<p>Are you naturally smart? Just want to how many in CC.</p>
<p>You can use the stats profiles to search for them. A perfect score is extremely rare (1 in 40,000 or so i think), so I wouldn't expect too many legitimate 2,400's.</p>
<p>(1 in 40,000 </p>
<p>woah.</p>
<p>My friend, who is now at MIT, scored a 1600 on the old SAT and a 2400 on the new one. He took both only once. Yeah, he's a beast.</p>
<p>He took both only once. Yeah, he's a beast.</p>
<p>Amazing...why did he prep so hard?
I know you got a 2250. THanks for you vocab list. I'm going to use it to my full advantage.</p>
<p>^actually I got a lousy 2200 because I had an unlucky incident during the test. Yeah, the vocab is a major help for the CR section. Good Luck!</p>
<p>Quicksand, I'm going to beat you're friend, I will get a perfect score on the first sitting. </p>
<p>I will</p>
<p>Lol, how? He got a perfect score the first sitting for both the Old and New Sat...</p>
<p>I'm pretty heavily into psychology, so i can tell you that the IQ-SAT coorelation for a 1600 is a 165 IQ, so theoretically if Quick's friend was above 165 IQ, he should get a perfect score every time.</p>
<p>the IQ-SAT coorelation for a 1600 is a 165 </p>
<p>You're wrong, it's a standarized test.</p>
<p>Doesn't matter, I'll give a longer explanation when I get back from dinner.</p>
<p>when I get back from dinner.</p>
<p>I love that excuse...you go searching for sources...</p>
<p>jk</p>
<p>On the old SAT, weren't there only about 7 people that got above a 1500 per year?</p>
<p>Whether or not it is a standardized test does not detract from its validity as an approximator of IQ; this has been demonstrated by studies showing a correlation of ~0.82 between one's SAT and IQ scores (although, admittedly, IQ tests themselves may not be able to accurately quantify intelligence). Clearly, this is a non-trivial relationship; however, it is likely that there is a normal distribution of SAT scores at each numerical IQ score. That is, there are some people who achieve a, say, 2300 who are nonetheless only average in terms of intelligence; you cannot draw a conclusion about a single person's intelligence given his SAT score due to the large margin of error inherent in such a prediction. On the other hand, when dealing with large populations, you can describe the mean SAT score of people with a given IQ with great precious. So, in all likelihood, the average IQ of people who obtained a 1600 was 165.</p>
<p>^Very interesting...</p>
<p>well, i got a 2400 first sitting... but i don't particularly think i've got a 165 IQ... lol.</p>
<p>I got a perfect score on the math! And it seems like there was pretty much no curve for it.</p>
<p>Well, I suppose there might be some bias because you can obtain a 2400 even while getting some questions wrong. So there are some people with IQs that are completely off the charts -- 180+ -- that ace the test. However, there are also more normal people who might do objectively worse than such geniuses but nonetheless receive the same score. In the past, I believe only 7 students or so obtained a 1600 each year because it was a very high-ceiling test, so one error could bring down one's score. Consequently, there was a closer correlation between a perfect score and an IQ of 165 than there is presently. I'm nowhere near being that intelligent, either -- I guess you have Collegeboard's grading policies to blame (or thank) for that inaccuracy in conversion.</p>
<p>269 kids get a perfect score on the new SAT. About 939 got a perfect score on the post-1994 SAT (what we all know as the "old" SAT). But before then -- before the recentering, elimination of antonyms, etc. -- only 5 to 7 kids out of a million got a perfect score.</p>
<p>SAT's and IQ related things are pretty much bogus, really. It really depends on concentration and prep as well as lucky guessing. I have a friend who guessed on 8 problems and got everything right and got a 2400. Lucky ***, statistically improbable, but still possible.</p>