the best approach, which is probably why only two universities in the world are stupid enough to do it.
4) I would likely find these environments easier, not harder. I find myself very good with oral academic arguments -- in fact, frequently I've had to bring up tests with professors and have done this kind of argument easily and effectively.

Which is what we're good at, and what American students often struggle with. For science subjects it may be the same info, for arts subjects it's brilliant. When you mean good arguments though, you *really* have to be. Oxford usually wins the world debating championships (or at least fails because the union hacks put up their friends), because that's what we're really good at. I'd love to see you try.

But seriously, it may be inefficient, but certainly for any discussion based subject, it's utterly incredible if it's affordable. There's no substitute for defending your essay against someone whos the leader in that area. For example defending an essay on environmental economics with the man who heads the governments economics task-force, or such.

And I really wouldn't be so quick to judge. It's very different.

Originally posted by Asher
I wouldn't fret such a situation, especially at a dinky modern-CS school such as Oxford.

CS at Oxford is crap, but you wouldn't last 5 minutes at any other subject. Having said that, you'd have never got in. A close to 4.0 GPA plus the equivilent of a pretty-much perfect SAT is enough to get an interview, but there are 4 such interviewees for every place.

Plus CS is hardly a respected subject here. As I've been told before - those who can, do maths or physics. Those who can't, do CS.

[Asher]

That's because your school sucks at CS. CS is too difficult for such an archaic school with students that need handholding.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drogue


CS at Oxford is crap, but you wouldn't last 5 minutes at any other subject. Having said that, you'd have never got in. A close to 4.0 GPA plus the equivilent of a pretty-much perfect SAT is enough to get an interview, but there are 4 such interviewees for every place.

Hey --how can you denigrate Asher like that -- don't you realize he's the second smartest person here ??