<p>I do not believe that you do better on the SAT because of favorable innate capabilities. The poeple who score 2100s+ on their first try DO NOT have an innate advantage over those who score 1500s on their first try.
What the SAT actually measures is what kind of circumstances and habitat you grew up in or under. It measures how well things shaped you in your life that set you up to score high on the SAT.
So for example, if one kid grew up in an environment that encouraged him to think in a way that is beneficial for learning math, or critical reading, or writing...then by the time they hit SAT-age they will score very well. And if that same kid grew up under circumstances and environments that did not encourage or push him towards learning these skills then he will NOT score as well.
You have the score that you do because of the circumstances you grew up under, which lead to influences that have shaped you and made you who you are. These "forces" also set you up to have these skills tested on the SAT.
If you consistently score 1700s, I believe that you are capable of scoring a 2400, and that there is no plateau you will eventually reach or the theory that you cannot score very much higher then what you already have. Although I am not saying it is easy to reach a 2400, it will still be hard because you are trying to increase your score in a short amount of time. Whereas the people who score 2300s+ were actually being prepared for the SAT throughout there life.</p>
<p>I'm sorry but there is no such thing as "innate intelligence" as most poeple like to believe. The same thing goes for why the europeans dominated the Americas and have the most power around the world today (or America, which derived form the Europeans). This was not because they were "innately more intelligent" which caused them to create guns and technologies that helped them conquer other civilizations, it was because of the environments their societies developed in. The book Guns, Germs, and Steal really backs up this idea. Although I had this idea long before reading Guns, Germs, and Steal. The book backed up my theory a hundred times over. </p>
<p>Define innate intelligence. Is it something that one possesses when he/she is born? I don’t think such quality exists…well assuming that not everyone is an Einstein.
If that’s not it, then what is it? Is it something that one acquires throughout one’s life? The more one’s exposed to certain type of learning environment, the better one’s going to perform in a similar situation, in this case, the SAT. </p>
<p>This issue has been raised and debated over the years, so feel free to dig up some old threads for the same rebuttals.</p>
<p>
That’s probably because those w/ 2100+ have been exposed to something similar in the past or have grown in an environment that has fostered their ability to do well. I disagree, however, because 2100s clearly have an advantage in that they can easily improve to a 2300+, whereas the 1500s will probably max out at 2000.</p>
<p>
yes in theory everyone is capable of scoring a 2400, provided that they study hard enough, but in practice, a 1700 person will almost NEVER score a 2400 or something remotely close to it.</p>
<p>While going from a 1700 to a 2400 is possible (I’ve gone from 149 PSAT sophomore year to having practice tests now in the 2100+ range), I do think that intelligence plays an important factor. Why? In theory, yes, any one can score a 2400, but think about how much the average person will study. The SAT is JUST one test. Although an important one, it’s still just one test and shouldn’t hog up so much time that can be better spent doing other things.</p>
<p>There is certainly such a thing as innate intelligence; this is well accepted in the psychological community. IQ gets at this intelligence to some extent, and SAT scores correlate strongly with IQ scores. Of course innate intelligence affects how well people do on the SAT. Now, do other factors (e.g., preparation, schooling, parenting, standardized testing mentality) come into play? Yes.</p>
<p>You know what I think? I think the SAT is overrated and TOO over-talked about. You know what the reality is?: Your going to take the test and your never going to talk about it ever again. Period. No one cares. It measures how well you read, how you can solve math problems, and if you can find grammatical errors. That’s it.</p>
I agree with this statement to a large (yet not complete) extent. I have occasionally seen students defy their poor conditions and rise above with great scores. I do not believe in quantifiable intelligence, but it is clear that some are innately predisposed to doing well at some things and not at others. Studying and focus can help compensate for this, in not completely extreme cases.</p>
<p>What I am saying is that the SAT isn’t as important as it was ten or twenty years ago. Back then, the SAT was probably one of the MOST important factors in your application–now its extracurricular, leadership, essay, ALONG with the SATs</p>
<p>What does the fact that the SAT is not the sole admissions factor have to do with whether one’s performance on the SAT is affected by his or her intelligence?</p>