At what point do we consider test scores not useful in gauging one’s true intelligence?
Any test will measure how well someone does with a certain task, often with limited time.
Tests like the ACT and SAT reflect an ability to do a certain kind of work in a certain time frame. The fact that one can improve through practice and tutoring suggests that the skills being tested are not wholly innate, which is generally how people think of intelligence. Personally, I think that a student who can do what is asked on these tests well has a competency that will make college work easier. It is far easier to read 1000 pages a week if you can read quickly and understand it the first time round. Having mastered the basic math for these tests will make it easier to build on that foundation.
With that said, intelligence is more complex, so no, these tests do not reflect intelligence in all its manifestations. I can easily see how a person who is brilliant in some arena could do poorly on such a test which requires linear, unimaginative thinking.
Any proxy measure of intelligence or anything could have varying levels of accuracy, depending on the thing being measured and the design of the proxy measure. For example, assumed prerequisite knowledge may or may not have been taught equally to everyone. In addition, when the proxy measure is prepped for, it can measure prep activity as well as what it is intended to measure.
In other words, the tests may measure intelligence, but not in isolation from some other things that affect test performance, and may not measure all aspects of intelligence.
Regarding GPA, it may not be so much a proxy of intelligence, but a proxy for how one is expected do in future schooling.
Intelligence is a bit of a nebulous concept, so there won’t be a definitive answer to the similarly fuzzy question of being “useful in gauging one’s true intelligence“
It has certainly been shown that there is a significant correlation between SAT test scores and “IQ” scores, even though they measure different things and have different purposes. R=0.7 to 0.8, IIRC.
Correlation to GPA wouldn’t make as much sense because it’s not a universally standard measurement. I don’t think anyone would argue that a 3.2 at any school is the same. I would suspect a 3.6 at Harvard, MIT, etc. to have a higher “IQ” score than a 3.8 at our local community college, as a broad generalization.
MENSA acceptance means SAT is reliable, specially single test. GPA is school specific but continuously good GPA at different institutions shows academic ability.
Why ask? You can be super intelligent and bomb std tests.
And in admissions, it’snot about IQ. What shows more is what you actually chose to do and accomplished.
All std test scores truly show is the effort you put into them. There may or may not be correlation between the sorts of kids who do take the tests seriously, versus those who blow them off. Or just don’t take to the format.
MENSA doesn’t accept post-'95 SAT. SAT has become since then more of a knowledge test, rather than an aptitude test.
lookingforward said: “All std test scores truly show is the effort you put into them.”
Very false. I made A LOT of effort preparing for the ACT (including taking an ACT prep class offered through my school and taking more timed practice tests than I could count including tests from the Real ACT Practice Test book), yet the highest score I could get was a 26. Based on my 4.0 UW gpa and my course rigor, I originally thought that getting a 30+ would be a good goal for me, but I was pretty much capped at 26.
All preparing for a standardized test does is help a student reach his or her potential. Preparing should improve a student’s score, but the fact is no matter how much students prepare for standardized tests, most are not going to get a ACT score of 36 or SAT score of 1600. Because, yeah, being familiar with the test format and developing some test taking strategies can help students answer more questions in a short period of time, but it can only do so much (some students naturally think and work faster than others).
Also, a bit off topic, but I have to say I sometimes do wonder what would have happened if I took the SAT instead. On my first ACT practice test I scored a 21 with little preparation, but on the PSAT I scored a PSAT score equivalent to an ACT score of 26 with little preparation. However, even though I did much better on the PSAT, the “take off 1/4 point for each incorrectly answered SAT question” rule scared me out of taking the SAT. I still got into my first choice college though, so everything ended up being okay at the end 
The 1995 change was just a recentering of the scores.
But even SATs before then were knowledge tests. The verbal section was mostly a vocabulary test. Questions were easy or hard based on whether you knew the words. The math section was about algebra and geometry.
Now, intelligence mattered in how well you learned those things. But other inputs besides your intelligence mattered, such as the quality of math courses in your school and how much your English courses taught vocabulary directly or indirectly.
Of course, intelligence in aspects other than those measured by the SAT did not matter for the SAT.
The march away from aptitude testing has been constant. Each revision made the test less of an aptitude test. The current version distinguishes little from ACT in testing learned knowledge. Is there any wonder why test preps are so prevalent today than in the past?
It depends on the goal.
It measures some base level of intelligence. However it’s not even the most valuable intelligence trait.
Most leaders and trailblazers have incredible EQ as the most important trait. Of course having high scores in both is ideal.
But pure book smarts usually has you working for people with variations of the other combos of intelligence.
https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html contains some SAT and ACT history, including sample questions from the 1926 SAT. Those questions still required knowledge typically learned in English and math courses in school.
Test prep is more common because tests are more important to more people than before (more want to go to more competitive colleges).
Yes, some knowledge is always required regardless of versions, but the point is each revision of SAT made the test more dependent on knowledge than aptitude.
Test scores are supposedly less relevant today than in the past, so why more students spend more time and other resources to prep for tests? They wouldn’t be doing it if test prep doesn’t help much. You hear stories these days on CC and elsewhere that some students improve their SAT scores by the hundreds. That never happened before.
What examples can you give to support this claim?
Test scores may be less important in a relative sense, but more important in an absolute sense, than before. Many colleges a generation ago were not that selective, even if they weighed test scores more than GPA. These same colleges, even though they may weigh GPA more than test scores now, are more selective that they now require higher test scores than before.
Test prep is also now much more accepted as part of the college admissions game now.
When did your kids start getting their first standardized assessments? Mine had hers in 1st grade with the CogAt. Then it was state testing, repeat CogAt, entrance exams, etc… She’s been consistently 98th-99th percentile on every assessment she’s ever taken, up and including PSAT/ACT. I don’t know if she’s an outlier or if it’s common for kids to be consistent across different different tests. If that is more of the norm, then I would say tests are predictive.
One of the most intelligent students I have ever met applied test optional at a very rigorous and well known LAC. He graduated summa cum laude as a double major, has won a prestigious scholarship as a post grad, placed second in a a very difficult international competition, etc…
As an experienced test prep tutor, I continue to be surprised by students who I know are highly intelligent and/or even gifted, but can’t get super high scores on the SAT or ACT. These tests are artificial and are not IQ tests. Of course, in general, more intelligent kids do better on these tests.
I am no expert on intelligence, but I do not believe that a single SAT or ACT accurately reflects intelligence. Sure, if a student consistently scores highly, as did @momofsenior1 ‘s child, that probably establishes a student’s intelligence.
My own son was given extensive evaluative testing at ages 7, 10 and 13. He had the vocabulary of a 21 year old, (their words, not mine), but he has two learning disabilities. Several years later, he scored in the 99th percentile on both the ACT and SAT. His GPA hovered in the low 90s-high 80s, probably due to the combination of learning disabilities and laziness. He is not exceptionally intelligent. He just happens to have me, a test prep tutor, as a mother, and yep, I tutored him for the tests. He has two college educated parents who read to him every day for years and years. I ask my kids if they are ready for sustenance rather than dinner, because it amuses me.
I see hyper intelligent kids overthink the SAT/ACT all the time. I worked with one kid recently who seemed very not-highly intelligent. His grades were mediocre. He had an uncanny ability to pick the right answers most of the time, because he simply looked at the trees instead of the forest. He didn’t even try. It blew my mind. There are lazy kids who are really smart. There are dull kids who simply don’t get flustered by tests and find the obvious answer.
My opinion is that a kid who shows consistent high performance in school is probably the best indicator of intelligence. Standardized tests like the SAT/ACT do not indicate intelligence the majority of time.
@OneWhoTalks , I notice you have 24 threads and fewer replies. Don’t be one of those posters who is trying to rack up responses without ever responding. Are you researching?
IQ as measured by IQ tests, is not everything.
https://www.wired.com/story/forget-mensa-all-hail-the-low-iq/
MENSA is nothing more than a club for people who like to believe that their abilities in standardized testing proves them to be some type of ubermensch. They are all huge believers in IQ and a single, easily quantifiable indicator of intelligence, because without it, their MENSA membership would be even more worthless than it is. Being a member of MENSA means that you do well on certain types of standardized testing, no more and no less.
Human ability to analyze data, think abstractly, and envision future activities has evolved in response to the challenges and pressures of the environment, including the social environment, though some of it consists of emergent properties. The idea that a huge set of abilities that evolved in response to the many factors in our environment and the many factors in human relationships can be represented by a single scale Is ridiculous. The idea that it can be measured by a a few hours of written tests which consist of selecting one out of 4 canned responses is ludicrous. No scientist ever supports it unless the want to use it to “prove” that the group to which they belong is superior to other groups.
In fact, I cannot think of a single scientist who espoused and studied IQ who did not have an agenda to pursue. That agenda almost always turns out to be the justification of racism, misogyny, or classicism.
The best indicator of success in college tends to be GPA, not because it measures “intelligence”, but because high school GPA measures the same thing college GPA does, the ability to do well in classes, and college success is usually measured by college GPA.
SATs and ACTs measure the knowledge that a kid has accumulated in the classroom, as well as their ability to use their knowledge in a particular way, which cam also be learned. Since kids who do well is school generally remember what they have learned. So these standardized tests are nothing more than a weak way to test what a kid’s GPA already reveals - their ability to memorize material and use it in a classroom setting.
My kid added 180 points to their PSAT scores in one year, and then scored 70 point higher than that on their SATs. I am absolutely certain that my kid did not gain 15 “IQ points”, or whatever, between the fall of their sophomore year and the spring of their Junior year
There’s lots of semantic debates about how to define intelligence. What we do have is lots of evidence that standardized test score percentiles don’t change much over time for individuals and they do predict educational attainment. Your 7th grade math ACT/SAT score is a very good predictor of whether you get a STEM PhD.
https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/01/Article-NATURE-2016.pdf
SAT scores aren’t directly comparable to PSAT scores. A better way to compare them is percentiles. If your kid scored in the 84% on the PSAT and the 98% on the SAT, which is a one standard deviation jump, I’m willing to bet they are an extreme outlier in showing that much of a change.