A Discussion on Ability and the SAT

<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>

<p>IMO, the math section really isn’t even a math section rather than a problem solving section. None of the math is hard. As far as SAT=ability…yes. For some, this ability is innate and for others it is acquired. Does this equate to intelligence? Yes, IMO. I believe people can learn intelligence, if that makes any sense.</p>

<p>It seems like the point of this post is for others to validate your intelligence. Ok, I think that if you are better in school math than others but get a lower Math SAT than kids who put in many more hours of prep, you can still have more math “intelligence”. </p>

<p>I find it puzzling though that you think the prevalent view on this site is that SAT scores are highly correlated to intelligence. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be so much discussion of methods to improve scores. The more intelligent would simply obtain higher scores. However, there are countless posts providing guidance for people with less “intelligence” to work hard, understand the test and score higher than they otherwise would; oh yeah, and higher than more “intelligent” people.</p>

<p>Thank you both for your replies :), I appreciete your input. @CHD2013, I was afraid my post would be received like this, but that honestly wasn’t the point of this thread.
@elvisthepup: I agree that doing well on the SAT is of course, in and of itself, an ability. As I previously posted, I do agree that it usually translates to more innate ability. But the key word, in my opinion at least, is “usually.” My point with this thread is to see if there are others out there that don’t think that you can definitively in 100% of the cases compare two students raw abilities (hard work aside) based solely on the SAT. In the case of my classmates (again, please don’t assume I am trying to “show off” my abilities), yes, I believe they have the skill of doing better at the math SAT than I do. Now is the reason why do they better than I do outright higher intelligence/reasoning ability? Or maybe doing well on the SAT also takes being able to remain focused for around 4 hours and a host of other psychological factors besides raw intelligence. Granted, you could say that being able to remain at the top of your game is, in and of itself, an “intelligent” character trait, and that performing your best under the pressure of the SAT is also an “intelligent” quality. But I am talking about reasoning alone. For example, my friends with the higher scores on the math section, although extremely capable and intelligent (just as their scores predict), would occasionally struggle with certain problems that required a little bit more reasoning and thinking outside of the box, as the old cliche goes. By the logic of these forums, if they struggled with these problems, I would have no hope of figuring them out, yet in actuality, the opposite was pretty much always what happened. Again, I wrote this post because I am sure there are others like me who feel, honestly, kind of down after reading some of the posts here on CC, because they’ve seen examples of the contrary in their real lives.
Also @CHD, that is the view I’ve garnered from viewing these forums, I don’t know if that’s the view people outside of these forums have, but that is what I have seen a bunch of times on these forums (maybe it’s just people trying to put others down haha?).</p>

<p>Intelligence: logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving</p>

<p>Point being, intelligence is a very broad term.</p>

<p>But I am talking about reasoning alone. For example, my friends with the higher scores on the math section, although extremely capable and intelligent (just as their scores predict), would occasionally struggle with certain problems that required a little bit more reasoning and thinking outside of the box, as the old cliche goes</p>

<p>Instead of using the word “intelligence” try saying “abstract thought (thinking outside the box) and problem solving (in your context, reasoning).”</p>

<p>"It seems like the point of this post is for others to validate your intelligence. Ok, I think that if you are better in school math than others but get a lower Math SAT than kids who put in many more hours of prep, you can still have more math “intelligence”. "</p>

<p>I agree. </p>

<p>. it’s one’s life that made him or her good at sat. people can learn (notice that learning is often considered part of intelligence) to become better at sat. like chd said, they often score higher than so called “intelligent” people.</p>

<p>This seems like a common sentiment that I constantly hear being expressed around my school.
There is some truth to parts of what you’re saying. That being said, this idea isn’t completely correct mostly because you devalue what hard work really means.
No one I know who is a rational human being thinks that higher sat score = higher intelligence. However, there is a limit I think as to how far you can go simply on hard work.
You cannot get a 2300+ solely with hard work. It doesn’t happen; I have never seen it happen. No one of “average intelligence” (whatever that’s supposed to mean. Let’s say with an IQ of 100. Though IQ in itself isn’t even a trustworthy measure of intelligence…moving on…) has the time to study that hard so as to get a 2300+. Getting that high of a score means you had plenty of resources and prep, but it also means pretty consistently that you are definitely smart. However, You can get a 2100 mostly with hard work. Most anyone can. That’s the difference. Getting over a 2300 guarantees in many people’s minds that you are very smart. Getting around a 2100 leaves room for ambiguity, because though there are people who are quite smart who get that score, there are many cases of rigorous year long studying that can get the same score. It’s ambiguous as to which group you belong, whereas a 2300 basically guarantees that you are in the former.</p>

<p>I say this a little reluctantly because I in no way want to imply that there are levels of intelligence or that hard work is something to be looked down on. That is a gross misconception that I feel a LOT of people have, especially at my school.
So many people, and you as well, it seems, appear to underestimate the value of hard work and what it means for someone’s intelligence. Hard work is a talent, it is a gift that is as rare and coveted as a high IQ. There are so many, so so many people in this world who are smart. There is a considerably smaller number of people who capitalize on their intelligence. Those are the people I envy, and strive to become.
I’m going to mention my school again in order to better characterize how pervasive this mindset is, and how much it bothers me as a result.</p>

<p>I hear so many people calling one girl in my grade a try hard. She is a solid girl with great grades, and too many people, a few of them my friends, look down upon her for her effort and claim with offhand remarks that if they tried as hard as her, they’d have better grades than her, etc.
Thing is, they don’t have better grades. And that’s all there is to it.
One of my least favorite things in this world is the elitist mindset that assumes things one has no evidence for. Example: “I know I’m smarter than ____ person! I just know it! She studies soo hard though and gets the same grade/only slightly higher grade than me. I barely studied but sheeee totally did! God what a try-hard. Also, I’m smart. Derp.”
Sounds stupid when expressed in such a way, right? That’s because it is. I don’t want to hear anything more about rankings and intelligence and trying hard vs intelligence. Truth is, there are a ****ton of people as smart as you, and so many more who are smarter. The difference is, a LOT of them study hard, too. What separates the good from the great are those that have this god given gift, and ALSO try their best. Those are the people that succeed. If you just have brains, but don’t capitalize on it, you’re just another drunk uncle at the family reunion saying woulda coulda shoulda.</p>

<p>I say this because I used to think that way; when I was a freshman I used to be one of those people who looked down on that girl for trying so hard. I was that ***** on the couch judging from my seat of rest. Then I woke up and realized (see above) revelation partway through sophomore year, and proceeded to get straight As and TRY. freshman year I wasn’t even in the top 10. Now I’m top 2, with a real chance to be valedictorian.
I really hope at least one person will benefit from my advice, I feel that too many people don’t understand this concept, or realize it too late.</p>

<p>That concept is flawed. You say you don’t want to place people in intelligence classes right after you set up intelligence classes! Do you not see the irony?</p>

<p>You say that people who achieve 2300+ on a test are “smart.” You also say that people who are not “smart” cannot achieve 2300+. In order for this to be true, one CANNOT become smart after being “average.” Do you think people are born with an undiscovered intelligence gene? Do you think some deity chooses who has intelligence? I personally know people (1 person esp. who is a familiar friend) who scores in the 1600 range at the start of Jr. year and then boosted his score up to over 2200 during his last SAT retakes. His telling of his gains is what spurred me to start studying for the SAT. </p>

<p>The point I’m trying to make is that hard work can CREATE intelligence. In fact, working hard is being intelligent.</p>

<p>Hard work definitely plays a huge part for the SAT. In my freshman year, I started taking practice tests at an SAT prep class. I couldn’t even hit 1900 at the time. Over the next few years, I took many lessons and practice tests. In the months leading up to the SAT this october, the test prep center said I couldn’t take any more practice tests because I had taken too many… Yet all this work and practice paid off when I took the actual test for the first time last month, and I got a 2300+. Practice is the only thing that makes you learn the twists of the SAT, especially the math section.</p>

<p>I think in no way is the SAT a measure of intelligence. For instance, I am a fairly straight-A student in school with AP classes but on my first SAT in June got a flat-out 1600. geez. BUT, I studied all summer, worked my butt off, and got a 2300 on the October test. What I’m trying to say is, trying to classify levels of “intelligence” through different ranges on the SAT is fundamentally flawed. Coming from a person who really started from the bottom of the barrel, the SAT is solely a test based on the amount of work one puts into it. Granted, critical reading can get a little iffy, but enough work will get one to 2300 or higher</p>

<p>@elvisthepup and @NBAheat: Please, please, please don’t take my post the wrong way. I firmly believe all of what you guys are saying about hard work, and I myself completely applaud those that work hard. After all, no intelligence will get you anywhere without hard work.
@elivsthepup: I guess I didn’t make my point clear. If anything, I for one don’t believe in the so called “intelligence classes.” (although I do believe that some students are naturally slightly better at understanding things, this is something that obviously can be attained through hard work also) The point I made with my friends was simply my, I guess somewhat feeble, attempt at refuting the notion I’ve seen on CC that higher SAT=more ability than lower SAT (again, I am in no way insinuating anything relating to success, etc.). I repeat myself, the example of my friends is simply to prove my point (I actually have the same opinions as everyone that has responded :)), and if it means anything, they themselves have placed me in an “intelligence class” as elvisthepup writes; I think they have just as much intelligence (or lack thereof lol) as I have. So in essence, what I’m trying to prove is that a higher score, does not always with 100% certainty assure higher intelligence, which is something I’ve seen implied on some posts on this site (intelligence is a very broad term, I am merely referring to learning/reasoning, “school” ability, please make note of that). I am in no way implying that having said “school” intelligence means anything besides just that-having “school” intelligence. Also, of course doing well on the SAT means you have this “school” intelligence (as I mentioned in my first post), but my main argument is that a relatively higher score does not always equal relatively higher intelligence (notice the term “relatively”, and not “absolutely”).</p>

<p>@cheese: I completely agree with you. I guess one can consider the ability to focus on a 4 hour test without falling for its traps a sign of mental acuity, but then again, if a student is smart enough for the questions, yet can’t take such a long test, does that mean is automatically not as “school” smart as a student that can? I think that is the point I’m trying to drive home (although I’m probably failing at doing so lol).</p>

<p>@cello: Agree with you too.</p>

<p>Also, it’s nice to see that there are actual human beings on these forums, and that this site is not filled only with the type of people that I’m trying provide counter arguments for :).</p>

<p>The older SAT (pre 1995) was considered to line up with IQ reasonably well but that’s not the case with the new SAT. Not even groups like Mensa accept SAT scores for qualification anymore.</p>

<p>From my own rather limited experience, it’s usually not a surprise as to who lands around the 90th percentile or higher but within that group, it can be anyone’s guess who will score the highest. My own daughter tests in the 99.9th percentile for IQ but her SAT put her at like 90th. She didn’t bother taking it again as her ACT was clearly a better test but honestly, I don’t think she’d have gained much more. Not all bright kids test well. Some bright kids who don’t handle school as well do. Some kids really know how to maximize their own learning and so get high grades but still test low. Some kids totally line up.</p>

<p>I have no urge to establish full blown equality. I wanted to point out that intelligence can be created. People can increase their cognitive ability, so there is no impassable SAT ceiling that “average” people cannot past through learning.</p>

<p>I feel like being “smart” (doing well in school, abstract reasoning, etc.) allows you to score well on the SAT, but doesn’t necessarily MAKE you score well. </p>

<p>For example, school comes easily to me (valedictorian), and I can think outside the box (difficult math comes easily. etc.), but the first time I took the SAT with no studying, I scored a 1980.</p>

<p>I then studied and increased my score to 2330.</p>

<p>A smart person is able to increase their score, while another person, who may not be as smart, may score a 1980, then try to study, and not increase their score at all.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the posts everyone. I really value your opinion, and like I’ve said, I’m glad CC isn’t all filled with automatons that think like I’ve described in my first post (as this is what I used to think from lurking through these forums). The three posts above are exactly my feelings.</p>