<p>booo ya!!!</p>
<p>Well, the time I took the SAT I hadn't slept for three days; that probably had a big impact. I also didn't check over my answers and opted to nap instead.</p>
<p>I took the IQ test when I was in sixth grade. I asked my mom about it this morning. She said that I was old enough that I wouldn't get a big head about it now and told me my score. I got a 154. </p>
<p>Also, if the SAT really tests intelligence, how come it's not accepted as an IQ test anymore? It used accepted as one until they changed the test in the early '90s. I'll have to see if I can find the article with this information in it; it was really interesting.</p>
<p>I thought IQ tests weren't really regarded nearly as much in the last few years, than say, 10 years ago. </p>
<p>The problem with IQ tests is that they dont count for anything, other than membership into a pretentious group (that would be MENSA). Schools don't really care about how intelligent you are in the abstract, they care about what you can actually do. And the SATs test just that.</p>
<p>The SAT is far from the equivalent of an IQ test...the reason why it is no longer considered so is that College Board recentered the test fifteen years ago, since people found it too hard to get a high score on Verbal.
(I think there was once an Antonym section or something like that...)</p>
<p>I have an old college book (written about 20 years ago) in which CHYMPS all boast proudly of having a "1400" SAT average. </p>
<p>The SAT, as its name states, tests how well a person can reason. You need to be able to read dense text (in case for those of you not in the "know", you have to do a lot of reading in college), which is what the Critical Reading section tests. </p>
<p>As for the Math, it tests your ability to be logical and not so strangely, your reading skills.</p>
<p>Even the very easy-to-study for Writing Section has its pluses... as for the essay, it asks you to write something coherent and organized under pressure. The grammar is in many ways like the vocabulary on the Critical Reading (something which can easily be memorized but is a necessity at all places which can call themselves universities or colleges).</p>
<p>Having a high SAT means something different from having a high GPA...
both are important for top colleges. Neither one is better than the other, but I believe admissions would be unfair if it was only based on one factor.</p>
<p>lol, this is a very controversial topic i see. anyway, putting in my two cents, i see the SAT as necessary. Although not exactly an IQ test, the SAT does test intelligence to some extent. Being prepable, however, is its downfall. And to the idea of it not being accurate because valedictorians getting 1600s etc, i think that's a stupid argument. Becoming valedictorian does not always test intelligence. It tests work habit more than anything. At my school, sadly, our valedictorian is a moron; she studies for three hours for every math test, takes two days for every test, and sucks up to her teachers. Naturally, she scored poorly on her SATs...Anyway, what I'm getting to is this: she will probaby be sucessful despite her lack of intelligence (as shown by her standardized test scores) because human sucess is not based on innate intelligence or anything single thing--it's based on many aspects, the most important being ambition and work habits. Colleges recognize this and sometimes make exceptions to their SAT averages.</p>
<p>Weren't the SATs originally designed to be unpreppable to like... keep out the overachieving Jews? Obviously, as we can see now, they are preppable, but I thought it was in their design not to be.</p>
<p>The SAT is a timed test, if you're not good at timed tests, then it will hurt you. Face the facts guys, our world is fast paced, and if you can't work well under pressure, chances are you're not going to get as far in life as someone who can.</p>
<p>Also Colleges aren't going to "disregard" a low score, they may not weight it as much if you got a "lowly" 600 in SAT I's and then 800 in both of the SAT II Maths, but who do you think has a higher chance of getting into _____ University/College? All stats the same, but he got an 800 on math? </p>
<p>And now i just have to quote newyitty06</p>
<p>"Still though...if you're smart, you're smart. It's not like at one school you are a complete fool and at another you are #1. If you were top 30% at one school chances are you'll be around there at another."</p>
<p>You have no idea of the grade inflation and deflation that goes around in the USA. A top 30% at an elite private school can EASILY be top 10% at your average public school.</p>
<p>^^agreed, Lurker. Like my crabby, cynical science teacher says, "You might get extra time on this test but when you get out of med school you better damn well not want extra time to operate on me." :P</p>
<p>my roommate at boarding school has a 3.84 in fairly difficult classes and works his tail off - he's taken it like 4 times and has a 1400/2400 or so. Hes has no disabilities, he's just generally slow. He kept on asking me why, I just set him up with a couple of those internet iq (highiqsociety.org) tests, he took them 3 times and couldnt get above 105.</p>
<p>i put effort in my work and get a 3.7+(not sure), yet I'm fairly relaxed.</p>
<p>my GC told me thursday before the SAT that I had to walk in standby. I walked in and got a 730m/610cr/710w. My stanford-whatever IQ is like 130, so I think there is some correlation.</p>
<p>(i took the ACTs and actually did 1 practice test - my GC says not to worry about it, because im pretty sure I got 32+ on ACT reading)</p>
<p>Ok tell me what wins out in this situation:</p>
<p>(gpa+Sat2s+teacher recs+rank+course selection) VS (SAT1)</p>
<p>The point I wanted to make is that if u have the former going for you, you need to care less about the SAT1. And to quote what MITs admissions dean said:""The SAT1 is the least important thing after GPA,Advanced courses,grades in advanced courses, class rank and SAT2."</p>
<p>So really it's futile arguing whether SAT1 measures intelligence or not; Because colleges dont look at SAT1 in a vacuum, as the above quote conclusively shows.</p>
<p>That's a little odd. So my ability to memorize facts about, say, US history (SAT II) shows more about me, as a student, than my analytical and mathamatic abilities as shown on the SAT I?</p>
<p>I wonder if it has to do something with the fact that, at the best universities, everyone is studying all the time. So people with the really quick minds are studying 100% of the time, and those who took things slow are also studying 100% of the time. But whoever is quicker to pick things up, will understand so much more - and when the class moves at such a fast pace, people who are slower with the learning process (although equally or more dilligent), just get left in the dust.
eh, what do i know - just a theory.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^Agreed........to be at a top university , you need to have high learning power and good work ethics i.e. you need a good gpa and a good SAT score</p>
<p>Wow this thread is like ****
In general, those who score high in SAT1 tend to favor it n say dat it’ll measure ones potential and intelligence. And those who score low or average, create some excuse (might be real though) and blame SAT1 to be non-sense. These both groups want them to be referred as intelligent. But to speak in reality, only SAT1 score is not sufficient to predict ones intelligence (as som ppl are sayin in here). Another thing that plays role in SATs score is test taking environment and person’s physical and mental condition during that time, which can be corrected by taking tests multiple of times.
Conclusion: SATs are not that bad, although some college have made reasoning test optional.
And about SAT1 maths ya its simple; I got 590 even though I never got more than 5 mistakes in practice tests. My prob. during the test was one dat Ive mentioned above or might be something else lol but I’m not lying. n I’m not taking it again becoz I don have to take it again just to show my maths pothential :p I’d rather take maths2 twice.
And this guy comfy, he’s my friend ‘n classmate. He favors SAT1 bcoz he has got good SAT scores but hes GPA is quite average; the reason is - most of the time he didn’t pay much attention in phy and maths classes in our school (hes v good in eng. and lit.). During those times he used to read some novels or magazines. Sorry comfy no offense to u, :o I just used u as an example. This proves that to do good in reading section u should be avid reader with some reasoning power.</p>
<p>Lmfao..............dude, my GPA is only a little less than yours......and frankly i really don't care about physics , stupid high school ...had no choice and had to study all the subjects they said.........And the maths things, you say thatI didn't pay attention in the maths classes , then how come do I have pretty much the best Maths II score in the school ?????????? Doesn't that test the things you learnt in high school......</p>
<p>And if you have read my above post, it says that to be at a good university , you need a high GPA and high SAT score......I really don't want to get a 4 GPA by studying all the time. Porkey, you know the class valedictorian and others with the great GPAs, they studied even during the lunch breaks....I don't want to do that ....</p>
<p>sorry comfy my last post was not to annoy u.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how come do I have pretty much the best Maths II score in the school ??????????
[/quote]
bcoz maths course in our school is harder than AP and mathsII covers only basic topics with some tweaks to fool students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Porkey, you know the class valedictorian and others with the great GPAs, they studied even during the lunch breaks....I don't want to do that ....
[/quote]
lol lol llo this is too much, one can easily complete HS course studying 8-9 hrs a week-except during exams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
bcoz maths course in our school is harder than AP and mathsII covers only basic topics with some tweaks to fool students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If the math course in our schools are harder, then why aren't other <strong><em>ing students getting higher or is everything easy only when I give it ? So , does this mean that others who didn't score higher were stumped by the tweaks you were talking about....Or, was the basics too hard for them. These posts are *</em></strong>ing ***ing me off....</p>
<p>
[quote]
lol lol llo this is too much, one can easily complete HS course studying 8-9 hrs a week-except during exams.
[/quote]
I think I need to refresh your memory but the top 5-6 students would always be studying inside the classrooms and I mean always...even on breaks...
Again, why didn't you study 8-9 hours a week and get a 4.0 GPA.....that was the understatement of the century.......</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the math course in our schools are harder, then why aren't other <strong><em>ing students getting higher or is everything easy only when I give it ? So , does this mean that others who didn't score higher were stumped by the tweaks you were talking about....Or, was the basics too hard for them. These posts are *</em></strong>ing ***ing me off....
[/quote]
might be + time management in maths2 is lil prob.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think I need to refresh your memory but the top 5-6 students would always be studying inside the classrooms and I mean always...even on breaks...
[/quote]
ohh ya tahnx for reminding me abt them. They were pure nerds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, why didn't you study 8-9 hours a week and get a 4.0 GPA.....that was the understatement of the century.......
[/quote]
u know abt our gov. system</p>
<p>I'm sorry but I was really really ****ed off by your comments. </p>
<p>
[quote]
^^^^^^^Agreed........to be at a top university , you need to have high learning power and good work ethics i.e. you need a good gpa and a good SAT score
[/quote]
I've already said , you need a good GPA and good SAT scores.And I'm not saying I'm going to HYPSM.</p>
<p>lol ^ neither am I and i've never said dat one of them should be lower</p>