<p>@ u§ername: I don’t understand why you’re using the words “intelligent” and “stupid” when I clearly stated that I don’t find the SAT indicative of intelligence. </p>
<p>I’m glad that you do well in math because of inherent ability. I’m just suggesting that perhaps there is a comparable inherent language ability (which manifests as the ability to remember words and recognize patterns) that allows for higher scores on the CR and W portions of the SAT. </p>
<p>“But ofcourse, I’m very stupid because I can’t pick up on words that I never seen or ever will.”</p>
<p>Okay, so let’s assume that you’re right and it is all about exposure. I suppose that I did well on CR because I’ve read books and seen words before. I almost feel guilty; anyone who is really intelligent but hasn’t read any books or seen any words in his lifetime is inevitably going to get a lower score! :(</p>
<p>I don’t know if it’s all about knowledge. What about the math section? The SAT requires knowledge of math up to, what, Algebra I? Will a sample of kids who are equally proficient in basic math skills always get the same score on the math section? Or is there some other capacity (again, not necessarily intelligence) that comes into play?</p>
<p>How do you determine “a sample of kids who are equally proficient in basic math skills”? You certainly can’t use school grades… first of all, some schools are a lot harder than others. An A in this school may be a C in another. </p>
<p>Even in the same school, you can’t really tell the difference between one who gets 98% and the other who gets 99%. Maybe the person who got 99% had his parents help on those really hard homework questions while the other didn’t. Also, maybe the kid who scored 100% on every test but didn’t do any homwork got a significantly lower mark. </p>
<p>It MAY be more accurate if you take a sample of students who gets fairly low grades in the SAME SCHOOL. In that case, I do believe that the scores will be quite simliar. </p>
<p>There may be different factors, like what type of questions were asked. For example, I scored really low on the AMC 12 this year because most of the quetsions were on geometry. But that’s because I didn’t learn that much about geometry, and if I did, I would’ve probably done really well. </p>
<p>In conclusion, I think SAT is purely a measurement of knowledge. However, how easily you obtain that knowledge depends on these so called “other capacity”.</p>
<p>SAT has a correlation of about 0.7 with general intelligence factor, g. So while I agree amount of knowledge can significantly affect your grade, clearly intelligence is part of your score. But to hell with actual data, let’s just make broad statements. You mad about your score or something?</p>
<p>umm no. I didn’t even take it yet. I don’t know where you got your data, and maybe it does have a little bit to do with intelligence, but not enough so that “stupid” people can’t get a high score, and smart people can’t get a low score</p>
<p>and even if i did get a disappointing score, the only reason is because i didn’t ry hard enough. I am the problem, not the SATs. I wouldn’t get angry and diss SAT or use some lame excuse like “I’m a bad test taker” like some people. </p>
<p>And I didn’t even diss the SATs. I was just stating what I find from the SATs through people I know that took it, and having looked at past exams.</p>
<p>(Although this “knowledge” in some cases might be “how to interpret the tone of this passage” or “how to use the information and formula given to find the missing variable,” things that haven’t been taught to a student directly.)</p>
<p>OK I was completely done with this thread until I saw this unbelievably ridiculous statement. So if it’s simply a matter of “knowledge” (the type you present is exactly what they teach in prep courses and prep material), wouldn’t we expect all the people who take Kaplan courses to get almost the exact same score? Or at the very least, for there to be an extremely small variation between the scores?</p>
<p>Or even better, how about one kid takes a prep course and another kid (le’t’s make them both Asian and private schooled) only skims through a prep book, the prep course kid is guaranteed to get a higher grade, right?</p>
<p>umm… there are many many factors… some students pay so much attention in class it’s almost unbelieveable, while others just do it because their parents forced them. </p>
<p>If both of the kids started out at around the same level, and the kid only SKIMS though a prep book, chances are, the prep course kid is going to get a higher score.</p>
<p>Dontno: No, because some people are better at picking up and retaining this information; at mastering these strategies. </p>
<p>I, for example, never took a prep class or practiced or anything but happened to be good at the skills tested on the SAT.</p>
<p>
Exactly. The key part of this is “if both of the kids started out at around the same level.” Why else would people’s scores generally go up after prep courses? … Even if the ONLY benefit of a prep course is practice, that’s still increasing one’s knowledge/ability of the skills tested.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Standardized tests like SAT attempt to measure one’s chances of success and preparedness for college. They are imperfect measures, as certain things influence scores (test prep, test anxiety). They cannot measure one of the most important predictors of one’s success in college: How badly the student wants it.</p></li>
<li><p>A person of average intelligence can do well in many, many colleges, as the curriculum and demands vary from college to college. Why, even a drug-abusing spoiled rich kid who eventually becomes president of the U.S. can find a way to get through Yale, so how hard could it be? :)</p></li>
<li><p>Our college admissions process already takes ample stock of aptitude for college. College administrators look for those who display leadership, have good grades, did well on standardized tests. There is no need for government to do anything else to sort students into those who should go to college and those who should not. <em>We value self-determination in our society.</em> Each individual must make the decision of whether he or she will do better in life with or without a college degree and whether he or she has what it takes to earn that degree. It is none of anyone else’s business, frankly.</p></li>
<li><p>I think don’tno, for whatever reason, places an extremely high value on innate intelligence. That is fine (although some people of high intellect just happen to have an obnoxious tendency to view that trait as the Most Important Thing In Life). I think many of us have seen through life experience that high innate intelligence is just one factor in what it takes to succeed and is neither necessary nor sufficient to do well. The most successful and competent people in a profession or field are not necessarily the ones with the greatest innate intelligence, regardless of how you choose to measure intelligence.</p></li>
<li><p>Because we cannot sort people into “those who should attend college” and “those who should not attend college” with any reasonable reliability, <em>we should not try.</em></p></li>
</ol>
<p>There. I am not going to wade through all the posts above. Now you know what I think.</p>