Is the SAT a disguised IQ test?

Test Preparation
1

<p>Given the history of the test, it isn't an unfair question to ask. If you look at the distribution of scores of the SATs, it heavily correlates with the distribution of IQ scores.</p>

<p>Meaning, the reason all those math questions appear "tricky" is because they are trying to gauge your intelligence, not what you know.</p>

<p>It appears that if you keep getting the same score, there's actually very little you can do to improve it. You either have "it" or don't.</p>

<p>I've never taken the SATs, btw. I'm a poor simple community college student. </p>

<p>I may have to take the SATs for the place I'm trying to transfer, and looking through some practice books, I realized that, given enough time, we can ALL solve those problems, but under the severe time constraint, only the truly gifted can do so with impressive accuracy. This is why they are, as wiki reports, in the top ten percent--top one percent in the case of 1540 or above--of the population.</p>

<p>Say with it me, baby:</p>

<p>ACT.</p>

2

<p>yeah, they don't want to say it....but the SAT actually really measures your intelligence.</p>

3

<p>When taken by a group all having at least an average 11th grade education and each group having some subject preparation, the SAT to a large degree is in fact a disguised IQ test</p>

<p>Note also that the multi-state portion of the bar exam (used in most jurisidictions in the United States) is also in many ways also in effect an IQ exam</p>

4

<p>And since IQ is largely fixed, those prep courses must amount to frauds. Students who show considerable improvements are those that were ALREADY naturally inclined to do well on the test.</p>

<p>I ask you though: If the SAT is a disguised IQ test, is it really testing "merit"? Isn't it, instead, testing for prenatural talent someone must be lucky to have?</p>

<p>EDIT: I guess that is merit in its own way. Not all of us have the same gifts. Still, seems unfair...</p>

5

<p>in addition, though the sat can be "coached" so to speak, the coaching programs teach you tricks that you could use for certain math questions, but stress that those tricks cannot be used for the high-difficult questions (like numbers 19 and 20). the kids who can actually work out the high-difficulty questions have the natural ability to do so. hence, they have a high IQ. </p>

<p>and like cool beans said, if a kid takes the sat, gets a 1700, takes a coaching program, then gets a 2100, he or she was predisposed to get that high score, that predisposition just needed a little unlocking...</p>

6

<p>Prep courses can improve results at the margin, and for (previously) unprepared students the difference could be significant, and it could probably be a difference as high as 10 to 15%</p>

<p>Pure "merit" testing would probably require completely untimed tests, and even then some with lower IQ's ("learning disabled" as the PC crowd usually states it) would still do worse. Yes some with LDs have high IQ's - so what -and some people in fact are just dumb, or perhaps dumb and lazy </p>

<p>Its not politically correct to admit some people are simply intrinsically brighter than others - thus the pretense of claiming aptitude tests are really just about merit</p>

<p>I mean it is in reality still called the SCHOLASTIC APITITUDE TEST or have they hiddent that too</p>

<p>Get ready for the lecture by the LD crowd if they ever read this thread</p>

<p>Anyone with SRD(1) is at a disadvantage taking the SAT</p>

<p>(1) "slow reading disability" - just invented on this thread, however s/b on the way soon</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
I mean it is in reality still called the SCHOLASTIC APITITUDE TEST or have they hiddent that too

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The college board has "hidden that too" or at least distanced themselves from it because of exactly the kinds of discomfort expressed on this thread:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article4.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article4.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

8

<p>
[quote]
I mean it is in reality still called the SCHOLASTIC APITITUDE TEST or have they hiddent that too

[/quote]

SAT no longer stands for anything.</p>

9

<p>It measures your IQ, and how good you are at taking tests... prep courses are grossly overpriced, but they do help you get better at taking tests.</p>

10

<p>Gee why am I not surprised apparently they found it necessary to take the word "aptitude" out of the term SAT</p>

<p>IQ is a very non-PC subject today, someone could be offended. Today we must all pretend IQ tests don't matter except as proof of the ability to take tests -of course such teat-taking ability also deemed irrelevant to anything important</p>

11

<p>A range of expert opinion on the subject:
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Technically, an IQ test measures how one performs on this particular test, not all tests. The result also isn't always fixed, despite what people say. My daughter's measured IQ went up 40 points over the years, until we stopped having it tested because we thought the tests pointless. My sister, a school psychologist for 35 years, read all the reports and was even present for the first test. She said they were properly performed and could not explain the results. Fortunately, we didn't believe the first results were fixed -- I wonder how much of the fixity of IQ results is due to treating kids in a way that reinforces the results. The label gets applied and it affects everything that follows. </p>

<p>My recollection (correct me with the actual stats, someone if you can find them ... I don't have the time to look right now) is that the SAT and the ACT correlate with first year college grades pretty much the same, even though people say they are measuring different things, one aptitude and one achievement. And the correlation isn't that strong to begin with (what is it, .18 or so?). So these tests don't correlate that well with one's ability to take college tests, it seems :)</p>

<p>I'm not saying the tests shouldn't be used, because something is better than nothing. They do give a comparison of students at different schools.</p>

12

<p>The SAT is one of the great mysteries of the universe: measuring nothing, meaning nothing, indicating nothing, and predicting nothing except an approximate correlation to first year college grades - however we are sure of one thing: an SAT score of 2400 does not indicate high intelligence nor does a score of 600 represent low intelligence, such differences merely indicating a difference in the ability to take a test</p>

<p>Everyone needs to write this on the blackboard 100 times</p>

13

<p>While I don't think the SAT test is an IQ test per se, I think there is some correlation, HOWEVER, people tend to make the mistake that because someone scores a 1650/2400 on his SAT, he is probably of near average intelligence.</p>

<p>I think people who tend to score very highly tend to be more intelligent, simply because it shows they are able to regurgitate what they have learned for testing purposes. But just because someone scores poorly doesn't mean they are necessarily of low IQ. No...the correlation is not direct. The person with the highest IQ who ever lived could potentially do terribly on the SAT if he was never educated. Remember, IQ isn't what you know, it's what you're capable of knowing. The people who score highly certainly have proven their intellectual gifts, but people who score poorly may just not have had their natural intellectual gifts ever developed. This is shown by the examples that people have cited above, the 1700 kid who is coached to a 2100... Frankly, I don't have a 2300+ SAT score, I have a 2170... But if I had been coached a little...who knows?</p>

<p>In addition, some people tend to score lower than their IQ would predict simply because they make extremely careless errors.... I know I'm capable of getting an 800 in the Math section of the SAT... I've done it a couple times on the few practice tests I've taken... But God knows I always make a couple dumb mistakes on the real thing... I choke.</p>

14

<p>A couple of questions.</p>

<p>Is there something to be said for students who DON'T choke under pressure? It's an extremely valuable quality in athletes, often referred to as "clutchness". In business, it's important as well.</p>

<p>And if the SAT just measures the recall of information, how do we explain scores where the original information isn't necissarily there? The low grades, high SAT kid? The inner city kid with no access to honors that pulls a 2200?</p>

15

<p>Koolkrud: You are misunderstanding me. It’d be foolish to underestimate the power of being able to excel under pressure, and I certainly appreciate the power of “clutchness.”. However, it is simply unfair to say that a student who can keep his nerves under control and score well is necessarily smarter than a student with the same IQ but worse nerves and lower scores. Clutchness may be a vital life-skill for success, but not having it is not necessarily indicative of low intelligence.</p>

<p>Not all of the SAT is recall of info, you’re right. After all, every one of us at one time or another has encountered a math problem on the SAT that is unlike any problem we have ever seen before. Those very well could be the kind of problems that would relate to IQ, the ones involving recognizing which formulas and concepts to apply in ways that you haven’t done before. But certainly though, it would not be fair to call someone stupid for never having had the opportunity to learn such concepts and formulas? </p>

<p>Also, one would argue that there are many, many problems on the SAT (the writing skills and math sections especially) that are similar to problems that are in practice books and even in the student’s schoolwork. These are the kind of problems that can be practiced and mastered. Those who haven’t learned such material might not necessarily be unintelligent… They could be lazy… Maybe they attend a poor school… And even if they have learned the material, maybe they choke under pressure, make dumb mistakes, or are tired from staying up too late the night before.</p>

<p>Yes, you could point to the rare exception, the student from a poor school who scores surprisingly well. There may be a couple reasons for this scoring anomaly… He may have studied independently (after all, SAT books aren’t terribly expensive, and they do provide explanations). He may be a naturally excellent test-taker. He may, and probably does, also have an exceptionally high IQ. It might be a combination of all three factors. But remember, he is an exception. If you’re ready to conclude that the other students in the poor school that scored below the average must be dumb, remember that they have not had the educational benefits that you and I take for granted. (Oh, and for the record, grades are not an indication of IQ either simply because there are many intelligent students who end up with average grades because they don’t do their homework, but score very well on tests to make up for it, which shows they know the material. I know three such people at my small school, and one of them is an absolute genius.)</p>

<p>Let me give you a real-life example of how going to a bad school can really hurt you. 3 students, including me, were made National Merit Semifinalists this year in a class of 40 (7.5%) at a small, rigorous private school. A public school in a nearby district that has over 2,500 students (it’s the biggest school in the state, so I presume it has at least 600 juniors) had NONE. This school is notorious for horrible teachers and pointless busy-work assignments. I’m going to be honest with you, I would definitely not feel it safe for me to conclude that I (and the two other semifinalists for that matter) have higher IQs than the 600 juniors who took the PSAT at the public school and didn’t score high enough to qualify. I’m not that smart; I know that. And I also know that for this reason, scores are not everything when it comes to IQ… Education counts too…</p>

16

<p>no. I don't believe so. I believe what you have is called "acute paranoia" or something of the like.</p>

17

<p>Jlaurer: You definately raise some good points. Education clearly plays a role in the SAT, after all it is testing concepts such as reading comprehension, grammer, basic math, stuff that one learns in school. And there are undoubtedly issues with the test, such as choking under pressure. Of course, I think at least 90% of people who claim that they suffer from this are wrong, but w/e.</p>

<p>I also agree with points on the "prepability" of the test. I myself go to public school, and while it's a good school, it's nothing like any of the elite privates. However, you brought up those hard problems we haven't seen before. I think that's where the genius of the test lies. Really high scores show intelligence. While false negatives appear on the SAT, very, very few would claim that it produces many false positives.</p>

18

<p>^ I agree. That establishes you are a very smart person ;)</p>

19

<p>for the reading section, I think it's a pretty good indicator of the amount of reading a person does, which usually means that person has some level of intelligence. If you read a lot of magazines like national geographic, times, and lots of books in your spare time, then the reading section will probably come naturally to you, as i've seen from experience. I think the math is mostly natural ability, and how quickly the answers come to you. I've been scoring 70+ on that section since 7th grade, but some of my peers still have trouble with that section in HS. Writing is just prep. No intelligence required there really...other than your ability to grasp mistakes through practice.</p>

20

<p>i agree with others that after a certain point, you need to be smart, but i have another point.</p>

<p>SATs do measure college performance due to their ability to be mastered. With hard work, you should be able to do well just like in college. So SATs, due to their masteriblity (not sure its a word) do predict future college performances</p>