<p>I don’t think the SAT is totally related to your IQ. I know some extremely intelligent kids who just didn’t have the same parents or school background as others. We are all in high school together now and I know those kids have a harder time with tests. Maybe their parents didn’t read to them or whatever, or their elementary school system wasn’t the best and the teachers they were able to get weren’t the best ones.</p>
<p>@Marvin, your article about the girl, the girl claims that the SAT was “a piece of cake” after “drills” of reading comprehension exerceses. Well, I would like to know how much she improved. But i know one thing for sure, she couldn’t have improved from an average score of 500 to 700 in critical reading. Thus, making my conclusion that SAT is measuring innate intelligence and IQ. </p>
<p>Oh and for all of you guys. it’s common sense. if you practice on any thing, you will get better at it. But clearly, the SAT can’t be mastered by the majority of the population. Take a look at the statistics. and also take a look at IQ charts and how they CORRESPOND. Both of them are like normal distributions. ??? get me now</p>
<p>Lol. Obviously they correlate you noob. IQ and success on any test are going to correlate. The thing is that there’s logically and empirically nothing close to a causation.</p>
<p>@MathTeam
To some extent, I think that you have a maximum threshold, if given infinite time to study and prep efficiently you will never be able to break that maximum threshold. I can see an argument where this maximum threshold is determined by IQ. I’m sure that there are thousands of people whose threshold is 2400. Unfortunately, they do not have the resources (time, money) to achieve it. To say that it has absolutely no correlation with intelligence would be a stretch, because do you honestly believe that every person (given infinite time/resources) would be able to get 2400? We all face the fact that some people are more intelligent than other people. We would like to live in a world where everyone is equal and we are all on same playing field, that’s not how life works.</p>
<p>@dragooner 4 I completely agree. A difficult test based on specific skill sets like the SAT is going to partially reflect intelligence, but not completely. I also believe that some people simply cannot reach 2400 even with infinite studying, while others could but don’t have the time or money. It’s most likely not on one end or the other, IQ has something to do with one’s ceiling, but it is most certainly not completely decisive in what one achieves.</p>
<p>The problem here is that people are treating IQ and studying as two completely separate things when IQ does affect how effective your studying is.</p>
<p>Man, people will do anything to make excuses for low scores (“I guess my IQ just isn’t high enough for me to get a high score hurf durf!”). </p>
<p>The straight fact on the ground is that–barring disability or crippling lack of fluency–with enough hard work anyone can get in the 750-800 range in all three parts of the exam. It’s not IQ that sets your ceiling on the SAT; it’s work ethic and time.</p>
<p>@marvin100
Well aren’t you so high and mighty, so you essentially say that people who don’t score in the 750-800 range are lazy? They lack work ethic? I guess you just insulted 98% of all SAT takers then didn’t you? Your foolish statement undermines the work of hundreds of thousands of high schoolers.</p>
<p>The SAT is supposed to help determine where people are “at”…right? In a way that can be compared directly to everyone else? So if one person takes it without studying and gets a 2400, and one person spends 100+ hours preparing and also gets a 2400, are they “at” the same level? (Since colleges don’t know how much you prepared…)</p>
<p>If anyone could reach a perfect (or near perfect) score with enough preparation, doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of the test? Wouldn’t there be a lot more higher scores?</p>
<p>(but then again, by that logic, the test can show either an excellent education or very hard work, both of which are pretty damn good predictors of college success…)</p>
<p>@marvin. your stupidity level has surpassed the bounds of limits. seriously? I know some people who don’t score 750-800 and work so hard! IDK what you’re trying to show but its kinda ■■■■■■■■ in a sense to me… </p>
<p>@dragooner, i totally agree with you… haha your post even made me laugh LOLOL xD</p>
<p>CC COMMUNITY! thanks for giving me so many thoughts and insight. I really appreciate it. I now think that the SAT doesn’t measure IQ with that strong of a relation ship with it. I could tell you guys a little of my back ground.</p>
<p>I started taking SAT courses in early 7th grade and my mathematics score was a crappy 400. now I’m a freshmen at the end of this year, going to become a soph in sept. and now my math score hovers around 700. (english has been a struggle for me. im still stuck in the mid 400s) </p>
<p>So i do think it is time and money that determines your score, not IQ ← although it may play a factor its only one part. I agree that time and money are the main factors that determine your score. thanks guys, once again</p>
<p>Have to agree that it’s both. Some kids can score well without any prep, some can’t. Of those that can’t, significant prep can bring them up to the level of the “naturals”.</p>
<p>Intelligence, if not your “Intelligence Quotient” does play a tremendous role on your performance on the SAT. A lot of reason for this debate - which really shouldn’t exist - is the vagueness of the term ‘intelligence’. </p>
<p>It is important to realize that studying habits and your overall knowledge level all contribute to your level of intelligence. However, you will find that a group of natural geniuses with standard work ethic will consistently outscore a group of students with exceptional work ethic, but only standard intelligence. Those who score in the maximum reaches of the scale are the ones who have both exceptional intelligence (which is influenced by experience, genetics, and their pre and post natal environments) AND exceptional work ethic (which is also influenced by the same factors in different ways).</p>
thanks guys, once again</p>