<p>Then you must clarify your intended meaning on both counts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please familiarize yourself with the CC rules for conduct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an invalid question if you are looking for a single answer. In the most direct sense, the SAT of course meaures how well you take the SAT. What people score on that metric, however, positively correlates with a significant number of things (e.g., IQ scores, preparation time, income level, race, gender).</p>
<p>The reason I questioned whether you were being satirical was that you seemed to be (and continue to seem to be) suggesting that GPAs correlated perfectly with intelligence.</p>
<p>GPA is much more a measure of determination and willingness to work hard than of intelligence. The SAT is a much better indicator of “intelligence” than GPA is.</p>
<p>^ GPA’s do not perfectly correlate with intelligence, but they most definitely do so better than SAT scores do. </p>
<p>Perhaps SAT scores do correlate with IQ scores, prep time, income level, race, gender. But do you realize why? If my parents make more money, then I can take an expensive SAT class and get a quality score. Thus, minorities (which addresses the “race” correlation you pointed out) will do worse on the test, but not because they are not intelligent. As far as a good SAT score goes, it merely shows how well you can take a test (by going around the grammar, math, and reading skills–the measures of intelligence–and using a prep class or luck in order to do well). </p>
<p>Once again, you are evading my question. You believe that the SAT measures intelligence. Please prove your point, not with mere statements about correlations with IQ scores and the like.</p>
<p>I’ve never heard of a test that doesn’t measure how well you take that test, as I addressed in post #21.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither of those is true in my case or for any of the 2400ers whom I know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you missed my response in post #21.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah yes, how foolish of me to present statistical correlations in support of a claim. I’ll instead stick to the high evidenciary standard you set:</p>
<p>You still aren’t explaining to me HOW the SAT measures intelligence. </p>
<p>By the way, if the SAT measures intelligence, then why are there preparation courses? Naturally, intelligence is developed over time, and preparation classes that last a few months likely do not boost one’s intelligence. Then what do these preparation classes do?</p>
<p>Like most high scorers, I am not a fan of preparation classes. They are expensive and inefficient ways of preparing, certainly inferior to independent preparation. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that they do have some success (10-15 point improvement on average per section). </p>
<p>What you describe merely weakens the correlation. I never claimed a +1.0 correlation, nor did I even quantify the relationship between SAT scores and intelligence.</p>
Right, because every school district in the United States has a uniform level of difficulty and each student takes the exact same classes throughout their four years of high school. A 4.0 student from a NY magnet school and a 4.0 student from the worst public school in Alabama are definitely closer in intelligence levels than a 2350 scoring student from NY and a 2350 scoring student from AL.</p>
<p>I don’t mind when people claim that the SAT is not a good indicator of intelligence but it is a tad annoying when they then continue to make absurd claims such as yours.</p>
<p>^Once again, my question was why there are preparation classes if the SAT measures intelligence (which you seem to lean more towards than that the SAT does not measure intelligence). If you aren’t going to answer my question, then it’s illogical for me to be in conversation with you.</p>
<p>"Like most high scorers, I am not a fan of preparation classes. They are expensive and inefficient ways of preparing, certainly inferior to independent preparation. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that they do have some success (10-15 point improvement on average per section). "</p>
<p>That does not answer my question. I didn’t ask you whether or not you approve of SAT classes. I’ll ask again, in case you can’t remember: If the SAT measures intelligence, then why are there preparation courses? If the test was truly intelligence-based, then a 2-3 month class would not be nearly enough to prepare you for the SAT.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that I have ever said that the SAT measures intelligence. measures is not a clear word in this context. What I have said is that, irrefutably, SAT scores correlate with IQ scores, which likely correlate with whatever you consider intelligence to be. Preparatory courses weaken this correlation but do not eliminate it.</p>
<p>First off, if collegeboard wanted to test our intelligence than they we just give an IQ test, which according to popular belief scales intelligence. </p>
<p>Go here and look at the family income section (section 11 page 4): </p>
<p>I think that the SAT merely shows how well you can take a test. There are many intelligent people who cannot take a test. They can tell you all the information on the test, do good on pretests, but once they actually take the test they do bad. Everytime I prepped for the SAT, I would always get my ideal score. Yet, once I took the test I always did 400 points worse-- literally. I cannot take a standardized test. I don’t think I’m “intelligent” like the majority of the students on CC, but I definitely don’t think I’m stupid. Maybe my schools grade system is inflated, I definitely think so. Yet, I still don’t think the SAT itself determines if somebody is intelligent…</p>
<p>Plus, my APUSH teacher is married to a psychologist. He says that an actual IQ test does not actually determine your intelligence. Even my psychology teacher said that many psychologists are beginning to think that an IQ test is “bogus” I guess I should say. I’m not sure if it’s true, that is just what I heard from a psychologist and my psychology teacher.</p>
<p>I have come to think of the SAT I as analogous to specialized drills that a concert pianist might use. The SAT I tests very specialized skills that can be mastered through a combination of talent and effort. They are merely indicators/correlates for the ultimate performance someone is capable of acheiving.</p>
<p>So you master the drills by rote repetition and focused practice, with great attention to developing good technique. Some people are able to master the drills on their own, yet others hire teachers to push, correct, and direct them. Some master the drills after 10 practice sessions, others might take dozens. When people say “I don’t test well” they are saying they haven’t figured out their path to mastering the drills.</p>
<p>Someone could master the drills and never really be a creative and expressive performer. But the majority of the top quality performers are capable of the discipline that both allows and comes from mastering the drills. Hopefully the drills have been designed so that the techniques they demand are foundational to creative performance.</p>
<p>And schools base their admission evaluations on applicants’ mastery of these drills because they believe–rightly or wrongly–that it is part of the data that helps them identify students with the potential to perform.</p>
<p>They are drills, and nothing more. They are neither your identity nor your future. And they are certainly not a measure of your self worth.</p>