<p>I've been a long time lurker of CC, and have have come across a plethora of posts dealing with the SAT and innate ability/intelligence. Now, I know this is my first post, but don't think of this is as merely a troll thread or anything of the like. I post this merely to engage in a civilized discussion with my fellow CC'ers. </p>
<p>It has come to my attention, from years of being a lurker of these forums, that many users have a profound and steadfast belief that, if, for example, student A obtains score x on the SAT, while student B receives a score >x, that student B is automatically more inherently capable (has more "raw" intelligence, if you will) than student A. I am more of the belief that, although it does take intelligence to obtain a high score on the SAT, the lack of such a score doesn't automatically entail a lack of intelligence. For example, I took the SAT twice, with the first time scoring in the 2000 range and the second time scoring in the mid 2100 range. I took this test with absolutely no prep; in essence, I walked into the testing center cold each time. Now my question to anyone who bothers to read this topic is: do you guys believe that someone with a 2300+ is automatically more intelligent than someone with a score in the range I've mentioned above? Pay attention to the word "intelligent." I am in no way attributing college success to SAT scores, as I know many people with low scores who perform exceptionally in college. What I mean by intelligence is, essentially, "school smarts." That ability that certain students have to understand material taught in school with absolutely no effort, and to be able to use said material to reason and solve new problems. Based on my years of reading through these forums, it almost seems like most everyone on here thinks that a higher score automatically places a student in a higher raw reasoning/learning (whatever you want to call it) echelon relative to a student with a lower score.</p>
<p>I would also like to add that my best subject in school is mathematics. I usually learn everything with very little effort, but in math especially, things have always come easier to me than some of my peers. Now, I'm not a math genius or anything of that sort (far from it :) ), but how would the people on this forum explain this: my lowest section on the sat, the section which prohibited me from obtaining a 2200+, almost a 2300 (without no prep whatsoever) was, in fact, the math section. I "only" obtained a 660 (for anyone reading this, a 660 is a good score, don't get me wrong), yet some of my friends got around a 740, some even a 760. Yet, ironically, I never had to try at math at my school, and while those same friends that got those scores would be freaking out over a certain test, for example, I would find out we even had a test pretty much as class started. These friends, themselves, admit that I am better than they are at math (this sounds really pretentious, haha, but I'm just trying to make a point). By the logic of these forums, though, my friends are better at/have more intrinsic ability at math than I am, even though this isn't the case. So, how would the strict SAT=ability people respond to this? I personally found the math section of the SAT very easy, but always seem to make errors, maybe because the idea of taking a 4 hour test that supposedly determines one's future would always keep me up at night and only allow me to obtain about 4 hours of sleep. My main point in constructing this thread is for the others out there like me, who know they are capable yet didn't perform on the level they should be performing. Me personally, I find myself reading posts by those strict SAT=ability people, and, although this is sad, it has led me to even doubt my own abilities at times. I am sure there are other bright students out there who have probably come across posts such as I have described in one occasion or another and have felt the same way.
Please don't start a flame war, but offer your constructive criticism/ideas. :)</p>