<p>SAT does not measure intelligence AT ALL. The more you practice, the more coaching you get, the higher score you'll get.</p>
<p>i don't think so..it's more about your ability to take a test. but in fairness, the people who score really high are usually really smart people, but like other ppl have said, the opposite isn't necessarily true at all</p>
<p>This might help clear up some confusion.. kids lie like crazy about their SAT scores.. My D came home and reported that every one of her friends got above a 2100 on the SAT . She was amazed, and wondering what was wrong with her that she didnt score in this range.. Interestingly enough I ran into several of their parents at a sporting event later that week.. all really concerned about their kids' poor SAT scores..and talking about signing them up for prep classes and re-takes etc... Turns out.. they all scored much lower than they claimed...If you don't see the score report... dont believe it.</p>
<p>ill play devils advocate</p>
<p>Why do schools use them to accept students then. Or maybe a bunch of highschool kids know more than admissions officers at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc?</p>
<p>At my school, there is curve for the SAT scores. Kids in AP classes have higher SAT scores than honors classes. Honors kids have higher than level 1, etc down the line. I guarantee you that if you took those level one kids and had them take an SAT review course (which a good amount do) they would still have an average SAT a few hundred lower than the AP kids with no prep. If it has nothing to do with intelligence and is all about "taking a test", why is that?</p>
<p>The SAT has biases, just like every other test. Its chief advantage is that these biases are well known and well documented and apply to everyone who takes it. This allows admissions officers to make more meaningful comparisons between applicants. They know that extensive prepping will increase SAT scores. They also know that a wealthy applicant from a school like Exeter is more likely to have had a prep course and lots of practice than an underprivileged kid at an overcrowded public school, and they can compensate for that difference.</p>
<p>What adcoms don't know is the individual biases of every teacher. They don't know that Mr. X gives out A's like bad Halloween candy or that Mrs. Y last gave an A during the Reagan administration or that Mr. Z reserves the highest grades for the girls who wear the shortest skirts. The SAT is a useful as a tool to compare applicants from a broad spectrum of backgrounds. However, it is only a tool. Like any other measure of applicant quality, it has its strengths and its quirks and should be used intelligently as one of many measures of the applicant, like GPA, class rank, course load, EC's, essays, etc.</p>
<p>i stick with my correlation, not causation theory.</p>
<p>no matter how much kids study, average students will not surpass the scores of those that truly have the ability to do well.</p>
<p>and those of you who say that you know quite a few smart people that get low sat scores, has it ever occured to you that these few are very hard working but possibly to not have the potential that higher scorers do?</p>
<p>I thought this is rather amusing... a lot of the self-claimed geniuses around here do not understand the basic difference between an adjective and an adverb... I love you guys... :D lol. Really, people are good a different things. Just beacuse they have high SAT doesn't mean that they are smart. In the same strain of logic, neither is a good grade a sign of intelligence...</p>
<p>The IQ test correlates to the SAT, so if you believe IQ is a measure of intelligence than the SAT correlates with intelligence. I think its stupid because I improved my score by 500 points (psat to sat) in 3 years, does that mean I am smarter? My friend and I took the SAT together, the first time he scored higher by 20 points, the second time by 10 points. I didn't take it a third time, but he did. He improved by 260 points!!! A combinatiion of the test date and new study guides improved his score. </p>
<p>Another thing I don't understand is why ETS can an SAT score a quantifiable number when your score can change by 100 points on any given day you take it. The score range just shows that you could have scored higher or lower than what you did, depending on your environment and the test curve. Giving a higher score to a test taker who didn't answer more question correctly than another test taker is stupid. My score improved, but I still got the same number wrong as my previous sat.
Also, you loose points for a wrong answer and loose no points for a blank answer. A wrong answer should be the same as a blank one.</p>
<p>Crap... I took the Ravens progressive test (the MENSA admission test in my country) and qualified, no need to boast bout score but above the 98th percentile, i dun see how i do well in the SATs...haha tho i got 780 on Maths, but other two just sucked... i think the IQ thingy is applicable to American or English educated students. The test is somehow biased towards the vocab of everyday-american (( referring to CR ))
And i still dun understand how they equate the writing section..haha, an essay score of 8 but lotsa score mcq = 800 an good essay score but less mcq = 600
hmmm that means u are better if you can do mcq in life? or write a good essay?
hahahahaha however, SAT do set a benchmark in standards, though it's flaw, it's really useful in equating ppl all over the world..</p>
<p>i really think you guys are being too harsh. the things you are pointing out as wrong with the SAT is applicable to any standardized test.</p>
<p>the SAT tests your knowledge of the material. thats all it is. its a generalized curriculum used for adcoms to judge where students are in relation to the curriculum. in that sense its definitely useful and of course you are going to have the rich-er kids who take classes and whatnot but seriously that will happen on anything standardized</p>
<p>Clearly, the SAT measures intelligence within limits. Yes, there are many factors that the test fails to take into account and scores are therefore skewed. But ultimately, the SAT functions as a measure of one's most basic academic skills -- reading comprehension, vocabulary, writing, and math. Clearly those who have mastered those skills will excel on the SAT, and vice versa. And unquestionably, there is a strong correlation between one's aptitude in these areas and pure brainpower.</p>
<p>does the SAT actually reflect intelligence? </p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Evian2010- "SAT does not measure intelligence AT ALL. The more you practice, the more coaching you get, the higher score you'll get."</p>
<p>Are you joking? Are you saying anyone with enough practice can achieve a 2400? The SAT does measure intelligence somewhat, to say it doesn't is silly. Have you even taken the SAT? The SAT does it's job, sure there might be smart kids who do poorly on the SAT but they are the minority.. the exception.. and it is exactly that reason why the SAT is useful. It generally tells you "smart"/good at math and reading (and now writing).</p>
<p>Whether the SAT is an accurate measure of intelligence or not is honestly a property unique to different individuals. Someone who has taken prep courses that teach one how to "beat" the test will obviously get tainted results (such that they arrived at the correct answer without truly knowing how to solve the problem properly), while someone who is taking the test for the first time with very little prep will realize a more accurate assessment. Because prep courses and material are so common now in our high-competition world for college admissions, it's my opinion that it's safe to say the SAT can no longer be considered an accurate measure of mental capacity. The caveat would be the writing section for obvious reasons. (Writing being the most difficult skill to improve, and there being no way to "beat" the prompt)</p>
<p>You can beat the prompt by writing in a very formulaic manner, you really don't need to be a good writer to score well on the Essay section. Heck my friend who's been in America for 3ish years got a 11 on his Essay. I would argue that the writing section is by far the most easiest section to improve with prep, all you have to do is learn a couple of grammatical rules that come up often and you can increase your score by a ton.</p>
<p>Wiki says that "Intelligence is a general mental capability that involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn." I agree that kids with prep vs kids w.o. prep will get different scores, but I think after a certain point prep doesn't really help your score. Of course a kid can take the test for the first time and get a 1800, and then after a bit of review get a 2000. I agree that saying that someone with a 1800 could probably improve to a 2000 without tremendous effort, but I think at the top end of the scale the scores are pretty good. I find that most kids who score over 2200 are very smart, and to me their intelligence reflected by what I see in school correlates with their SAT score.</p>
<p>Hmm...I am always skeptical about prep courses. I have never taken one. But how much do they REALLY help? It seems like they don't too much, for the amount of money some people sink into them.</p>
<p>I think one of the major flaws of the SAT is that it can be prepped for, and scores generally improve after taking it once. However, I think it does measure reasoning skills, were everyone to take it once only with no prior prep. A 2400 on the first try, with no practice is very rare, and I would argue that only the most intelligent would have the potential to reach that score under those conditions. People tend to criticize the SATs a lot, but the fact is that it is necessary to have something on the app that can measure a student against all the rest in the country.</p>
<p>I like to think of the SAT as some sort of physical test. Perhaps its running a mile, doing a triathalon, or doing pushups. Lets compare it to a triathalon, 3 sections to 3 sections.</p>
<p>Swimming, running, and biking well are three things that would signify a good athetele.</p>
<p>A person who is a great athelete will probably do well in a triathalon regardless of a triathalon, but not always. However, people can train in order to get them selves ready and do well as well. Some people will never be able to swim well or bike well no matter how hard they try. </p>
<p>Some may not be great long distant runners, they may be great sprinters. Or perhaps they are top gymnasts or baseball players; their talents arent exactly suited to a triathalon, but they are talented nonetheless.</p>
<p>The SAT is much the same.</p>
<p>Obviously there's some correlation with intelligence with the SAT, but having taken professionally administered IQ tests I can say that the SAT isn't an IQ test.</p>
<p>The SAT can test for a certain level of intelligence, the very very basic kind, but after the "can you fill out your name correctly?" level, it becomes a test of test-taking skills. So, does the SAT actually reflect intelligence? Yes, and no.</p>
<p>Any test inherently becomes a test of test-taking skills to a certain degree. Much of the work during your career (especially if it's in economics, engineering, or sciences) is going to be like tests, though: can you get the best possible answer within a reasonable time frame?</p>