724 karma · joined June 11, 2018
I took this from the College Board website:
"Your raw score is converted to a scaled score of 200 to 800 points, the score you see on your score report. We use a process that adjusts for slight differences in difficulty between various versions of the test (such as versions taken on different days).
We do this to make sure there’s no advantage in taking the test on a particular day. A score of 400, for instance, on one day’s test means the same thing as a 400 on a test taken on a different day—even though the questions are different."
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/scores/how-sat...
I have a friend who was in a PhD in Physics program at CalTech. Absolute genius of a kid, and was surrounded by other people who are incredibly smart. My friend was always a very ambitious person, and wanted to join Wall Street as a quant after completing his PhD because he was interested in maximizing his income, and found the problems presented in finance/markets more compelling than those found in academia.
When he intimated this to people in the Department, they looked at him as if he had suddenly grown tentacles, because it's unbelievable to them that anyone would want to do something other than academia. This is a stark contrast to friends I have at places like Stanford, where no one quite frankly cares.
This doesn't touch on any alleged bad behavior or stress or pressures or experiences that people have while in grad school, but I believe that the cultural forces at institutions govern how people feel pretty strongly. That isn't a profound observation or even revealing, but I just thought that people would like to see a quick human anecdote to maybe relate to people going through this.
This is a very concise (11:32) video that goes over some of the culture and thinking around outdoor kindergartens.
I believe that it is quite informative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkiij9dJfcw&feature=youtu.be
I believe that the best part about these schools is that early on they explicitly teach teamwork and understanding limits. It's quite shocking culturally seeing kids whittling with sharp knives and climbing rather precarious trees but it seems to work well.
Do you really disagree with that? That's what a lot of the marketing seems to be focused on. I felt like question exposure alone got me those same insights, and in fact, the official SAT book rather explicitly lists those things out.
Most people don't read the annoying small text that accompanies the books that spells out a lot of those strategies. Instead they'd rather pay someone a lot of money to tell that to them :)
However, IMO, the SAT adds another variable for contextualization of these inequalities in the American education system, regardless of if the SAT itself is unequal.
Structural inequality in higher education is a whole different ballgame, and is much more complex. As someone who went to a public college, and then got to see what life was like at Ye Olde Ivy colleges and schools like Stanford/Berkeley, it's pretty apparent that there were some structural decisions from the top down that facilitated that success outside of even the economic differential between schools/programs.
Very tough things worth thinking about. I don't think that people treat standardized testing as some all telling oracle, and if they do, I believe that they're mistaken. I remember that our school offered something called the PLAN? which was like the PSAT for the ACT. The career advice it gave me based on my results was that I'd be good at landscape work.
I've never defined myself by my test taking capabilities but I will admit I always felt a little affronted upon reading everything from the movements that seek to de-legitimize all standardized testing. I felt that something I specifically chose to gamify and study for was being increasingly seen as a negative signal.
Life is tough man. I hope people succeed regardless of if they even go to college or not. With that in mind, I also hope that perhaps there can be a cultural shift that facilitates scoring better on aptitude testing because perhaps that may be a signal about our society, even if that is not a perfect signal.
I never took any prep course. I always was of the mindset that the only value they provided was forced practice. I never bought that they taught secrets of test taking.
Instead I bought 2 books, and 2 books only. One was the official SAT Guide which was $20ish. Secondly I bought a Kaplan book which just had 12 tests in it for $20. Both of these books were also available in the reference section of the public library.
I worked through about a test a week the 4ish months prior to the SAT, and read articles online about the SAT if I came across them. I felt very in the know regarding the test and just flew through it when taking it.
I used that score to tutor others for pay, and my friends for free. I found out that just walking people through the test was about confidence, which really jumped people’s score up. Naturally most people I came across were between a 1500 and an 1800 out of 2400. For people below that, they tended to need remedial education to improve their scores. Between 1800 and 2150 usually was a result of understanding patterns in the test and what to look for. Those were learned through some rigor in prep using the two aforementioned books. Finally, for students who wanted to score above a 2150 to a 2400, the differences in those that did and didn’t were not educational content based, but rather big picture problem solving strategy in how to logic through problems and knowing what to look for.
The SAT, IMO, is a relatively good predictor of someone’s educational attainment the first time they try one prior to any prep. I scored exactly what I predicted and after $40 of self-study, which could’ve been done for free, I scored what I knew I could.
Given:
It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained-glass window.
Auto Generated:
He had a white shirt, a dark one. He [then] had a black tie and a pair of black sandals. He was [then] naked and he looked like an elephant. He was [then] dressed as the priestess. He carried a black cross. The priestess held a knife in his hand and he crawled backward down the stairs, his head held high. He crawled backward in a deep, cold sweat. The priestess did not utter a word.
The confusion with Apex is that there are 3 types of currency. One is the in game free currency. That's typically used to unlock characters who cost 12,000 units. The second currency are the gold coins, which are used as premium purchasing power from the devs for things like the battlepass and specific items in the rotating store. The third currency refers to materials. Materials can be used to purchase any skin/celebration/quip etc. Materials can be bought with gold. I believe that you purchased the wrong thing.
If you really want a particular skin it's not that hard to get!
There’s an intersection in the Venn Diagram between burnout and mental health issues, but also some distinctions.
I’ve viewed burnout to be one of two options.
1 - For creatives, a lack of creative fulfillment. Everyone has some creativity but I’m specifically talking about “artists”.
2 - Not being paid enough. Everything is relative. For some people “hustling” even if they’re making 1% salaries is too much. I think that the perspective would be changed if one was a C-suite level or a founder of that same company. We see this in Wall Street too, and nearly ever power law job. Most people, particularly blue collar workers, work physically backbreaking hours doing physically backbreaking work. They can’t afford the luxury of burnout. There’s maybe a large middle class band where people can. For people beyond that, maybe even on the higher end of upper middle class, they’re being compensated enough so the psychological checks and balances compute well enough that burnout doesn’t manifest like how it does for others.
I’d also argue that the optics of “success/growth at all costs” are falsely blamed in SV in particular because SV has a “fail upwards” mechanism that rewards failures.
Lastly, I think that stagnation is not the same thing as burnout.
I would suggest taking a look at Crisp.
I find it very intuitive and useful. More power isn't always needed.
What sort of tooling differences would one expect for a monorepo vs. multiple repos?
Is that a factor of something intrinsic about having one big repo, or is that a factor of the scale of the type of organization that Google is?
Thanks.
Ideally, digital drawings will last for just as long too!
But I'd like to do that. I bought a binder and some paper protectors. It might be ego and vanity here, but I'd like to record my entire progression if possible.
Do you have any particular recommendations for learning digital tools and technologies?
I'd like to know if there are some specifics native to stylus and tablet that differ from pen and paper.
Thanks for that insight.
Do you know of any syllabuses that would be good to look at for the "organic" approach idea? I'd like to understand more what progression would look like even with a more free-flowing approach to learning.
Thank you for your optimism and encouragement!
Do you have some suggestions about good technical exercises? I have a good understanding, I think, of the different aspects of a drawing, like shading and coloring etc. But I was wondering if there are good exercises for improving those?
Thank you for those suggestions.
I think that I've always really struggled to understand color and shading techniques. I'll check that book out.