<p>^^ yeah. </p>
<p>The SAT isn't the most accurate measure of intelligence, but it isn't completely a load of crap either. A lot of my friends, who are definitely a lot smarter, creative, and motivated (in things other than standardized tests) than I am, scored lower than I did. On the other hand, they still got very good scores without studying, which suggests that their high scores were largely a product of their intelligence.</p>
<p>I'm very against standardized testing. My test scores aren't horrible, but they're not great enough to have an automatic "in" at some higher colleges. I have a 28 on my ACT and a 1700 on my SAT. I took a class for the ACT and my score remained the same. </p>
<p>However, I have a 4.2 W gpa and have had 3 AP classes the past two years. I spend too much time working on work for school to add in taking 5 hr practice tests. </p>
<p>I have a friend who is National Merit. She paid several hundred dollars for PSAT and SAT courses. However, her weighted GPA is the same as my unweighted GPA. Because of that ONE test score, she gets a full ride to the state university. </p>
<p>Not only do I have a rigorous course load, but i play two instruments and have to set aside time to practice. </p>
<p>I don't feel like one test, one morning at 8 AM should determine whether or not you could get into college.</p>
<p>I'd say that the SAT measures a very narrow area of intelligence. The math is basic and I could do any of the problems since 8th grade, the reading isn't complicated, etc. I'll let you decide.</p>
<p>8th grade (700M 530R)no prep
SAT I Junior 1980 (760M 630 R 590 W) no prep
Senior 2150 (760M 680R 710W 12/12) prep for a week (not on math though)</p>
<p>Note how math barely increased though I was taking IB Math HL with Cal AB as a sophomore.</p>
<p>SATII's (no prep, one sitting, sick)</p>
<p>Chem AP as a sophomore, SAT II as a senior - 780
Math iic - 780
U.S. Hist - 610 (IB history doesn't help here haha...)</p>
<p>Now, I'm an average SAT score at Rice, yet I have a top 20% GPA (3.6) as a Math/Phys major.</p>
<p>My asian roommate who currently has a 3.8 as an elec/CS (hard) also got a 2150 SAT with</p>
<p>800M 630W 720R--- oh and he got into Cal Tech. Perfection needed? I doubt it.</p>
<p>I think the SAT is pointless
theres all this talk about 'distractors' and startegies and certain methods of guessing
that doesn't sound like it has anything to do with your actual intelligence [in my opinion]</p>
<p>I think the ACT does a much better job of measuring your intelligence</p>
<p>Intelligence encompasses everything, and is, therefore, impossible to measure. There is multitasking intelligence (distractions), general knowledge, in depth knowledge, creativity, adapability, etc.</p>
<p>I think the only tests that can measure one's intelligence is, well, an intelligence test. And even those tests are far from perfect. </p>
<p>The best way, truly, to judge somebody's 'intelligence' is to see what they've produced, what REAL problems they've solved, and so on. </p>
<p>That's why I feel that high IQ societies, artificial tests for intelligence, etc. are not useful. It's not like you can do anything about your score whether it's high or low. Just focus on achieving things.</p>
<p>I do not agree with the correlation between high IQs and high SATs--my conflicting numbers are proof enough to me. Then again, there are debates raging about whether IQ is a viable means of testing intelligence. That's definitely a debate for another forum, however.</p>
<p>As for the SAT, I'm in the "SAT scores are a reflection of how well you take the SAT test and that's all" camp. Then again, the topic does require some pondering...</p>
<p>of course it does! Thats why ivies filter out all the crappy people by using SAT scores first</p>
<p>I think SATs are just testing you on basic reasoning skills, etc. If you're a genius, you're bound to receive a decent score at the very least. It definitely is not a good indicator of intelligence. There's really no effective way to quanititatively analyze that kind of thing, y'know? But the SAT does tell colleges that students care about college apps (otherwise they wouldn't be studying for hours on end to receive a good score).</p>
<p>My short answer: of course not. It is a standardized test. </p>
<p>There are a lot of geniuses who do not go to Ivy League, or even 2nd or 3rd tier schools. Or even to college. Oh yes, it's true. The Ivies are looking for people who will succeed. Not the smartest people. That is a myth. Why would they be looking for lazy geniuses? They are looking for people whose performance in high school suggests that they will succeed in college and beyond. A lot of very intelligent people do not have records that suggest that. A lot of very intelligent people WOULD not do well in college and probably won't succeed as much in life as much as a lot of people of average intelligence. Read the studies. It is actually better to be in the above average intelligence range than to be out of the ballpark in terms of giftedness. Those who are out of the ballpark very frequently do not succeed in academics. IQ is NOT reflected in how you perform in school. To quote Dilbert, "Intelligence has much less practical application than you'd think."</p>
<p>Likewise, there are a lot of geniuses who do not get decent SAT scores. Yes, there are a lot of geniuses who do, which is why you'll sometimes see a desparity in the SAT scores and GPAs of very smart people who are lazy in school. But a number of factors could influence SAT scores. You can be of average intelligence and study hard enough to get a 2400 on the SAT. </p>
<p>It's just a number. It will never matter in life after this process is over, so I wish people would stop trying to assign it more of a value than it has.</p>
<p>I think the SAT's are a pretty good measure of academic ability. Alright, maybe not the writing section, which i'd say is the easiest to prepare for, but Math and Critical Reading aren't always that easy to raise, even with a lot of prep. I know a lot of us can get 700+ math easily, but there are a lot of kids who have difficulty doing any problems that require some creative thinking. Critical Reading seems to be the best indicator in my opinion, because from what I've seen, it has a very strong correlation with how much a person reads. If you don't read at all or very little outside of school, CR will probably be a struggle. You're most likely not going to see an idiot get a 2300+ just because he studied a lot for the test.</p>
<p>I've also noticed people with lower scores say the SAT is a poor indicator of intelligence just because they can't seem to do well on it.....</p>
<p>edit: starbursting, i seriously doubt many people who score perfect scores or even near perfect scores are of average intelligence, just because they study hard enough. It wouldn't be much of a test if everyone could just get 2300+ by "studying hard enough"</p>
<p>uh no.....Bush apparently got something like at 1250 on his SATs, but his lack of ability to speak in a coherent manner doesn't reflect the 1250. Bush should have gotten something like a 750.</p>
<p>Come on people. The SATs--say the math portion, for instance--are clearly a measure of certain SKILLS that not everyone necessarily has in equal measure. And these 'skills' are innate really, because if they weren't then EVERYBODY could potentially score the same high score on the test if they put equal effort into preparation. </p>
<p>Now, it's fair to say that scoring high on the test may not necessarily superior intelligence overall, but the test does indeed measure certain skills that not everyone has in equal proportion. For instance, have you ever noticed how in the math section the questions almost always come down to not necessarily what you know but what you can perceive quickly? Can that skill truly be taught? Not necessarily. Most likely it's an innate skill.</p>
<p>The SAT is an aptitude test for for the most part, gauging one's conductivity to academic problems. </p>
<p>I feel intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with academic potential.</p>
<p>No no no NO</p>
<p>@ Music4988</p>
<p>IMO, the SAT is a measure (to a reasonably degree) of intelligence, while GPA or AP test scores are less of a measure of intelligence and more of work ethic. In high school, an average/slightly above average kid can get a decent GPA with AP courses with a lot of hard work, but for the SAT, you can only prep so much for it.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to insult you, but I think your post expresses my view well;
"I spend too much time working on work for school to add in taking 5 hr practice tests."
"I took a class for the ACT and my score remained the same."</p>
<p>I barely prepped for the SAT outside of the "? of the day" and a few hours the day before and still managed to get a decent score (2140, 1st and only try btw) yet I have a lower GPA than you (by .2). So, by your reasoning, GPA is an accurate predictor (which seems to be what you're implying with the comparison of your GPA and your friend's) and the only way I got that score is because of my nearly nonexistent prep, not because GPAs are highly flawed and far from standard across the country, from grade inflation/deflation to different course loads.</p>
<p>BTW - I think that it's amusing that generally the people who hate standardized tests are the ones who can't score well on them and the people who whine about admissions are the ones who get rejected. But the converse is also true. Am I falling into this pattern? You betcha; human nature.</p>
<p>Also, rofl @ "I think the ACT does a much better job of measuring your intelligence" if the PLAN was any indicator (didn't take the ACT) the ACT is even easier to study for considering it covered far more "knowledge" type questions. How is it any easier to "learn" how to take the SAT than the ACT? Maybe cause you scored higher on the ACT? ;)</p>
<p>The SATs are far from perfect, but IMO they're the best available ATM. Personally I'd almost rather have 100% admissions by test scores ;) like a lot of other countries.</p>
<p>YES, it measures logic,comprehension and writing (which incoming freshmen aren't supposed to do)</p>
<p>All of you who disagree are fuc!<ing retarded perverts.</p>
<p>JK, but not really</p>
<p>You just didn't get the test score (2400) you wanted. I didn't get the GPA I wanted , I don't blame our educational system, I blame myself. Take responsibility you sheltered little pricks. The world won't end because you didn't get into your mom's first choice.</p>
<p>Or, you know, we could just complain about the writing section that many experts and professors have themselves criticized for encouraging mindless formulaic drivel and falsified history.</p>
<p>I guess your way is pretty cool too though. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Sadly, some schools think SAT score is a big factor. When a school has to choose students they don't know, what will they base on? Of course, the number. Taking a test is just a 50-50 game. You can do it well at home but at the test center, you do too badly. That's a problem.</p>
<p>IQ and EQ Really measure intelligence</p>