<p>
[quote]
IQ is static after age 3 (although IQ at that means something different than it does for adults). Twins separated at birth have IQs that correlate extremely well even when one looks at vastly different upbringings.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, IQ is changeable after age 3. It's just that changes in IQ after age 3 rarely persist for several years. Also, correlation between child IQ and parental IQ is approximately 0.4 for pre-teens, 0.6 for teenagers, and 0.8 for adults (source: The g factor, Jensen). </p>
<p>Anyways, I got 510 Verbal in 8th grade. I increased it to 690 in 9th grade. My Math score increased from 540 in 8th grade to 76 PSAT in 10th grade (1 wrong). These scores came before the new SAT - it still suffices to say that Verbal is preppable by reading more and learning more vocabulary words. My 10th grade PSAT score pretty much beat all the 11th grade PSAT scores of all of the CTY Talent Search kids in my school whose 8th grade SAT scores surpassed my 8th grade score (I know this because none of those kids made National Merit and my 10th grade score missed my state's cutoff by 1 question). Why is this the case? It could be either (a) due to my unusual levels of self-motivation, (b) due to intelligence that did not match my "natural" potential, or (c) a combination of (a) and (b).</p>
<p>Scores ARE preppable - it's just that there is a point where prepping more yields diminishing returns (as the collegeboard statistics indicate - the average SAT score gain among people who retake the test is so small as to prove almost negligible). The other issue is that A LOT of people are not self-motivated and start blaming their school systems for inadequate preparation when they don't have the self-initiative to prep themselves (this is a personality trait related to lack of openness - and it tends to stay in individuals). Usually, people stop retaking the test once they experience "diminishing marginal returns" with respect to more tests taken. The question is - is this "diminishing marginal returns" due more to innate intelligence, or due to one's "reflective intelligence?" (this is an intelligence distinct from IQ that Perkins mentions in his book "Outsmarting IQ"). </p>
<p>==
The more pressing issue is whether the SAT is an accurate measure of IQ or not. And it is not (especially with its recent changes). Before the 1994 renorming of the tests, Mensa accepted SAT scores. Now Mensa no longer accepts those scores.</p>
<p>Even if IQ scores have a 0.8 correlation between identical twins reared apart, the fact is that identical twins more often than not have very similar personality traits with each other (source: The Nurture Assumption, Judith Rich Harris). The correlations usually zone in around 0.5. And these personality traits could be the reason behind the very high 0.8 correlations. The question is, then, are these correlations similar between two twins who are very open to new experiences AND between two twins who are not open to new experiences? If not, then there's also an element of personality in play that plays into self-motivation that in turn plays into IQ scores.</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>Anyways, I do believe that variation due to environment in SAT scores will mean less in the future - as the Internet becomes increasingly available. There is PLENTY of test prep material on the Internet - free of charge. The problem is that it's not always easy to track the material down (but it may become easier with time). It also depends on the strength of your library system ( I was able to go without buying a single book on Chem, Math IIC, or the SAT due to the strength of my library system).</p>
<p>I entered college two years early though, relieving me of the burden of seeing what my SAT scores would be had I stayed in high school.</p>