>>11715340i dunno, didn't the SAT used to be more g loaded say, in the 90's? it's also very receptive to grinding and studying, 125 IQ should be able to max it out just fine. perfect SAT scores are probably not that strong of a signal, as they're capped, rather it's more of a "you must be this tall to ride" sort of deal.
honestly, in this world even 140 IQ isn't particularly special. in eysenck's model you need quite a few other traits like creativity (so some psychoticism, which would be reflected in eccentric, outside the mainstream tastes, at least a bit of an interesting character, instead of the absolute cookie cutter NPC normal hobbies and stylistic influences she has.), as well as productivity, which tends to drop out sharply in women as their late 20's approach for various reasons...
lastly, another reason it's maybe not as meaningful as it seems: there's a political climate in universities which is strongly feminist and pro women, due to 1. men outnumbering women in higher IQ bands, pushing up female scarcity/value and 2. universities have to meet unrealistic, enshrined in the law diversity quotas or they'll get sued by clever lawyers, so pumping up female/black/hispanic numbers is a priority, merit comes second
all and all she seems like just another overproduced elite aspirant, a privileged nobody who could quite possibly contribute in some incremental way to human knowledge, but is ultimately very replaceable, a cog in the giant, globohomo STEM machine. god bless her. T. Hanks for cumming to my ted talk!!!
