<p>
I didn’t say that . . . I said a student with a 4.0 GPA should be getting 32+. </p>
<p>Students with GPA’s of 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9’s can and do get 32+, but something is out of sync when a 4.0 GPA student scores a 29-30 ACT.</p>
<p>As far as the ACT being “curriculum-based”, I think that if it is at all, it is optional knowledge that does nothing. For example, you need absolutely no knowledge of physics, chemistry, or biology to ace the ACT science section. If you take them, you may recognize some of the terms, but it does nothing for you getting the right answer.</p>
<p>As far as the other sections, they differ in slight ways, but none of them emphasize content.</p>
<p>An anecdotal example: I am a low GPA high test example. I scored much better on the ACT, which goes against the idea that knowledge in the fields will benefit you on the ACT. I did better because I am a STEM minded person who was boosted by the science section, and I preferred the ACT writing section significantly with Math/Reading being the exact same.</p>
<p>So basically, while they may relate, knowing the relation does squat for getting the right answer. If you define curriculum-based as having a correlation in what medium the question are set then yes, the ACT is curriculum-based. However, the questions still test the exact same thing as the ACT in slightly different manners. The course material you need to know for each question is already given to you in some format inn the question/answer always. So the ACT and SAT are equal red flags in terms of correlation to GPA: little other than the skill overlap needed to get a high GPA and a high test score. Both the SAT and ACT basically test processing ability. They give you data, and you process it. That is essentially all of Math/Science/Reading.</p>
<p>It also depends heavily on the school and rigor. At my HS, it is not uncommon for people with 2.5-3.0 GPAs to get into Top 50-75 schools. 100% of the students go to college, even those in the bottom of the class.</p>
<p>But, I had a 3.52 UW in the hardest possible classes, but a 2310 SAT, and I am going to Vanderbilt.</p>
<p>When educators talk about the ACT being more “curriculum-based” I think they’re referring to some of the things that the SAT is going to eliminate or rework on their new test. (Parenthesis at the end of each bullet point are mine.) <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/education/major-changes-in-sat-announced-by-college-board.html”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/education/major-changes-in-sat-announced-by-college-board.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe more than anything ACT and SAT scores correlate to income more than anything. I did a report on the SAT a couple months ago for my research project and you would be amazed at what I found. Basically the higher the income the higher the score. I don’t see why a high ACT or SAT score has to be in tandem with a high I.Q. Just because you can’t score well on doesn’t mean you’re an idiot. </p>
<p>Not amazed at all. Money is not the cause, though. Genetics has a big part to play. Over time, people who are intellectually inclined move toward the top of income earners. They have kids and those kids are more likely to achieve high score in part due simply to higher intellectual capacity.</p>
<p>Of course, there are other factors as well. Given the increase in test prep and such, some high scores are due in part to parents willing and able to shell out for more tests and more prep for the tests. </p>
<p>Not all high IQ people test well, but most do. Low IQ people do not test well (except for random chance). What the tests do really indicate is those who can quickly answer difficult questions. This is most closely related to IQ. The fact that it takes you longer to come up with the answer does not make you an idiot, but it also does not make you as smart as someone who can. Real life often has pressure to perform quickly. Sometimes lives depend upon it. I would much rather have a surgeon who rapidly knows what is wrong when she is cutting on me than someone who has to stop and think while I bleed out.</p>
<p>
While I mostly agree, it depends on which students you sample. My kids attended Stuyvesant High School, a large public school in New York City with 3400 top performing students, 40% of whom are from families that qualify for the federal free lunch program (meaning they don’t have much money). Yet the average SAT is 2100, ACT is a 32.
I agree. In the OP’s example, a student who has a 4.0 GPA with demonstrated course rigor would seem to have genetics on their side. In all likelihood, their GPA would place them in the top 1% to 2% of their graduating class, so, in theory, they should have a similarly high test score. </p>
<p>“I believe more than anything ACT and SAT scores correlate to income more than anything. I did a report on the SAT a couple months ago for my research project and you would be amazed at what I found. Basically the higher the income the higher the score. I don’t see why a high ACT or SAT score has to be in tandem with a high I.Q. Just because you can’t score well on doesn’t mean you’re an idiot.”</p>
<p>Things are not as black and white as you may think.
True, there is some correlation between SAT scores and parental income, but unless you account for all relevant variables in your regression model, you’re bound to run into omitted variable bias.
Just off the top of my head, what if the average IQ of students with rich parents are higher than the average IQ of students with poor parents? It’s plausible, right? There’s some correlation between success and IQ and IQ is also highly genetic. Successful people will pass down their intelligence to their children.</p>
<p>To fix this issue, you would need to use either the first-differences method or the fixed-effects method to get rid of the time invariant error structure (Average IQ based on socioeconomic status). Just looking at the correlation between SAT scores and income isn’t an accurate assessment.
I’m surprised that no research paper has ever attempted to account for this problem. I’m guessing the results did not show statistical significance after correcting for average IQ of rich and poor people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reiterating that correlation does not always mean causation. More income may lead to many other things such as a larger emphasis on the importance of education, paid test prep, enrollment in a private school or a public school economically restricted by the neighborhoods they draw from and property values. While I agree the correlation is a problem, money isn’t it but rather how education is “bought”.</p>
<p>Nicely put @PengsPhils </p>
<p>Actually, there are studies involving adopted children into well-off (upper middle income) families that show the income of the adoptive family has little to no effect on the IQ - the IQ is more closely associated with the IQ of the biological parents rather than the adoptive ones. What upper income levels do is eliminate environment as a factor - innate ability tends to be a ceiling that can only be messed up, not something that can be added to through “better” education and test prep. In short, income maximizes what is already there, it doesn’t create it.</p>
<p>What if someone has the opposite combination: high ACT (36) and low GPA (3.5-3.6)?</p>
<p>@gibby What if it is the other way? What do you think it would indicate if a student has a high ACT, but a very low GPA?</p>