sherman smarter then andrew?

[Nadine]

Interesting comparison of the two majors.  I know one kid who was an outstanding player in high school who was highly recruited by a number of major college football programs.  He was "the guy" that drew head coaches, not assistants, to his games to scout him and to hopefully steer him to their schools.  He made visits to several major football schools (and I do mean MAJOR).  At one "brand name" university, their "academic advisor" didn't even want to know what he was interested in doing besides football, and kept stressing how many of their athletes were now playing in the NFL. When his parents, who were there with him (both have Master's degrees, by the way) pushed the academic advisor to change the subject, she reluctantly asked the kid what major he was interested in, he replied that he wanted to major in Architecture. She quickly countered that she would recommend Communications, because that's what all of their minority athletes majored in. Needless to say, he went to another school, less renowned for their football program, but blew out his knee in his senior year.  And yes, he's now an architect.

I would think a Communications degree would be the most functional for an NFL bound player.  It would serve them well in interacting with the media and managing thier own brand. Also some of these guys cash in big time as sports media types.So, I think it's a solid choice for a college player all around.

 

Architechture is not such a neat fit.  To me it just says that Andrew has a strong interest in it and the will and ability to make it happen.

[jvan1973]

Ah. Look at the first paragraph. " Used to assess the aptitude of prospective employees for learning and problem-solving." It is used to predict the likelihood of success of an NFL player. " Matthews and Lassiter did not find the test to be a successful measure of fluid and crystallized intelligence. It has shown high correlations to aptitude tests such as Aptitude Test Battery."

It's cognitive aptitude. Not a career aptitude. It is also an intelligence test.

[jvan1973]

It's an aptitude test.

" A score of 20 is intended to indicate average intelligence (corresponding to an intelligence quotient of 100).[3] Wonderlic, Inc. claims a score of at least 10 points suggests a person is literate.[7] A new version was released in January 2007 called the Wonderlic Contemporary Cognitive Ability Test (formerly known as the Wonderlic Personnel Test – Revised), containing questions more appropriate to the 21st century; it is available both online and in printed form, whereas the original test is only available on paper. The Wonderlic Test was based on another test called the Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental Ability."

[Qwiz]

It's cognitive aptitude. Not a career aptitude. It is also an intelligence test.

Yeah, cognitive. Still is not indicative of a person's overall intelligence.

[jvan1973]

Yeah, cognitive. Still is not indicative of a person's overall intelligence.

most of it is math and problem solving questions. What would that be testing?

[Superman]

It still doesn't have anything to do with actual intelligence or I.Q.

 

 

yes, it does. That is the reason for the existence of the test

 

There are too many variables in this kind of test for it to be a true measure of intelligence. It's timed, it's stressful, it's multiple choice... Doing bad on the Wonderlic doesn't mean you're not smart. Doing well on it is a good sign, but it's not absolute either.

[Qwiz]

most of it is math and problem solving questions. What would that be testing?

Look, the link you posted confirmed what I had been saying the whole time. It is indeed meant to predict a player's success, not test his I.Q. or football knowledge. One can be less intelligent and still be able to solve problems. I am doubtful that the test the NFL uses has much to do with math.

[jvan1973]

Look, the link you posted confirmed what I had been saying the whole time. It is indeed meant to predict a player's success, not test his I.Q. or football knowledge. One can be less intelligent and still be able to solve problems. I am doubtful that the test the NFL uses has much to do with math.

http://footballiqscore.com/

[CR91]

I never really looked into the Wonderlic........

 

The Wonderlic is a 50-question test administered to all combine participants that measures cognitive ability. The time limit is 12 minutes. A score of 20 is indicative of "average" intelligence and roughly equivalent to an IQ of 100. Former Bengals punter Pat McInally, who attended Harvard, is the only prospect known to have scored a perfect 50 on the test.  ESPN.

 

 

http://www.testprepreview.com/wonderlic_practice.htm

 

didnt ryan fitzpatrick get a perfect score

[amfootball]

Do you think GPA measures intelligence?

No. I was just pointing out the discrepancies in the post.

[Superman]

No. I was just pointing out the discrepancies in the post.

 

That's not a discrepancy, as GPA isn't a measure of intelligence. 

[amfootball]

As for the GPA,  so says Richard Sherman.

 

I've posted that I don't believe Richard's claim. 

 

And a pure GPA alone wouldn't indicate who is smarter than the other.

Why would Sherman lie knowing one could easily find out his GPA?

 

I never said that I believed GPA was an indicator of intelligence just pointing out the discrepancy in the poster's claim that Luck was way smarter than Sherman based on his doing well at Stanford.

[amfootball]

That's not a discrepancy, as GPA isn't a measure of intelligence. 

I never said it was. The poster made a case that Stanford treats its student athletes the same as the general student population and then said Luck was way smarter than Sherman. I was pointing out that by that logic, Sherman would actually be smarter because he also went to Stanford and had a higher GPA.

[jvan1973]

didnt ryan fitzpatrick get a perfect score

no, he got high 40's though. A Harvard punter got a perfect score and is the only nfl player to ever do so

[Qwiz]

http://footballiqscore.com/

Yeah, this random website definitely confirms that you're right. Congrats.

[jvan1973]

Yeah, this random website definitely confirms that you're right. Congrats.

those are actual wonderlic questions. I see reading isn't your strong suit. Congrats

[amfootball]

I really don't think there is one test that can confirm intelligence. I look at all the standardized testing that my kids do in school and even those are incredibly hard to apply across the board to determine how well a student is doing academically.

[Superman]

I never said it was. The poster made a case that Stanford treats its student athletes the same as the general student population and then said Luck was way smarter than Sherman. I was pointing out that by that logic, Sherman would actually be smarter because he also went to Stanford and had a higher GPA.

 

How are you missing this?

 

Just because Sherman got a higher GPA doesn't mean he's smarter. It would mean he got better grades, and that's it. Unless you mistakenly think that grades are a measure of intelligence, which is what I asked in the first place.

[Qwiz]

those are actual wonderlic questions. I see reading isn't your strong suit. Congrats

Ah, personal insults. Be careful. I didn't bother reading the questions because of the sketchiness of the site itself and the fact that it is as wrong as you are. Pity.

[amfootball]

How are you missing this?

 

Just because Sherman got a higher GPA doesn't mean he's smarter. It would mean he got better grades, and that's it. Unless you mistakenly think that grades are a measure of intelligence, which is what I asked in the first place.

What are you talking about? I never said it. I was responding to another poster and actually saying what you are saying.

 

Here is the original post I was responding to (#56), perhaps you missed it:

I appreciate that as a long-time Stanford fan my viewpoint is going to be seen as biased.

 

Part of why I'm a long-time fan isn't because we've been a super-power in football for the past 50 years...   that's actually only been the case for the past 5.   Otherwise, we've been far more mediocre than anything else....

 

The reason I'm a long-time Stanford fan is because they embrace the concept of the true student-athlete.   Stanford has the strictest requirements to gain admission, only the military academies and some Ivy League schools compare.   

 

There are no majors designed just to keep athletes eligible.    For example, Michigan has a General Studies major.   About 85% of the football team are GS majors.   And about 85% of those who are GS majors at Michigan are athletes.    In short,  it's a major just for athletes.      That doesn't exist at Stanford.

 

Are some majors easier than others at Stanford.    Sure.   Yes.    No doubt.    But none are considered easy.    Stanford athletes takes all the same courses that the genius students take.     

 

By the way,  for various interviews, several architecture professors were interviewed about Luck and said he compared very favorably to the general student body population at Stanford.  You know...  the geniuses.    For an athlete,  he was exceptional.

 

Luck is way smarter than Sherman,  and no one who knows them both would tell you otherwise.    Luck is a rare breed.   He's one of the smarter student-athletes Stanford has ever turned out.     Seriously.

[Qwiz]

How are you missing this?

Just because Sherman got a higher GPA doesn't mean he's smarter. It would mean he got better grades, and that's it. Unless you mistakenly think that grades are a measure of intelligence, which is what I asked in the first place.

I'm sure that AM is referring to the poster going on in a long post about how Stanford has smart athletes and they aren't your typical guys who just get by and then ending his post with an unfounded declaration that Andrew is way smarter than Sherman and is one of a rare breed of smart.

[jvan1973]

Ah, personal insults. Be careful. I didn't bother reading the questions because of the sketchiness of the site itself and the fact that it is as wrong as you are. Pity.

Yeah, I'm wrong. Math and problem solving doesn't measure intelligence in any way whatsoever....

[Qwiz]

Yeah, I'm wrong. Math and problem solving doesn't measure intelligence in any way whatsoever....

Two different posters other than myself have pointed out that your view of the test is inaccurate. If you think a higher score means that player A is smarter than player B well that's your business.

[Superman]

What are you talking about? I never said it. I was responding to another poster and actually saying what you are saying.

 

Here is the original post I was responding to (#56), perhaps you missed it:

 

 

LOL

 

Where does that post say anything about GPA? Aren't you the one that responded with the comment about Sherman having a higher GPA than Luck, as if that means that Luck can't be smarter than Sherman because he got better grades... ?

 

You are. I just checked.

 

To which I responded that GPA isn't a measure of intelligence.

[jvan1973]

Two different posters other than myself have pointed out that your view of the test is inaccurate. If you think a higher score means that player A is smarter than player B well that's your business.

I guess its just coincidence that players from Harvard and Stanford traditionally score higher than players from other schools

[amfootball]

LOL

 

Where does that post say anything about GPA? Aren't you the one that responded with the comment about Sherman having a higher GPA than Luck, as if that means that Luck can't be smarter than Sherman because he got better grades... ?

 

You are. I just checked.

 

To which I responded that GPA isn't a measure of intelligence.

I am not sure at all where you are coming from. Or if you are just looking for a fight with me for some reason. But my first post in this thread talked about super star student athletes and how I take their GPAs with a grain of salt because many of them are helped by their professors and other students.

 

My other post was about being a COM major and how hard that major is given I majored it in at BU. I also talked about Sherman's ability as a COM major to articulate himself better than Luck which does not mean he is smarter but can give the perception that he is smarter.

 

All of my other posts have just been responses to other posters. I only pointed out the GPA in the post you seemed obsessed with because the poster went on and on about how Standford athletes are not treated any different than the regular student pop and then try to say Luck was way smarter than Sherman. I pointed out the GPA because both went to Stanford to show him how silly the argument was given his premise.

[Superman]

I'm sure that AM is referring to the poster going on in a long post about how Stanford has smart athletes and they aren't your typical guys who just get by and then ending his post with an unfounded declaration that Andrew is way smarter than Sherman and is one of a rare breed of smart.

 

Whether Luck is smarter than Sherman or not, their respective GPAs aren't measures of intelligence. In other words, just because Sherman had a higher GPA doesn't mean he's smarter than Luck. GPA is pretty well irrelevant when you're talking about two guys who graduated from a school like Stanford.

 

And I'd mostly agree that Stanford student-athletes are a cut above the typical student-athlete, in that the curricula at Stanford are more intensive than other D-1 schools (not all, but most). So even the "run-of-the-mill communications program" at Stanford isn't just a placeholder for football players who can't make the grades in a real academic program. 

[Qwiz]

I guess its just coincidence that players from Harvard and Stanford traditionally score higher than players from other schools

They must be good decision makers.

[jvan1973]

They must be good decision makers.

Also better mathematically. But that doesn't measure intelligence in Texas i guess

[Superman]

I am not sure at all where you are coming from. Or if you are just looking for a fight with me for some reason. But my first post in this thread talked about super star student athletes and how I take their GPAs with a grain of salt because many of them are helped by their professors and other students.

 

My other post was about being a COM major and how hard that major is given I majored it in at BU. I also talked about Sherman's ability as a COM major to articulate himself better than Luck which does not mean he is smarter but can give the perception that he is smarter.

 

All of my other posts have just been responses to other posters. I only pointed out the GPA in the post you seemed obsessed with because the poster went on and on about how Standford athletes are not treated any different than the regular student pop and then try to say Luck was way smarter than Sherman. I pointed out the GPA because both went to Stanford to show him how silly the argument was given his premise.

 

To the first bolded, stop with the victim shtick. 

 

To the second bolded, you basically suggested that Luck can't be smarter than Sherman because Sherman had a higher GPA. And that's way off base, which is all I'm saying. I'm not picking on you.

 

To the third bolded, GPA had nothing to with NCF's post about Stanford student-athletes.

[amfootball]

Also better mathematically. But that doesn't measure intelligence in Texas i guess

Does this mean that people who score well in literary disciplines aren't as smart as those who score well in math?

[Qwiz]

Whether Luck is smarter than Sherman or not, their respective GPAs aren't measures of intelligence. In other words, just because Sherman had a higher GPA doesn't mean he's smarter than Luck. GPA is pretty well irrelevant when you're talking about two guys who graduated from a school like Stanford.

And I'd mostly agree that Stanford student-athletes are a cut above the typical student-athlete, in that the curricula at Stanford are more intensive than other D-1 schools (not all, but most). So even the "run-of-the-mill communications program" at Stanford isn't just a placeholder for football players who can't make the grades in a real academic program.

I know. I'm not saying GPA decides anything at all. I'm just pointing out the irony in the post that we are discussing. NCF applauds his Cardinal guys and then ends the post with the whole Andrew is much smarter than Sherman, and anyone who has met them will say as much. I'm not saying GPA or majors has anything to do with this.

[Qwiz]

Also better mathematically. But that doesn't measure intelligence in Texas i guess

You're wrong, again, just stop now. It's past the point of embarassment.

[jvan1973]

Does this mean that people who score well in literary disciplines aren't as smart as those who score well in math?

I guess it depends what field of people is being tested. FYI there are vocabulary questions on the wonderlic as well

[amfootball]

To the first bolded, stop with the victim shtick. 

 

To the second bolded, you basically suggested that Luck can't be smarter than Sherman because Sherman had a higher GPA. And that's way off base, which is all I'm saying. I'm not picking on you.

 

To the third bolded, GPA had nothing to with NCF's post about Stanford student-athletes.

What victim? Your posts have been attacking in nature and unfounded.

 

Show me where I ever said Luck was smarter than Sherman or vice versa?

 

I don't know how many times I have to say that I brought up GPA in my response to NCF because he said that Luck was way smarter than Sherman and had no reason why except to say that people who know both would say Luck is way smarter and yet Sherman also went to Stanford same as Luck.

[jvan1973]

You're wrong, again, just stop now. It's past the point of embarassment.

no, I'm not. i provided the sample test. If you can't see that is a quick timed IQ test then you have never taken an IQ test.

[amfootball]

I know. I'm not saying GPA decides anything at all. I'm just pointing out the irony in the post that we are discussing. NCF applauds his Cardinal guys and then ends the post with the whole Andrew is much smarter than Sherman, and anyone who has met them will say as much. I'm not saying GPA or majors has anything to do with this.

It's like that post is in Chinese or something when he reads it. lol. I wish I never responded. Ha.

[Qwiz]

no, I'm not. i provided the sample test. If you can't see that is a quick timed IQ then you have never taken an IQ test.

Nah, I've taken an I.Q. test before. I doubt that the one for players going to the NFL is anything like a standard test for I.Q. though.

[Superman]

I know. I'm not saying GPA decides anything at all. I'm just pointing out the irony in the post that we are discussing. NCF applauds his Cardinal guys and then ends the post with the whole Andrew is much smarter than Sherman, and anyone who has met them will say as much. I'm not saying GPA or majors has anything to do with this.

 

AM is. Or was, and will now deny it.

 

But really, what's ironic about NCF's statement? Is it hard to believe that one person who went to Stanford is smarter than another person who went to Stanford? It's a really good school, and anyone who graduated with a high GPA is likely very intelligent. But some guys are genius level scholars, and others are students who worked really hard to get good grades. Some are smarter than others.

 

It would be really, really difficult for me to care any less than I do about who is "smarter" between Luck and Sherman (or any one person vs any other person, to be honest). I think it's entirely irrelevant, and has no bearing on how they play football in the NFL. But there's some glitchy logic in this thread, and most of it circles around GPA and test scores as indicators of intelligence.

[amfootball]

AM is. Or was, and will now deny it.

 

Good glory. Show me a post please.