Calculator to convert SAt or GRE scores to IQ

College Confidential Community
21

<p>
[quote]
here's the problem. SAT scores can be best predicted by your parents income and professions. Rich kids whose parents throw books at them from birth are going to score better, even if they aren't as smart. Thus this whole idea is stupid

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is also true of IQ scores, so it's not a terribly inaccurate conversion. The SAT was designed as an IQ test originally anyways.</p>

<p>The notion of a stable, unitary IQ over the course of a lifetime is bogus, imo. This has been discussed to death. Calculators like this one are for entertainment value only.</p>

<p>Edit: good post tokenadult!</p>

22

<p>"Calculators like this one are for entertainment value only."</p>

<p>Is that why Mensa still accepts LSAT and GMAt scores for admissions? These tests are SAT/IQ type tests.</p>

23

<p>Here's why this is bogus: </p>

<p>You can study for the SAT/GRE, whereas IQ is supposedly innate. </p>

<p>When I first started studying for the SAT I was scoring around 1200/1600, which puts my "IQ" at 124.</p>

<p>However, in June, after a lot of studying, I scored a 1410/1600, putting my "IQ" at 144.</p>

<p>Aaand in October, after more studying, I scored a 1600/1600, putting my "IQ" at 165.</p>

<p>So it appears as though my innate IQ has risen 41 points in about a year. The SAT is NOT an aptitude test (despite its original name). It tests one's ability to reason with problems, which is a skill that is acquired just like any other.</p>

24

<p>I think I just said above that IQ test scores can go up (or down) for the same person on repeated occasions of testing, so any other test score changing isn't too surprising.</p>

25

<p>Some might say that Mensa is largely for entertainment value. A social club can set any requirement for membership that it likes, with the only validation criterion being whether or not current members like to hang out with new members. Mensa is a fine organization, and I have local friends who are very active in Mensa and arrange a lot of worthwhile community activities sponsored by the local Mensa chapter. But Mensa is not a scientific research organization (despite the hopes of its founder, who hoped to set up a brain trust that would advise world leaders on important problems), and it would be illogical to argue from Mensa's membership rules that one view of test correlations is more scientific than another.</p>

26

<p>According to this my IQ is around 133. Just out of curiosity, I put in my mom's SAT score. She's 152!!! </p>

<p>This, however, is clearly for entertainment purposes though.</p>

27

<p>I'm not really too sure what to think of it all, to be honest. </p>

<p>According to Davidson's Institute for the Gifted, in using the ACT for evaluation purposes of the "highly gifted" (a range which I fall well into, using this kind of modus operandi...), the score I had in 7th grade places me squarely at an IQ 160. Now, if this is true, I've never felt more dense in my life and/or the term genius is being thrown around way, way too much and too nonchalantly.<br>
However, I know friends from camps such as CTY/TiP in which EVERYBODY was like that, you know? We all made the cut-offs. According to percentiles, we shouldn't be coming out of the woodwork so easily...the bellcurve and the like, that many should not exist, if IQ and these tests are, in fact, comparative. </p>

<p>Also, I think it's pertinent to mention - MENSA does not even accept SAT/ACT scores as an accurate projection of IQ since...1994. Re-centering has caused some problems, CollegeBoard. ;) Not that I'm complaining, you know, keep it! :D </p>

<p>I think it's best put this way:
If you score a 900 or below composite, you're probably not a genius
and if you score a 2300+ composite, you're probably pretty smart. :)</p>

28

<p>"Here's why this is bogus:</p>

<p>You can study for the SAT/GRE, whereas IQ is supposedly innate.</p>

<p>When I first started studying for the SAT I was scoring around 1200/1600, which puts my "IQ" at 124."</p>

<p>--------------------------------My View on this-------------------------
An IQ test is meant to be given with no preparation, but the standardized tests are more complicated and you MUST study in order to optimize your score. In other words, if you have, say a 125 IQ, that should correlate to an SAT of ~1200. However, if you don't study, for the SAT, you could easily score a 1,000, 1050 or 1100, etc. However all studying does is allow one to score up to their intellectual potential. At some point, studying will not help one score higher because the test will max out their intellectual capacity- this is the point where the true IQ is measured. Someone who has a baseline of 1,000 in all likelihood will never be able to score a 1500+ no matter how much they study. As proof, I submit that not too many people would argue that 100% of test takers cold score a 1600. Someheere the test would max them out. I agree that IQ can change, though due to education, diet and regular brain exercize; activities that increase critical thinking activities.</p>

<p>In other words, the way this test is designed, it is possible to under perform, but probably not over perform. In fact with the amount of SAT tests taken since it's inception and the diversity of the test taking population, I could make an argument that the SAT is the most accurate IQ test ever given. The same is true of the GMAT, GRE, LSAT and I do believe the MCAT, DAT, MAT. Colleges, at the undergraduate, graduate and professional level use these "IQ" tests as an admissions screen. They could get the same result by mandating that each applicant take an IQ test. </p>

<p>Think about it, would you want your Doctor, even one with high grades to have an IQ of 105? To me, thinking about this subject logically with no political correctness clouding, it makes perfect sense.</p>

29

<p>It's interesting that based on my SAT, my estimated IQ is 147 vs a 148 the one time I took an IQ test. However, it doesn't make sense to me that the same score after 1996 (when the scale was recentered by ~ 80-90 points), still produces the same IQ as a 1974-1996 score despite the fact the same same score post 1995 score is easier to obtain than pre 1995. I also didn't realize that the SAT was scored more leniently pre 1974.</p>

30

<p>An IQ of over 140 is legally considered genius/near genius, and the percentage of the population that achieve this is incredibly small. Something like 2% score over 130. I'd say the chances of even one of the 30 or so people who posted here being in the range is close to zero</p>

31

<p>An IQ of 140 = the top 99.4%, or about 6 in a thousand people. It is Entirely possible that the type of people posting on this forum are well within the top 5 or 6 out of every 1,000.</p>

32

<p>It's possible because the sample size/community is skewed. </p>

<p>This isn't the "general population" posting here. CCers tend to be on the more concerned, if not neurotic ;), side as pertaining to school. Many are not only overachievers, but have apt aptitude.</p>

33

<p>This calculator is highly inaccurate because you simply can't convert SAT percentiles to IQ percentiles. The SAT and the various IQ tests available are all completely different from each other, and results for individuals may vary greatly with each retake.</p>

<p>For example, my results:</p>

<p>Composite SAT: 1450
Calculator's estimate of my IQ: 149
My actual IQ: 130-ish</p>

34

<p>According to this, I have an IQ of about 147.</p>

<p>Braingle:</a> Convert SAT and GRE Test Scores to IQ</p>

<p>Somehow, I don't think so. I am fairly sure I have a high IQ, but not THAT high.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
I'd say the chances of even one of the 30 or so people who posted here being in the range is close to zero

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Have you taken an AP statistics course? The problem here is a familiar problem of response bias. I have no particular reason to doubt anyone's self-report here. (Of course, I have no particular reason to BELIEVE anyone's self-report here, either, lacking any means to verify the self-reports.)</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
An IQ of over 140 is legally considered genius/near genius

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is an incorrect statement on several levels. </p>

<p>a) No currently normed IQ test reports any scoring range as a "genius" level. That terminology simply isn't used in IQ test scoring. </p>

<p>b) There is no definition of "genius" in the law of any country that I am aware of, certainly not in the United States. </p>

<p>c) Psychologists use the term "genius" to designate people with rare, paradigm-shifting real world accomplishments, not for people who obtain this or that score in an isolated instance of test-taking. It is quite possible to be a genius without having a particularly high IQ. Two subsequent Nobel Prize winners were rejected from inclusion in the Terman longitudinal study of high-IQ children, because their IQ scores were too low. None of the Terman study participants, by contrast, ever won a Nobel Prize.</p>

37

<p>^^^^ True, true...the Whiz Kids? Most of them ended up leading a fairly convential existence. I mean, there's definitely nothing "wrong" with that...but it just shows that a score is NOT everything. Or anything, really.</p>

38

<p>125</p>

<p>10 char.</p>

39

<p>128, but I think that I'm like around 115</p>

40

<p>Wow, I'm the dumbest one here.</p>