<p>I'd liek to here y'alls thoughts. here is my opinion:</p>
<p>tests can't measure intelligence. they measure how well u take the test. A variety of factors could contribute to a low score: bad test taking strategies, lack of knowledge of the material, not being adequately exposed to the type of questions the test asks, falling for the frequent traps, etc. A variety of factors can also contribute to a high score: knowing the test inside and out, haivng a good education, being a perfectionist who makes very few mistakes( redundancy I know), being a slow thinker, misreading questions. none of these factors measure intelligence.</p>
<p>Back when psychometricians believed in the dipstick theory (which was essentially a racist theory of innate intelligence) people thought tests can indicate intelligence. That was the age of the IQ test. Now, no one believes in that anymore, or at least officially. This trend corresponds with the phasing-out of the IQ test. We now have aptitude tests, which doesn't even claim to be a measurement of intelligence.</p>
<p>most successful ppl practically got no education. i mean steven speilberg got denied entrance to like most places he applied.. and now hes a film legend. Seroisly some ppl have pure and raw intellegence while and a creative force while others study out of the books and try hard to be intellegent and do good on tests ect... book smart vs. street smart... which is better or more helpful,eh maybe a little bit of both?</p>
<p>All it really measures is how good a school you went to or how much your parents could afford to pay for prep courses. I mean, obviously there's some variation in ability, but the truth is you can only score so high without tangible advantages. I refused to study for the SAT or take prep classes, but I don't kid myself that if I hadn't been raised in a supportive and intellectually stimulating enviroment, I would have gotten a much, much lower score.</p>
<p>Basically, the main thing the SAT tests is your reading ability. Even the math questions can only be answered correctly if you've got a fair level of language skills. Which I'm very thankful for, since reading well seems to be my only useful skill.</p>
<p>My S has started me reading some of his books on intelligence (a few from Tokenadult's list) and I can only comment on a few things:</p>
<ol>
<li>Some people are more intelligent than others. Most of us have our good days and our bad days, and our stong areas and our weak areas. Tests don't define people too well.</li>
<li>The SAT is a test.</li>
<li>The most inportant factor invovled in success in life is hard work. If you are really much, much smarter than the smartest kids on CC (which is very rare), some opportunities may open for you in theoretical physics, or on the Supreme Court. Otherwise, focus on work ethic and producing high-quality work products, at school and in life.</li>
<li>Your preparation for the SAT is a work product.</li>
</ol>
<p>It depends upon what one considers intelligence. It does test your ability to work under mental pressure, it tests your vocabulary and reading comprehension, which are clearly big components of intelligence. Even more so, math tests analysis ability, problem solving skills, and logical thinking. Therefore, even though indirectly, SAT measures intelligence to a large extent.</p>
<p>up to 1200-1300 it tests sophistication in the mind. above that its all b.s. really. this test is so flawed, so cracked, etc, that its another exam you study for. We need a new test, one you can't prepare for.</p>
<p>it definitely doesn't measure intelligence. i know so many kids who dont know anything but do well on the SATs (when i say well, i mean 1500+) and so many other kids in my grade who i respect for their intelligent comments and thoughts in classroom discussion or socializing get much lower scores. it's a completely bogus test and it's a shame it has to categorize students so much.</p>
<p>I don't think it's neccessarily a test of intelligence, but I will say that all the kids I know who scored very high are very intelligent. I realize that in many cases it's not an accurate indicator of ability, but it also bothers me when people act like a 1600 is nothing to be proud of. I think that anyone who scores over a 1400 or so is pretty clearly academically talented, which isn't to say that people who don't are not. It's often said on this forum that anyone who practices enough can get a 1600, which I'm quite positive isn't true at all. I think it's often a pretty good indicator of academic abilities, which of course exclude all sorts of facets of intelligence that are equally important. In general, those who are extremely academically bright score in the upper range, while those who are not. I don't think the SAT is meaningless at all- but I realize it's not everything.</p>
<p>i think youre underappreciating a lot of people on these boards who are very smart and talented, if not smarter than the above 1400er people. People study for this test, it flaws the test.</p>
<p>of course everybody knows plenty of people who are obviously intelligent but score low on the SAT, that is why the correlation with SAT scores and college performance is only .44. But it is also important to keep in mind that there is a relatively high correlation between IQ and SAT scores (SAT math & IQ correlate .85, SAT Verbal and IQ correlate .45). The obvious answer to this ongoing debate is that, no, SAT score cannot perfectly predict someone's intelligence. But yes, it can give a general idea on which other factors can be used to determine the true intelligence of an individual -- Something called holistic analysis.</p>
<p>Lots of people seem to recoil at the idea that the SAT is even remotely correlated with "intelligence", and I disagree. Certainly, the SAT isn't a perfect measure of intelligence, or even a particularly good one. However, despite this, and the inherent ambiguity of the term "intelligence", I would say that the SAT has a significant correlation with an individual's level of intelligence.</p>
<p>My conclusion may be incorrect, because it is largely based on anecdotal evidence. Not all 1500 scorers are smarter than 1400 scorers, but among those I have met, the considerable majority of 1500 scorers are people that I would judge (independently of the SAT) to be more intelligent. The effect appears to widen for larger differences in score - almost all 1500s are smarter than 1300s, and the very few 1600s that I have met are the smartest people that I know. This suggests that the test, though not universally accurate, certainly has a strong relationship with intelligence. I understand that these are my own perceptions, and certainly don't qualify the test as an accurate yardstick for universities to consider. Still, based upon my experiences, I suspect that many others have come to similar conclusions.</p>
<p>The verbal SAT tests essentially three aspects of intelligence: reading and comprehension ability (critical reading), vocabulary (tested by all three sections), and reasoning ability (quite imperfectly tested through analogies). The math SAT, although I argue that it is flawed because it is too easy and fails to measure the full range of mathematical talent, straightforwardly tests <em>basic</em> math skills. Overall, the skills tested by the SAT make up only a fraction of a person's broader intelligence (definitely difficult to define!), but I suspect that statistically, broader intelligence can be extrapolated from these skills alone - with a respectable, though definitely not perfect, accuracy.</p>