I am glad you have figured out how I mean to sound. With insight like that I wonder why you waste your talents on a scientific job instead of a phsychological one. If I were to take accountability I would admit to being condescending, but not snobby.
I find it humorous that whenever confronted about an extreme stand, one uses how absurd the other extreme is to justify their own extreme view. Obviously people are not born controllers, but if they cannot pass a simple test then it could inhibit their ability to learn said job.
Also, your own self admitted shortcomings are not a reason to doubt a well established method of determining intelligence. There are hordes of underachieving geniuses. It doesn't mean they lack any mental capabilities, just ambition and skill.
I'm not even going to address any of the petty, ad hominem jousts. C'mon, you must be above that.
You do know, though, that it isn't exactly a revolutionary or...heretic concept that intelligence and aptitude aren't super-posable, and that thus, accurate measurements can NEVER be obtained on a concrete plane. Nevermind the fact that the results must be repeatable under controlled, objective conditions. It's a basic tenet of the scientific method, and unfortunately, the IQ test does not lend itself to any of the aforementioned qualities. It is inherently flawed, as with any other test with a similar purpose. The Myer-Brigg's comes to mind, if you're familiar with it. This isn't my measly opinion; this is the field of logic and psychometrics, and it is far more vast than you or I.
I have a lot of issues with the fields of psychology and sociology in general, however interesting that they may be...especially anything...Jungian. Like the great physicist, Richard Feynman, once declared, they're more like "witchdoctors". Poignant.
Needless to say, there are plenty of noteworthy researchers who I have complete reverence for, who have submitted numerous studies on such a topic.
Ambition? Skill? Underachieving? Please, Sweetheart, don't be presumptuous. It isn't befitting.
I'm not even going to address any of the petty, ad hominem jousts. C'mon, you must be above that.
You do know, though, that it isn't exactly a revolutionary or...heretic concept that intelligence and aptitude aren't super-posable, and that thus, accurate measurements can NEVER be obtained on a concrete plane. Nevermind the fact that the results must be repeatable under controlled, objective conditions. It's a basic tenet of the scientific method, and unfortunately, the IQ test does not lend itself to any of the aforementioned qualities. It is inherently flawed, as with any other test with a similar purpose. The Myer-Brigg's comes to mind, if you're familiar with it. This isn't my measly opinion; this is the field of logic and psychometrics, and it is far more vast than you or I.
I have a lot of issues with the fields of psychology and sociology in general, however interesting that they may be...especially anything...Jungian. Like the great physicist, Richard Feynman, once declared, they're more like "witchdoctors". Poignant.
Needless to say, there are plenty of noteworthy researchers who I have complete reverence for, who have submitted numerous studies on such a topic.
Ambition? Skill? Underachieving? Please, Sweetheart, don't be presumptuous. It isn't befitting.
I scored 100%. Picked Idaho, in comments section specified that I would prefer Boise area. No email here
I have seen so many people on here say they have a 100% on the AT-SAT....
It's totally possible that all the people selected for Florida had a higher score than 97.7...
I think getting picked up had to do with three things....
1. AT-SAT score
2. Number of applicants for the state you selected
3. Number of positions for the state you selected
You could have a 97.7 and all the work history in the world...but if you selected a state where the volume of applicants was overwhelming...there could have been 120 applicants with a score higher than 97.7 all applying for 90 jobs in your state (probably less than 90)....
States like FL and GA and IL had an overwhelming amount of applicants..... When guys with 100's are filling level 5 towers.... you are probably out of luck. I empathize though. How could you possibly think a 97.7 is too low of a score with your work history taken into account. But seriously, I don't think it's out of the question when you take into account all 3 factors above.
anic:anic:anic:
Good luck folks... My prayers are with you. I hope you get an email Tuesday. Remember..some people will turn down the facilities that they were selected for...maybe they will fill those in the upcoming weeks as well.
As far as I know, I didn't get chosen either. My selections were Terminal only for FL & GA.
I guess flying a plane isn't the same as controlling one. If you have what it takes to be a great controller then you would have been well qualified. I'm not trying to be mean, but being able to fly doesn't give you an advantage when it comes to controlling.
The 97.7 might have been good enough for other regions, but maybe there were just more qualified people applying to their state(s) of preference...
Atsat- 100
B.S.--working on the master's
Pilot as a day job
IQ-131
ACT-19
Terminal only for TX & FL
But I was selected on Pubnat1 for enroute. Maybe that has something to do with it???
Very well Said! I think your statements have much more class than some of your other comments - Refresher - "You seem malnourished. How about a d**k sandwich?"
I received an email:
Congratulations! You have been chosen for further consideration for an Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS) position at the Palm Beach International Air Traffic Control Tower (PBI) in West Palm Beach Florida.
As far as I know there have been around 5 people on here selected for Florida locations.
I don't have any aviation experience and I received 100 on my atsat. I have work history for over 10 years and turn 31 in December. Good luck to all!