<p>though i dunno about the curve... because i got my score report and i didn't miss any. i triple checked everything while taking it... but that was about it.</p>
<p>where are you guys getting the stats on how many people get 2400/1600 each year?
269 sounds a bit low...</p>
<p>Official College Board data tables: </p>
<p>Math + Reading: <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SAT_composite_CR_M_percentile_ranks.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SAT_composite_CR_M_percentile_ranks.pdf</a></p>
<p>Wow, that's really cool, and note the difference between males and females...</p>
<p>Haha on the June CR section I totally ran out of time on one CR section. There was like 14 questions and I had 4 mins left so I randomly guessed on all of them and didn't even read the passages. Ended up with a 690 lol.</p>
<p>Awesome, so my 1570 gives me a legit 99+% Now I just need to become one of those 269 on my retake.... :P</p>
<p>I did and I consider myself unnaturally smart.</p>
<p>IQ of 165? What standard deviation are you using?</p>
<p>The most common scale is a 15 point SD:</p>
<p>Grade Range Percent
Genius 144 0.13%
Gifted 130 2.14%
Above average 115 13.59%
average 100 34.13%
Lower average 85 34.13%
Below average 70 13.59%</p>
<p>So 165 would be over 1 SD above genius. People with IQ's of 165 are MUCH rarer than perfect scorers. In general, people who score 2300 or higher are in the gifted range of 130-143. Geniuses I'm sure score in the same range, but because it is a low ceiling test, it is pretty hard to predict IQ's that high. Also it is an Aptitude test, not an Intelligence test. The fact that it can be prepped for means that, once again, it's just a correlation. But in general, people who are smarter will do better on tests.</p>
<p>thank you, Dispatche. An IQ of 165 is not possible considering scales are either out of 150 or 155. My IQ is 149 and I DO NOT have perfect SAT scores. And u can trust me that there is hardly a correlation because both of my parents are licensed clinical neuropsychologists and when I confronted them with this question, they merely scoffed. So I its possible to do very well on SATs or very bad-depending on a number of factors (how you're feeling on test day, etc.). SO please, give the IQ thing a rest-just work hard and you'll do fine.</p>
<p>No, the 165 figure is perfectly reasonable for the old, high-ceiling SAT. Taking 165 to be four standard deviations above the mean (to be more accurate, you'd have to take the actual 4.33, but since I lack a calculator, I'll just use the numbers provided by Wikipedia), those who obtain such a score are in the top 0.00316712418% of the population. Assuming that half a million people took the old SAT each year, that corresponds to roughly 16 people achieving a perfect score each year. When taking those extra 0.33 standard deviations into account, the number of theoretical perfect scorers should decrease somewhat; since only 7 students actually attained a 1600 on the old SAT, the claim seems to be eminently rational.</p>
<p>Well yea the old SAT a long time ago was closer to an IQ test and the people who scored 1600's were more likely to be geniuses. I was referring to the new SAT. The old SAT no longer exists so I'm not going to spend time speculating about it. When I said "low-ceiling test", I was clearly referring to the new SAT.</p>
<p>Right. It just seemed that you were insinuating that the 165 figure was false; it is valid, but it doesn't apply to the new SAT, just the old one.</p>
<p>On the old SAT, 5 out of 1,000,000 scored a 1600. This was due to several reasons: </p>
<ol>
<li>Test was harder back then </li>
<li>More questions in less time, so speed was important (like on IQ tests)</li>
<li>No curve; to get a 1600, you needed all questions right. Period. </li>
<li>More focus on vocabulary questions. If you didn't know the words and couldn't eliminate the wrong choices on even just one, then you could kiss your 1600 goodbye. </li>
</ol>
<p>So, yeah. Nowadays, 1206 kids get a perfect 1600 on math + cr. Partly due to the lack of curve, but mostly due to the fact that today's test is much easier.</p>
<p>Yes-I was referring to the New SAT with my claim
@Begoner: I do know the standard deviation is 15 on the IQ test with 100 being the middle on the bell curve-however you seemed to misunderstand my point. My argument for the 165 number was simply that the standard IQ test that you are proposing 1/2 million students took and were correlated with OLD SAT scores would not be accurate considering most IQ tests are on a 150 or a 155 scale--you can't have a higher IQ than that. Possibly if one were to take an inaccurate (one of those computer IQ tests) test measuring their intelligence, then it would be possible for someone to get a 165 IQ.</p>
<p>No, there is no theoretical cap on how high one's IQ can be; however, it may be the case that many common IQ tests cannot measure an IQ above 155 because they are not designed to do so. Since such a minute portion of the population has such an exceptionally high IQ, many tests simply focus on the middle 99.99% of people and disregard the extremes. Nonetheless, it is possible for someone to have an IQ of, say, 180, but he would need to take more specialized tests in order to ascertain that.</p>
<p>My theory is a couple pieces of paper can't decipher you're intelligence level.</p>
<p>Oh come on, don't forget about outliers in the correlation between SAT score and IQ. They are always possible.</p>
<p>I got a full score...in my dream once. </p>
<p>j/k j/k XD</p>
<p>My IQ is 135, but my SAT score is only 2180. The SAT doesn't test your knowledge anyways. It tests whether or not you know how to take the SAT and whether or not you know the test itself. Most of the 2400s who say they have never prepared for the test are ********ting you. Even I prepared for the SAT (and procrastinated a lot along the way).</p>
<p>An IQ of 135 is the 98th percentile. An SAT score of 2180 is 98th percentile. Sounds pretty accurate to me.</p>