<p>Agree with bsmom123.</p>
<p>Most students I know that scored high (2300 or above) did it with little prep and only took it once.</p>
<p>I think studying definitely help increase scores. Together with solid knowledge (usually learned over the years) and being able to apply the knowledge well (more IQ related) would get high scores. People who are smarter usually can learn more faster and apply the knowledge better.</p>
<p>I would consider .82 a pretty strong correlation. Does anyone have any more recent data?</p>
<p>My point is that yes, .82 could be considered strong, however that’s not the current statistic. The current statistic is likely not so strong. And either way, it correlates with something that could possibly correlate with something that has no definition. That is extremely flimsy when you put it in perspective.</p>
<p>@Marvin100</p>
<p>I admitted that studying until you have full knowledge of the subject matter and of the tests helps. I simply stated that, after this point, it does no good.</p>
<p>Are you really going to argue that taking 20 practice tests will increase your score compared to 10 practice tests, all other factors constant?</p>
<p>Let’s break human capacity for test-taking down into two vague categories: Intelligence and Knowledge.</p>
<p>As dumbandlethal mentioned, the SAT has a strong, but imperfect correlation with Intelligence; that is because much of it measures “knowledge.” In fact, without basic knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, etc., none of which is purely logic-based or innate, even the most intelligent person could not score highly on the SAT.</p>
<p>However, my argument accounted for the importance of knowledge. I stated that knowledge of the test, and knowledge of the subject were important, as was optimum intelligence (by age). Beyond this point, taking the same practice tests over and over yields no results.</p>
<p>Marvin100, if you have years worth of data, I’d love to see it. I stated originally that my argument was purely based on my subjective experience, but I consider my experience to be relatively thorough, since I have taken several standardized tests, and received a perfect score on the PSAT, SAT, and ACT.</p>
<p>The reality of these tests is not that they are entirely Intelligence based (and thus innate) nor that they are entirely Knowledge based (and thus practice-able), but that both factors affect the score. Good test-takers learn to maximize their knowledge, and recognize the point at which there is nothing more to be gained from “studying” for the SAT. In my experience this has been between 5-10 practice tests.</p>
<p>[Edit: “Intelligence” in this argument refers to pure mental horsepower in both quantitative and verbal areas, as tested by the SAT. Intelligence, in general, has no accepted definition or boundary. I am dealing with intelligence as it applies to the SAT, not in any other form, e.g. creative or musical intelligence.]</p>
<p>Nihilus, I think what you have to remember here is that only a miniscule percentage of the population will actually take 5-10 practice tests. By your own argument, until you reach that threshold, the SAT is heavily knowledge/experience based. That means that for the <em>vast</em> majority of students, it’s far more useful to consider the SAT’s strong correlation with test knowledge, rather than pure intelligence.</p>
<p>EDIT: I don’t know whether your username is coming from Star Wars or philosophy, but either way, I like it</p>
<p>@Nihilus,
I would simply define intelligence as the ability to learn, whilst knowledge is what you already know. The SAT simply requires knowledge. However, the ability to recognize patterns and tricks and apply to similar questions, (practice tests vs the actual SAT) may be considered “intelligence”. Which proves my point in saying, as you take more practice tests, you gain more “knowledge” about the test which allows you score significantly higher. Once you take a certain amount of tests, you have gained all the possible knowledge and will not increase your score, unless however, you become more intelligent.</p>
<p>EDIT: @2redpartyhats, I don’t know whether username is coming from a certain online game, but if you do possess 2 red party hats, you would a very rich person in the game.</p>
<p>I agree with you in some respects. I also think that at some point people can’t improve their SAT score, whether it be a 1500 or a 2300.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to the studies I have seen, natural progression of age is responsible for a change of about 1 standard deviation (SD) from age 13 to 17. What I reported was a change of four SDs, effectively going from the bottom of the scale to the very top.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very similar to my son’s experience. He went from 173 to 219 on the PSAT to above a 2230 verifying SAT score.</p>
<p>@Marvin100
After talking talking talking about your statistic facts, why don’t you pull out some of yours smart @ss. you tell me if YOU’VE ever taken a look at IQs and SATs.</p>
<p>@WhartonPlease
“I’m “sure” it’s an IQ test because people are born knowing 6000 vocab words, all the rules of English grammar, and helpful math formulas. If you ask me, IQ helps slightly.” </p>
<p>Well you see here dude, the more you know stuff the better you do. But, fact it. I can know all the math forumulas, but not be able to answer most questions on the SAT if i don’t know how to intelligently utilize them. Your exagerration is ■■■■■■■■. “6000 words”, why don’t you go try memorizing that much. “rules of english grammar”, okay. i know what a subject and a predicate are, but if you’re going to take 5 minutes per question seeking for an error, you might as well just guess on the whole writing section.</p>
<p>I believe all people who take the sat have a maximum score they will be able to achieve. Eventually, getting a higher score means you need quicker, more efficient, and better processing of the information. The SAT has a very strong correlation with iq, but I would be interested to know whether those studies used the first sat score, which could denote the natural ability of a person, and their true skills. I don’t know why we’re arguing about IQ though, although a greater iq can mean better academic success a person with a lower iq can do just as well with a good work ethic, hence increasing the SAT score.</p>
<p>Noooooo! The SAT is a reading test and biased to those who read well. A good reader and great reader will have different scores but not necessarily a different IQ. Also the math is so repetitive that many people can get a good score without truly understanding the fundamentals. E.G, any kids who retests a 750+ math, likely knows very little about the same math that he/she has SAT mastered. Lastly, the essay has been reduced to canned boiler plate, again making it more of a memorization that an IQ/test.</p>
<p>The SAT score of an individual follows a very strict formula.</p>
<p>“Take the person’s IQ and add 50% to it. Multiply that number by 10 and you have their SAT score. If they are plus or minus years before or after junior year, add or subtract 100 points with a maximum of 2 years. If the number exceeds 2400, then their score is 2400, if it is below 600 then it is 600. The last step, for every time the person has taken the SAT add 30 points to the total, if they have purchased a Bluebook, add 200 points and if they have taken a Kaplan Prep Course, add 10 points.”</p>
<p>Therefore, a person with an IQ of 100 would score 1500 on the SAT and an IQ of 140 would score a 2100. It would take an IQ of 160 to get a perfect score on the test without studying.</p>
<p>MathTeamPro, read my posts.</p>
<p>The SAT has literally no correlation to IQ or Freshman Grades, it most closely correlates to Family Income (ej:Test Prep), you can read studies online</p>
<p>Your sat score does in fact correlate with IQ , as well as freshman GPA, although I couldn’t tell you the exact r value. It does too correlate with family income, whether that is a product of the test prep, or some other factor I don’t know. I could see some possible confounding variables.</p>
<p>The r-value for correlation is less than .2, implying a weak correlation, it’s not enough to draw a conclusion, here’s an interview with the founder of the Princeton review [Interviews</a> - Jon Katzman | Secrets Of The Sat | FRONTLINE | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/katzman.html]Interviews”>Interviews - Jon Katzman | Secrets Of The Sat | FRONTLINE | PBS)</p>
<p>You learn and grow. A year ago I was scoring around 1300 and now I break 2000</p>
<p>I don’t know what you mean by “high score.” For me, 2200+ is acceptable, but 2300+ is ideal. However, those scores are hard for everyone, no matter how high your IQ. That needs to be better defined in post.</p>
<p>OT:
Your argument may or may not be true, so let’s analyze the components of the test.</p>
<p>Critical Reading
1.) It tests vocabulary- A significant part of the SAT. Personally, I would say this does NOT test IQ. You can have a high IQ and not know a lot of vocab. You do need to know how to put the word in a sentence, but (for me, at least–could be some bias in this statement) the hard part is knowing the word and what it means.
2.) Reading comprehension- I feel like this could test IQ, but it’s mostly reading skill. The more you read, the better you are at this (faster reading, etc).
Overall: Critical reading is not a good indicator of IQ. However, most with high IQs tend to have strong reading skills and a large vocab base, ergo they do well on this part.</p>
<p>Math
-Simple math concepts, a lot of problem solving.<br>
Overall, I feel this is pretty IQ based. Nevertheless, you can still master this section by studying.</p>
<p>Writing
1.) The essay- I hear this can be easily improved, and to get a good score, there is a “template” that can be utilized.
2.) Grammar- can be learned-> not IQ
Overall: Not very IQ based.</p>
<p>I feel that the SAT is mostly knowledge based. Those that take harder classes will do better on the SAT (more exposure to vocab, develop better reading skills, learn better problem solving skills, etc.). In terms of IQ, those that take these high-tier classes are also those with the high IQs. So although the SAT may seem like an IQ test because those that are smarter get higher scores, it is hard to set a correlation between the two. Also, there are too many variables. Sleep, how you feel on test day, nerves, silly mistakes, etc. Time is another factor. Even if you have a high IQ, if you cannot perform in pressure situations, you won’t get a “high score.”</p>
<p>Edit:
I also know someone, 238 PSAT, 35 ACT, 2300+ SAT? (not sure about the SAT score). HORRIBLE problem solver (based on how he/she did in math team, which involves a lot of problem solving), which according to one of your posts, is a determinant of IQ level.</p>
<p>I think the SAT is a little bit of both. IQ determines starting level, sometimes range of ability, and knowledge-based studying can boost the score by a significant amount. </p>
<p>I know some people who study like fiends but still can’t increase over 100 points past their starting point, and others have increased by 400+ points by studying. It goes either way.</p>