<p>When you see an impressive SAT score, is the first thing which pops into your mind "Wow this person must be a great test taker!", or "Wow this person must be really smart!"?</p>
<p>Which section is the most reliable indication of a person's intelligence? </p>
<p>Do you think intelligence is even measurable?</p>
<p>I'll give and defend my opinion later. For now, say whatever you like, but keep it civil.</p>
<p>all the people that I personally know who I think are very smart got high SAT scores. People who others may find very smart but I saw as just hard workers only did okay, so I would say the SAT does measure intelligence, however not perfectly. Of course intelligence is measurable. IQ tests do a pretty good job of figuring out who has potential.</p>
<p>Other “intelligence” tests, with the explicit intention of quantifying intelligence are statistically supposed to render individual results essentally the same every time. </p>
<p>The SAT however is something one can study for and improve upon; absolute “intelligence” can thus be drastically increased with relative ease, drawing the association with actual intelligence into dubious light.</p>
<p>So, I think it’s kind of like a cheap, inaccurate, and misleading representation of intelligence when interpreted as such.</p>
<p>to some extent, it does.</p>
<p>I think it’s more indicative of wealth and determination/preparation.</p>
<p>Look at it this way: from a college admissions viewpoint, it’s the most indicative thing on your whole resume of your intelligence; you’re not going to get a better indicator than that, because colleges don’t consider IQ tests for admission.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i have plenty of wealthy friends that took expensive SAT classes and yet still scored in the 1700s.</p>
<p>my family earns considerably less than them and yet my SAT score pwns theirs.</p>
<p>That’s cause SAT classes are useless :o</p>
<p>Yea to some extent it does, but it also measures your ability to work hard at something and if you are a good test taker.</p>
<p>No, a good score on the SAT might be an indicator of intelligence but you can’t prepare and strategize for an IQ test.</p>
<p>My opinion is that the SAT gives an intelligence range, but it can’t directly match up with one’s IQ score. One would have to factor in study time to get a more accurate reading. Those who take the test multiple times eventually reach a ceiling for each section, which more studying won’t break. I’d say this score is the one that could be most closely matched with IQ.</p>
<p>When i see a good SAT score, i think the person is well prepared, smart, or a good test taker. I would never correlate it with a high IQ. To me there is a huge difference between being “smart” and having a “high IQ”. The question is up for grabs, and can go either way. Obviously people who scored high are going to say it measures IQ, but the fact that you can improve your score gives an extremly strong counter arguement.</p>
<p>Of course, but most improvement occurs in the Writing and Math sections. Does this mean that one’s CR score gives the best indication of intelligence?</p>
<p>what if your not a native speaker^^
i think you are at a disadvantage for CR, so i dont think CR is quite the best indicator.</p>
<p>Well then I guess not, although that’s a little obvious isn’t it?</p>
<p>i agree that its “more indicative of wealth and determination/preparation”
not necessarily intelligence.
there are many smart kids who dont push themselves and there are many who are at a disadvantage in terms of resources and their surroundings.</p>
<p>continuing on the notion that non-native speakers are a a disadvantage for CR, im starting to feel math may be more objectively indicative. think about it, people all over the world have learned math, but not everyone has learned english/vocab/grammar skills, etc.
just a thought lol</p>
<p>Again, a test where people regularly make 50-300 point improvements in any and all categories doesn’t speak to very much of how absolutely intelligent the test taker is. I think determination is the key factor; otherwise people wouldn’t be able to make such drastic increases as regularly as they do.</p>
<p>“Wow this person must be a great test taker!”, or “Wow this person must be really smart!”</p>
<p>False dichotomy. I think “Wow, this person is probably lying since the people that score a 2400 on the SAT in one sitting is something like a few hundred a year and if they’re not lying, they probably studied a whole lot.”</p>
<p>That being said, I think a combination of intelligence and hard work are needed to perform well on the SAT or ACT.</p>
<p>Who gives a crap? </p>
<p>The SAT/ACT will measure one, or both, of two things. How naturally intelligent the taker is, or how much he/she worked on preparing for the test. </p>
<p>Both qualities are highly esteemed, and equal, I would say, in the field of academics. A naturally intelligent person, or a hard worker can both break 2100. A naturally intelligent AND hard working person is the scores you see above 2300. </p>
<p>But I have never seen a unintelligent lazy person score high on the SAT. Period. So who cares, since the purpose of the test is to qualify people for admission anyway? If you’re twice as slow but work twice as hard as the person next to you, why shouldn’t you be given the same opportunity to succeed.</p>
<p>[Study:</a> SAT a good measure of IQ | Science Blog](<a href=“http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2297]Study:”>http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2297)</p>