<p>packer22 – I’m not sure where CAPACITY and EXPERIENCE overlap on the SAT or intelligence tests. Certainly vocabulary is built by reading, listening to live or TV conversations, or studying vocabulary lists. I’m not sure how any of those three correlates to capacity for learning. Take a kid who scores 500 on the SAT CR section primarily because of a limited exposure to sophisticated english speakers, and limited exposure to vocabulary building books. Put that kid on a two year reading program through, say 52 books (one book every two weeks), and I think you’d see that score rise into the high 600s.</p>
<p>Of these 9 (or original 7), the two that the SAT tests for are Linguistic and Mathematical. However, there are enough brilliant misfits in this world that I’m sure we can all agree that in the real working world, Spatial, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal intelligences are vital as well.</p>
<p>DunninLA, I think there is a very strong correlation between visual-spatial ability and strong mathematical aptitude. Auditory-sequence learners memorize formulas; visual-spatials look for patterns and often deduce their own unconventional ways of solving problems. In math, only the answer counts – get the right answer consistently and no one cares if you used your own unique method. </p>
<p>Literature analysis, on the other hand, is more process-oriented: there often is not a single correct answer, but there is usually a generally-accepted approach to making a strong argument. Such step-by-step processes frustrate visual-spatial learners, who tend to look at problems holistically and try to solve them from all sides. Visual-spatials will tend to get uneven results in such subjects: brilliant insights when they find “patterns” in non-obvious comparatives, yet mediocre grades at other times for “skimming” over the process steps rather than explaining each step in careful detail.</p>
<p>Actually, the spatial part of IQ tests does predict some of the differences among test takers on the SAT Math. Perhaps some aspects of math require mental visualization and spatial manipulation. And to DunninLA, the theory of multiple that you mentioned doesn’t have strong theoretical grounding. Some of those traits are pretty difficult to measure. Some of those traits, as you realized, correlate very well with IQ. And some of those traits, while measurable, and poorly correlated with IQ (like Bodily-kinesthetic), complete miss the point of what IQ testers are trying to measure- the underlying biological factors that affect problem-solving, memory, logic, verbal comprehension and perception.</p>
<p>There is every reason not to replace the SATs with IQ tests. IQ tests are very expensive to develop and function well partly because the details are not common knowledge. Those who give them do not release details that would help students study for them - and this is part of why such tests give reliable results. There is currently very little incentive to cheat on or study for such tests as well.
If every college bound kid was taking an IQ test, the tests would be well known quickly and the reliability would plummet.
IQ tests are also expensive - to do one properly takes about 10 to 20 hours of a trained person’s time.</p>
<p>IQ scores fit , roughly, a bell curve. But there are some difficulties, beginning with the fact that they represent different testing populations.
Correlation of SAT scores and family income has to do with a lot of factors including: exposure to materials, test prep, and test conditions. But, it is also true that admissions officers are well aware of this.</p>
<p>Haha, I find it hilarious that people think that the SAT is…highly correlated with intellect…especially a score that is completely volatile with age.</p>
<p>There are 19 straight up vocabulary questions on the CR section alone, not including the assortment of exotic words that the CollegeBoard tosses into the reading question answer choices. A person who does not memorize vocabulary would never be able to get above a 700 on the CR section and memorizing for a test is, on the contrary to what people believe, not in fact intelligience.</p>
<p>The Writing section does not correlate with IQ either. An essay’s score is analogous to its length, not its content (not to mention its a 25 minute essay). Anything below a 9 on the essay (which is graded on insignificant factors) cannot result in a perfect score. Furthermore, most of the writing MC is oriented towards memorizing grammar rules with an exception to the last 4 or 5 questions.</p>
<p>.8 was the correlation several years prior to the inclusion of a writing sections and it’s definitely not that anymore. The correlation is much less now I can only imagine. </p>
<p>Yes, it’s true that there are some intelligient people who sit around memorizing vocabulary words because they have nothing better to do, but that’s a very small portion of the population. Just because someone does not sit around doing such monotonous activies does not mean he or she is not intelligient.</p>
I don’t recall mentioning an IQ test in my explanation; I said intellect.</p>
<p>
That’s the most ignorant statement i’ve ever heard, past or present; vocabulary will never be a good measure of intellect. That’s like saying that people should have to memorize the digits of pi and recite them on the test too. I’m sure that requires a lot of intellect.</p>
<p>If IQ tests measure intelligence, or smartness, then they shouldn’t vary greatly with age. If SATs measure smartness, then they also shouldn’t vary with age. However, we know that is not true.</p>
<p>Vocabulary tests the ability to synthesize and then use information in a meaningful way. I see that as very indicative of intelligence. If you would like me to present studies that agree I’d be happy to…</p>
<p>Great, there are studies that show that high-ELO ranked chess players are smart (so in this case, chess is a very high indicator of intelligience). By your definition, people who are not good at chess (low ELO rating) are not intelligient, which is obviously not true. I rest my case-- As I said, yes, people who have large vocabularies are smart, but everyone who does not have such an extensive collection of words is dull. I would like you to synthesize the definition of a vocab word without knowing what the word or root means and I would also like you to play a game of chess with me without knowing how to play chess.</p>
<p>This is because IQ score is adjusted for age. SAT isn’t.
IQ score= 100x (mental age/actual age).</p>
<p>Intelligence is impossible to even define, no less measure. With science, I’m sure we will one day hone in on the variables which better reflect mental capacity, quickness, etc. Primary goal of the SAT is to put everyone on a level playing field. At least it correlates with “intelligence”.</p>
<p>Of all the standardized testing I’ve done, I found ACT Science to be the best reflection of “intelligence”. To do well on science, it does help to have the some basis of knowledge, but its mostly about your ability to analyze, understand, and interpret- quickly. You can’t really be taught to master it.</p>
Right, I would agree much more with this than to say that the CR vocabulary requires intellect. There’s < 3 questions on the ACT science that actually require outside knowledge (though more knowledge does help, thankfully, science is useful, unlike vocabulary). A naturally intelligient individual could come up with almost all the answers without knowing anything beyond knowing what a graph is and how to read.</p>
<p>This is somewhat true for the other sections (on a lesser scale, mostly referring to the reading section), and in general, the ACT doesn’t require the memorization that the SAT needs. I would argue that the ACT measures intellect better at the current time than the SAT (one sitting to one sitting)…</p>
<p>
It should, however, having a complex vocabulary isn’t useful in measuring intelligience.</p>
<p>This is a good point. I have the largest vocabulary of anyone I know. Always have. It’s not because I like to memorize the dictionary. I read a lot now, but never did when I was younger, and I still had the best vocabulary then. Was it because I was more intelligent? Maybe. The reason was that I had a greater capacity to see a word once and assimilate its meaning and spelling into my memory.</p>
<p>Another example. When my school got a ping pong table, I had never played before. I was terrible. Hitting it to the other side of the table was nearly impossible for me. A month later, though, I was completely destroying almost everyone.</p>
<p>So if we’re measuring intelligence, vocabulary can be a good indicator, but is far from perfect. There are so many flaws with IQ tests. Maybe someday we’ll be able to develop some device that can measure intelligence in a meaningful capacity, but as of today we’re far from it.</p>
<p>Memorizing the digits of pi must also be a measure of g. Most people I know don’t know more than 8 digits, so therefore I must be smarter because I know 9 digits. I didn’t memorize them, they just came naturally to me when I was playing around with my calculator.</p>