<p>I like the SAT better for some reason because we do get more time than questions on each section compared to the ACT. On the Math Section, some people hate the SAT because the problems are worded in a more complicated matter in the end, but if you look beyond the big words, it’s honestly a simple algebra equation. On the ACT, the math section is very straightforward, they aren’t trying to trick you, they are trying to test your ability on those certain math topics. I don’t know, I scored a 2270 on the SAT, I think I’ll get around a 32 on the ACT.</p>
<p>^^^
So you’re saying that someone who gets a 2200 on Sat could conceivably be as smart as someone who got let’s say a 1700. I agree that it doesn’t completely measure intelligence, and that if someone is within one hundred points of someone else, maybe they aren’t great test takers. But, c’mon, you lose all credibility when you say that the SAT doesn’t measure intelligence at all. Sounds to me like you didn’t do to good and you just can’t face the facts</p>
<p>I have a 137 IQ (trust me, this is a fact), but I got a 2160 SAT score, which is low compared to many people on CC. Does this seem reasonable if SAT scores and IQ are related?</p>
<p>Also, Intangible gator that link doesn’t work (not that I don’t believe you).</p>
<p>^ Those seem pretty similar.</p>
<p>Is someone who got a 168 on the PSAT as smart as someone who got a 2200 on the SAT?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not a valid question. Correlations refer to broad tendencies, not individual cases.</p>
<p>My point was that the two people are the same - me. </p>
<p>I don’t buy into the whole theory.</p>
<p>^ wow nice improvement. my little brother got a 167 on his psat, can you give him some tips cause I sure can’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know; I wanted to save any other posters from falling into your trap. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What theory?</p>
<p>The theory that SAT scores correlate with intelligence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You honestly assert that there is no correlation? This would mean that a student who scores 2400 is no more likely to be of above-average intelligence than a student who scored 1200.</p>
<p>Perhaps I should rephrase. Amend my original statement to include “scores above 2000.” :p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re approaching a more reasonable stance, but I still don’t buy that. You don’t think that 2400ers, on average, are more intelligent than 2000ers? I think you are being too anecdotally driven; individual exceptions to correlations need not negate them.</p>
<p>I do not. I think that 2400ers have prepared themselves better for the test than someone who gets a 2000. Their natural intelligence gave them the 2000 - they may not have even known the format of the test. The 2400er, however, in addition to his natural intelligence, took half a dozen practice tests and familiarized themself with the nuances of the test - how to write a “12” essay, learned to avoid ETS pitfalls, etc. </p>
<p>My individual experiences need not come into play, I merely mentioned them in jest.</p>
<p>^ Then how do you explain the people who are capable of consistently scoring 2400 without preparation?</p>
<p>Moreover, there are so many more people who score 2000-2390 than score 2400, way more than the number of people who prepare by taking dozens of practice tests. What keeps them from approaching 2400?</p>
<p>They know the nuances of the test itself inside-outz</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you referring to the people who did not prepare?</p>
<p>No. The people who score consistent 2400s.</p>
<p>^ What about those who score consistent 2400s without having previously taken a practice test? Or the people who score 2000 after taking dozens of practice tests?</p>