<p>people are born with varying degrees of intelligence, deal with it</p>
<p>Cory123, I disagree with that strongly and I'm sure many others do too</p>
<p>I also disagree. My score for the SAT improved by 300 points from just studying. The SAT shows how much you studied. Thats all it is. Its a good money maker though. Thats why ETS is a multi-million dollar company now.</p>
<p>vincanity what are you saying? You honestly think everyone is born with equal learning capabilities? So everyone can be the next Einstein if they simply work hard enough. cool</p>
<p>sinister that is great for you, but not every does that well even with studying. If that was true everyone who was determined and hardworking would get a 2200+ but i've seen many studious people who ahve had trouble with the SAT even after many courses/lots of practice.</p>
<p>If you want to try to shoot down my argument with exaggerations, by all means. What I am saying is how intelligent an individual will be for the entire span of their lifetime is not determined by genes. I feel that the character and the brain of an individual are molded from the time that they are born. I am not an advocate of the school of thought that suggests that we are born into stupidity or genius.</p>
<p>I also want to note that I am aware that certain individuals are born with learning deficiencies so they are obviously not included in this conversation due to their biological disadvantage</p>
<p>obviously environmental factors play a huge role in a person's intelligence, but I still believe genetics contributes to intellectual qualities that are inborn including memory or the ability to grasp concepts more quikcly than others.</p>
<p>also yes the examples we've mentioned are both extremes, but those are simply examples of what occurs on a more moderate scale. Variations will still occur among the majority of people, only not as extreme.</p>
<p>I don't know, but what would a graph of born intelligence look like? If not a bell curve then what would you say?</p>
<p>Ok, then we disagree on the most basic point. I believe that genetics has no bearing whatsoever.</p>
<p>"sinister that is great for you, but not every does that well even with studying. If that was true everyone who was determined and hardworking would get a 2200+ but i've seen many studious people who ahve had trouble with the SAT even after many courses/lots of practice."</p>
<p>Gee thats funny. Ive known people that scored 2200+ that failed half their classes in high school. I think determination + work ethic > test taking abilities any day.</p>
<p>you just proved my point sinister. Slackers like the ones you mentioned can still do well on the SAT because a lot of HS work is just busywork, but they've proved their true potential by acheiving such a high score.</p>
<p>As for comparing determination+work ethic and "test taking ability" as you put it, I would agree that the former should be more valued. Unfortunately, it's not always enough and top schools are looking for students who possess both qualities.</p>
<p>I guess I'm looking at everything in such a black and white view. I guess the SAT is very fair if you think about the guys that eefed up in school, but are real capable of doing well in college. I guess both do balance out.</p>
<p>I'm going to refer people here to this interesting thread that was just posted on PF, in caes any of you want to follow it as it develops. It touches both on the SAT and on AA, so I'll mention it on the the recent (not again!:)) AA thread, too.</p>
<p>SAT isnt supposed to predict grades. If it was then i think colleges would just look at hmmm…perhaps the grades? </p>
<p>It is supposed to measure intelligence and ability, not how well the student will use that ability. And yes, it does a pretty good job of measuring intelligence. All of you people who are complaining are most likely in the sub-2000 score category, and are looking for excuses.</p>
<p>Yeah, cory123 is right. Intelligent people can up their score by studying, but some people plateau, no matter how hard they study. Our valedictorian is the hardest working student ive ever met, but cannot get above 2000.</p>
<p>“If you want to try to shoot down my argument with exaggerations, by all means. What I am saying is how intelligent an individual will be for the entire span of their lifetime is not determined by genes. I feel that the character and the brain of an individual are molded from the time that they are born. I am not an advocate of the school of thought that suggests that we are born into stupidity or genius.”</p>
<p>I have a twin brother, and our whole lives we’ve been equally intelligent. We are both national merit scholars, and have almost the same SAT score. Yet we study differently, and are completely different in ways of intelligence from our siblings.</p>
<p>Predicting freshman grades is such a bad way of using any prerdictive index. Grades are not standardized across departments, nevermind majors and schools.</p>
<p>They should try to use predictive measures that measure 4,5 and 6 year graduation rates- adjusted for health issues, parental job loss, etc.</p>
<p>"I also disagree. My score for the SAT improved by 300 points from just studying. The SAT shows how much you studied. Thats all it is. Its a good money maker though. Thats why ETS is a multi-million dollar company now. "</p>
<p>I agree and disagree. Not everyone is capable of hitting a 1600 SAT, but most are capable of improving. Eventually, if you study enough, you will plateau (for most of us) and studying more won’t increase your score. This is where the SAT measures your IQ. In other words, it is EASY to underprepare for the SAT (and GRE, LSAT, GMAT, MCAT) but almost imossible to overprepare because almost everyone will reach a “ceiling” score.</p>
<p>To the 3.65 argument:</p>
<p>Indeed, the person with the 3.65 GPA may be a better test taker; indeed, he or she might be more intelligent (I say this with hesitance as the SAT is definitely not a measure of intelligence), but the 4.0 GPA says a lot more.</p>
<p>Colleges do like seeing the SAT, but they also like to see that the student actually cares. Whether the student with the 4.0 is smarter or not, that student has shown exactly what colleges want to see in a student: determination and work ethic. The person with the 3.65, however, in all likelihood did not exert all of his or her effort into the classes and simply succeeded during three hours during one day, as opposed to over 700 school days.</p>
<p>This isn’t to say that one has better ECs or one does more volunteering; GPA and work out of school are not inversely related. What’s really exceptional is a student who maintains a 4.0 while doing these outside-of-the-classroom activities, regardless of the standardized test score they receive.</p>
<p>Why is someone dragging up a two year old thread on this?</p>
<p>Oh, thanks. Didn’t notice the date when I read the first few pages - just noticed it was on the first page.</p>