Remember that everyone has different goals. My cousin was heartbroken when she got a 1570 on the old SATs, as her dream of going to some university was crushed, as she was competing with peers in an elite high school. She had to settle for Brown or something, and was convinced that life was over.

For me, I didn't have the desire or resources to do that. I got my 1400 and was able to choose from any of a dozen schools. That meant that being a white shoe attorney or McKinsey consultant was out of my reach. Life is good.

On another note, my son is passionate about little league. He's good, has fun, has a competitive spirit, has made great friends, etc. It's a great thing. He's probably in the 75th percentile of players at his age and region. So unfortunately, major league baseball dreams are unlikely to be fulfilled.

This article is similar. Being in the 95th percentile of people playing some video game is interesting, but isn't something that I would have any desire to do, and probably is a fools errand unless you're looking to compete at a professional level. I'd like to be in the 99th of people having fun playing a game -- the time and mechanics of getting to be an elite player is probably in opposition to that goal!

Are you saying she was heartbroken with a 1570 out of the old 1600 or the slightly-less-old, but still not current 2400? I can't believe that 1570/1600 is going to disqualify you from anywhere.

This was the 90s, so the old 1600 based exam.

My understanding is that there is/was an admissions quota at the high school level. I don't recall the gory details, but as a cousin and friend I was sympathetic, but as someone not in the middle of it I was puzzled and kind of horrified at the brutal competition that left a truly brilliant person feeling like some sort of rube.

Everything worked out in the end.

Your cousin is probably exaggerating. 1570 is still 99th percentile (assuming out of 1600 obviously.)

1400 is still way above average, at least 95th percentile.

You can do whatever you want in both cases.

That seems like a good observation...sample size matters. Being one the best players in my over-40, non-contact, recreational hockey league is very, very, not meaningful. I could move up a bracket and be an ignored bench warmer. Or move down and be a superstar.

Seems recognized by everyone playing though. We focus little on who has talent. It's more about cool multi-player strategy, and funny stuff. Terrible players that "luck or effort" into something magnificent is way more exciting and celebrated than a known good player scoring/defending. "Goalie didn't show up and here's a dumbass in pads" are the best games, even if it's your goalkeeper and you get destroyed on the scoreboard.