<p>Bill Gates had a 1570/1600 SAT. That’s one person who had a high SAT and was intelligent. In fact, I would bet that most of those people would do pretty well on the SAT if they took (if it was given in their native language of course). I would say their intelligence is what made them great.</p>
<p>
Discovering E=MC(squared) is something that requires a lot of intelligence, and that’s one thing that made them great. Are you saying that intelligence isn’t what made them great? Intelligence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for greatness for almost everyone you listed. All of those people have intelligence, which is defined as reasoning ability. Are you saying that they can’t reason well? Also, they most likely mastered the skills necessary for the SAT in order to achieve that level of greatness (creating calculus is much harder than any SAT math question). You really offer no evidence for you argument, just claims and defining things the way you want them to be defined, not how they actually are.</p>
<p>PS: I posted this before reading the last two posts… I agree with both.</p>
<p>Since I don’t have the patience to keep debating this, I will concede. although I still whole heartedly believe what I said, I don’t have time to defend it. So go on being close minded.</p>
<p>Here we go again. Standardized tests are not perfect, but what else is there?. The elite colleges claim to be holistic so a Thomas Edison - type should be able to show his intelligence in another matter. And if an Edison doesn’t have a good high school record, why should they be allowed into the elite colleges? Why would he do better?</p>
<p>If elite colleges said that they were going to consider your mile time as a factor in admissions, you would have a whole lot of good students buying running shoes. And colleges could rightly assume that the more ambitious kids will have some of the better times. Bottom line is you run the race the elite colleges want you to run. SAT’s are part of that gauntlet.</p>
<p>This thread made me lol and facepalm, at almost the same exact time.</p>
<p>On another note: @EVERYONE: Before you try to debate ANYONE, please make sure you have enough “SAT” intelligence, so that you can explain yourself, reason with us, and so that we’ll actually understand what you’re saying. Your art “intelligence” isn’t sufficient enough.</p>
<p>Yeah, you have brilliant poetry skills, and you think that makes you intelligent - instead of simply talented. Good for you! Definitions really don’t mean anything! However, this “poetry” intelligence won’t help you explain your point or understand how to defend your point, so the end result is you can’t have an “intelectual” debate despite your “intelligence”.</p>