<p>
</p>
<p>Okay? And how many of them go on to become Einsteins and Feinbergs and Wittgensteins? Huh?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone who was accepted by Princeton, you can’t really say that your intelligence played no role in your SAT score.</p>
<p>Sure, it’s nice to think that the SAT is a meritocracy. But there’s a reason why a lot of students score below 2300, and it’s not because they’re all lazy and unmotivated.</p>
<p>illicit: I’m definitely not saying that. But I am saying that people who score high did not do so because they are just exceedingly smart.</p>
<p>illicit: my intelligence played a secondary role to my work ethic. it doesn’t take a smart person to get into or even survive at princeton. it takes a person who is willing to work hard. As I said, the SAT measures nothing but how well you can take the SAT. Any claim that it measures intelligence is both unfounded and unsubstantiated. </p>
<p>The reason why a lot of students score below 2300 is not only because some of them don’t work for it (seriously, how many the sub-2100 students do you think actually studied hours upon hours for it?) but because some of them were not in environments conducive to those ends. Perhaps their family could not afford SAT books, perhaps they had to work every day after school. In any case, a combination of social and economic problems contributed to their lower score. Case in point: This says nothing about their intelligence! </p>
<p>To say that somebody cannot score high on the SAT, even if they work hard, is an insult to those who are trying even this day. It puts people down because you’re creating the illusion that the SAT is based upon intelligence, which is an innate factor. You can’t change an innate factor, yet you can change your SAT score, and, as I said, you can change it drastically.</p>
<p>You can’t just say it’s one factor, as I said, the SAT measures what the college-board deems to be your ‘scholastic aptitude’. There is statistical evidence that the SAT CORRELATES with you iq, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s based off of your IQ, but that the SAT can be used to predict iq, or vise versa. Yes, your intelligence can restrict your score, some people without natural ability like the OP do not have the time to devote the hours to raise there score from a 1500 to a 2400. 93Tiger16, I do know people who studied for hours upon hours and didn’t break 2100, I maintain that some level of natural ability must be present, possibly explained by iq, or test taking ability, or some other factor.</p>
<p>Neutrality: I would suggest looking at Bridgeman’s (2005) note “Unbelievable Results When Predicting IQ From SAT Scores.” While Frey and Detterman (2004) claim to have correlated general intelligence to SAT scores, their correlation was not only statistically low, but also yields absurd results, according to Bridgeman. SAT scores, therefore, do not correlate vis-a-vis IQ. Coyle’s (2006) article can also be illuminating: “Test–retest changes on scholastic aptitude tests are not related to g”. Even if I concede that intelligence plays a minimal role in test scores, this study clearly demonstrates that it is possible to achieve higher scores by doing other things such as studying. In other words, intelligence is not a limiting factor. </p>
<p>I would also check your facts against a piece PBS did on whether the SAT can measure intelligence, if anything. Multiple academic sources, including test prep experts, a Stanford professor, and multiple Harvard professors, assert that the SAT does NOT, in fact, measure intelligence. If it does not measure intelligence, then people of higher intelligence should not have an advantage over people of lower intelligence. </p>
<p>Also, the fact that the SAT was first called the scholastic “aptitude” test does not mean that it actually measures intelligence. When the first test was administered eons ago, it was thought to measure intelligence. However, after much empirical evidence and decades of study, experts conclude that it is now unclear what the SAT measures, and most agree that it only definitively measures how well you can take the SAT. That, inherently, has to do with studying - your mile time decreases as you practice it more. Sure, some athletic ability has to be assumed, but after a certain low threshold, you can definitely improve it. Some people may need more practice than others, but it is not unattainable. </p>
<p>Finally, I do concede that restrictions on score exist. However, let it be noted that I am vehemently opposed to identifying that restriction as “intelligence.” I recognize that any combination of socioeconomic factors can play a role in SAT scores. For instance, you may be predisposed to scoring badly simply because you go to a crappy high school that does not teach you useful material (note that I distinguish “intelligence” from “learned knowledge” here).</p>
<p>I don’t know if you would be a good physicist, but I commend your creativity. There aren’t many people who would think to determine their fitness for physics by looking at their score on a test that has nothing to do with physics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, that is why everyone who works hard gets at least 2300 on the SAT.</p>
<p>^everybody who works hard gets a decent score on their SAT.</p>
<p>I like fizzicks. I discussed it with a friend while playing on a seesaw the other day. The best part is, the physics discussion actually happened, and we didn’t even talk about the SAT. Of course there are multiple ways to achieve high scores on the SAT, but in the end, is it not a Caucus race? The people who score high without much preparation at all should be able to handle college courses if they choose to apply themselves on some level (yes, I’m acknowledging the slackers with high SAT scores here). The people who score high after a significant amount of preparation display an ability to work hard to achieve the same goal. Ultimately, intelligence is of no use unless it is put to use.</p>
<p>OP, quit worrying about your IQ and go worry about your future instead.</p>
<p>
Frey and Detterman found a correlation coefficient of .82, and .87 when corrected for nonlinearity. This is definitely not "statistically low.</p>
<p>
Okay, so let’s say student A and student B take the PSAT with no prep. Student A is about average and scores 140. Student B is the OP and scores 222. Your argument is that within finite time both students can raise their scores to perfect. I can buy this, but I guarantee you it will be much, much harder for Student A. </p>
<p>Just because it is theoretically possible for student A to score a 2400 doesn’t mean that the SAT has no power to differentiate between intelligence levels. The fact that A did significantly worse on the test than B when both had no preparation signifies that certain skills are lacking. You may argue that these skills are unrelated to intelligence, but not on the basis that a 2400 is theoretically possible for anyone. </p>
<p>An IQ of 150 (as measured by a specific, fixed test like the Wechsler) is theoretically possible for anyone. If Weschler tests were as freely available as practice SAT exams and students were incentivized to score well, I guarantee you that people who practiced the specific question types would see their scores rise. This doesn’t mean that they are getting more naturally intelligent, simply that they are getting better at tests designed to measure intelligence. But just because people can prepare for the Wechsler and raise their scores does not imply that the score you receive upon first seeing the test is irrelevant to intelligence, in the same way that an initial SAT score (with no prep) is not irrelevant to intelligence.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, perhaps I was unclear. Statistical correlation was 0.483, SAT scores with Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (see Figure 1). They had to correct that to 0.72 due to restricted range, but the correction was calculated, not obtained. The data points you refer to are correlations between the ASVAB and SAT (again, see Figure 1). Note that the ASVAB is NOT an intelligence test but rather a test of acquired knowledge. The ASVAB is more similar to the SAT than to any administered IQ test. In fact, Mensa, the high IQ society, will not even accept the ASVAB as a qualifying standardized test! I find it perplexing and ultimately untenable that Frey and Detterman chose to correlate ASVAB and SAT as a measure of intelligence. </p>
<p>Again, the SAT does not test anything that is innate. It tests on material that is taught. Hence, the tailored secondary school curriculum and prep books. If it tested on something that was innate (i.e. intelligence), you wouldn’t be able to prep for it because you cannot change something that is innate. Differences in scores in students who have not prepped for it is a reflection of differences in their school curricula and socioeconomic background. Practicing a Weschler test also would not get you far. That test tests on something that is not taught and cannot be taught. It’s like athleticism. You can’t teach speed.</p>
<p>The fact is, it’s hard to tell which property all of these tests are measuring. Yes, we associate an IQ test most closely with intelligence, but in reality there really is NO WAY to tell the true intelligence of a person, we can try to compare our results on tests, but really their will always be groups that are hindered in taking the test. the OP’s original question was about his IQ. I maintain that the SAT does correlate with IQ, and therefore he could conclude with a fair amount of certainty that he has an above average IQ, whether he could conclude much more with his test score is unclear.</p>
<p>Is that your opinion or is there a statistic suggesting correlation? As a scientist, I was just interested in seeing the empirical evidence - this isn’t a personal attack on your opinion in any way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The 99% who are not satisfied with their scores just didn’t work hard enough?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are a scientist?</p>
<p>As long as SAT recycles questions there will always be pretenders who achieve through repetition and mimicry.</p>
<p>Or they were subject to certain social circumstances that disadvantaged them on the exam. I have published and am currently doing scientific research, so I would consider myself a scientist, though not a PhD caliber one if that’s what you’re getting at. What is the function of that question?</p>
<p>As mentioned previously in the thread, IQ does correlate with the SAT.</p>
<p>Referring to achievement tests in general:</p>
<p>“Correlations between IQ scores (general cognitive ability) and achievement test scores are reported to be 0.81 by Deary and colleagues”</p>
<p>Please note that the SAT changes periodically.</p>
<p>My D has an IQ of 143 but got an 1880 on her SAT’s</p>
<p>^How old / which grade and did she prep.?</p>