<p>We all know that the SAT and the ACT can be studied (to all that argue that studying does squat, yeah, tell that to a kid that took his first SAT in 6th grade. Just because there is a correlation doesn't mean that intensive studying cannot result in a significant difference), so who would favor an IQ test, or a heavily researched new IQ test?</p>
<p>I suppose I wouldn't, because I'm not that bright of a kid, but I'm just speculating because I just submitted my college apps in and am one happy guy right now, well, eh, unless I get one of those rejection letters :( </p>
<p>Boredom for the win!!!</p>
<p>IQ tests neither have validity nor reliability. Same goes for the SAT. If you have the money, you can buy a prep program/tutor, and your scores should increase.</p>
<p>If one day there would be an accurate IQ test, I’d support it. But right now, I don’t think existing IQ tests are accurate or reliable.</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen you can study for math and writing, but CR is an IQ test of sorts. It measures the ability to take in information, comprehend and alalyze it quickly. There are many kore 800 scores in math and writing. They’re a dime a dozen at top colleges while the 800CR is much more elusive.</p>
<p>^False. There are less 800 W than 800 CR. I was 2 questions away from obtaining an 800 on CR and one of the questions I missed was a Sentence Completion question (I was debating between decorum and ebullience. Decorum was the answer but I chose ebullience). Practice does raise CR scores.</p>
<p>Besides the fact none of you know what an IQ test is, the SAT <em>IS</em> an IQ test. It has something like a .8 correlation with most IQ tests. And yes, the critical reading is more g-loaded than the other sections, meaning its correlation is higher (that doesn’t really say anything about how tough it is though.) But I don’t really feel like explaining how IQ is a pretty good predictor of academic success, cuz more likely than not someone is just gonna shoot me down by saying IQ tests are unfair or culturally biased. And they will do so with absolutely <em>NO</em> knowledge of what an IQ test is.</p>
<p>In addition, CR is about luck. One sitting might produce fantastic passages that genuinely capture your attention. Another might have monotonous ones that drain your very ability to process information. Don’t even get me started about the sentence completion.</p>
<p>The SAT is a test about luck and preparation. It is not the “Scholastic Aptitude Test” or whatever it formerly was known as; it does not measure aptitude, or anything closely resembling any synonym for aptitude.</p>
<p>I don’t see how an IQ test would be much different than the standardized tests in place today. Same concept of measuring every student on the same basis.</p>
<p>Agree birth of the cool. The SAT is not about luck. Scores correlate with so many things, from IQ to family income.</p>
<p>A 0.8 correlation with most IQ tests is insignificant. And if they do so correlate with other factors including family income, then the SAT is not a valid test.</p>
<p>I actually took a legitimate IQ test with a psychologist this past June. I did quite well overall (99.6%ile) and was diagnosed with a working memory disability. I’m sorry but that IQ test was crap (it was WAIS IV if you’re curious). One section called “Information” is a trivia test. One question was “what is the circumference of the world.” That is not a measure of intelligence and knowledge of the answer is largely dependent on luck. That is just one example. Another is one question that was “why do many people cook meat?” I gave a long answer about how it kills pathogenic bacteria. It was not classified as “right” and I needed to give another answer. These tests are quite flawed, are absolutely culturally biased, and while they may correlate with success, they are certainly are not accurate indicators.</p>
<p>However, I’m not really a fan of the SAT either. SAT, particularly the writing section, is culturally biased and not an excellent indicator of critical thinking skills. By studying I went from a 550 to a 750. Basically from average to the top 1%. That is ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you work in a scientific field? In most fields, including psychology, a 0.8 correlation is really significant. People only correlate with themselves about 0.85-0.9 when they take the same IQ test a year later. SAT tests correlate better with some IQ tests than some IQ tests correlate with other IQ tests. [Gene</a> Expression: SAT is a de facto IQ Test](<a href=“http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001837.html]Gene”>http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001837.html) Or so sayeth the American Psychological Society.</p>
<p>The SAT is a de facto IQ test. Reports of people improving through studying are widely overexaggerated due to reporting bias. The rare people who experience it trumpet it to the skies whereas the people who make modest improvements or even do worse don’t really talk about it. Rigorous measurement shows that on average studying can only improve scores by about 30 points [SAT</a> Coaching Found to Boost Scores – Barely - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124278685697537839.html]SAT”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124278685697537839.html) and that the curve for improvement per hour studied plateaus pretty soon after that.</p>
<p>There’s no need to replace the SAT with an IQ test. It wouldn’t make a difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You must have .8 confused with .08. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If SAT scores didn’t correlate with family income, a lack of validity would be suggested: effortful and intelligent people make, on average, more money and, by genetics, have kids who exhibit those traits at disproportionately high levels.</p>
<p>In response to the OP’s question: I expect that SAT scores correlate better with college success than do IQ scores because the former is influenced more by the willingness of students to prepare.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the ACT apparently correlates a bit less with IQ than the SAT does (although still highly). 0.77 and 0.61 respectively to the ASVAB and Raven’s APM. [ACT</a> and General Cognitive Ability](<a href=“http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ784456&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ784456]ACT”>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ784456&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ784456) So perhaps the folk wisdom that SAT is for raw brainpower and the ACT is for scholastic achievement has a grain of truth to it. This may raise or lower your approval for the SAT and/or ACT depending on which you feel is more important.</p>
<p>i often hear stories that the ACT is “easier” and i think that’s true. the questions are more achievement-based while the SAT is more reasoning/aptitude-based.</p>
<p>True, but some people are better at reasoning type tests than achievement type tests.</p>
<p>The SAT is indeed a form of IQ test for it does measure a student’s mental aptitude. An important difference, however, is that the SAT does not test visual spatial intelligence, an integral part of any proper IQ test. This exclusion is nevertheless justified because visual spatial ability is rarely as important as abilities for language or for the fundamentals of mathematics, both of which the SAT appropriately measures. Contrary to what has been stated above a few times, the Writing and Mathematics sections are not less indicative of a student’s general intelligence than the Critical Reading section. It is true that performance in the Writing section demands acquired knowlege, rather than immediate application of logic but it is also true that acquisition of knowledge about the precise grammatical and mechanical constructs of English langauage is very demanding in intellectual terms, especially for students whose native language is not English. Also, it takes great presence of mind to discern the well camouflaged traps set in most difficult questions of the Writing sections.</p>
<p>look at the t scores and add a zero…[Standard</a> score - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_score]Standard”>Standard score - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>IQ fits a bell curve (Gaussian distribution) and SAT scores are adjusted to fit a bell curve. I’m not saying SAT score= intelligence, but they do vary together (.8 correlation) and correlation squared equals variance, so IQ explains about 64% of SAT scores. the rest comes from parental income, how you are feeling (distracted, sick, etc) and achievement and a tiny bit of luck. (and a little bit of test familiarity) After all, SAT scores vary, if you retake you can expect to vary as much as 50 points on a section. </p>
<p>Having never taken stats, I may have mixed up some terms, but that was how it was explained to me.</p>
<p>^^ as well, there are many kinds of useful intelligence. I list these in my perceived order of importance in navigating one’s way though life:</p>
<ul>
<li>social</li>
<li>emotional</li>
<li>Visual/spatial (as written above)</li>
<li>physical (coordination of the body in physical space)</li>
<li>artistic</li>
<li>musical (though this correlates to math I’ve read)</li>
</ul>
<p>In the working world, even those professions requiring high traditionally measured IQ, the other forms of intelligence make all the difference.</p>