<p>I agree with antonioray, you are not smarter just because you have been exposed or seen more vocabulary than other students. I’m a junior in high school and my vocabulary is O.K. I know the meaning of many words, but soley because I have seen them more than other people. There are people who know a plethora (sorry SAT word, I need to use it in a sentence. Tell me if I used it wrong) of vocabulary words, but only because they are better read than me, not more intelligent. Ok a 2400-scorer has to be pretty damn a intelligent but a 2200-scorer can be less inteliigent but a good studier.</p>
<p>25 practice tests?</p>
<p>There are 11 from the blue book, and 10 from the old book. That’s 21. Where do the other 4 come in?</p>
<p>How many did you do, silverturtle?</p>
<p>If the SAT is a measure of one’s intelligence, then I guess that makes any academic test a measure of one’s intelligence.</p>
<p>You don’t need THAT many review tests to do well, 25 is ridiculous. If you go in to the practice test with the knowledge that every question is formulaic, it only takes 2-3 tests to become fully acquainted with the range of questions on the SAT.</p>
<p>PSAT: 221
+Three full practice tests
SAT: 2260
+One full practice test and two CR sections
SAT: 2340</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>not entirely true: academic tests can be aced by simply reviewing textbooks/notes</p>
<p>while the SAT does sport its fair share of questions based on ‘knowledge,’ (namely vocab and a few writing rules) you’d still have to be intelligent to do well</p>
<p>@ arthua: I would say that most people capable of, say, 2250s are also capable of 2400s</p>
<p>750s across the board are rarely the results of anything but 4-5 wrong CR (easily adjustable), 2 wrong in each math and writing</p>
<p>so if you have the 'intelligence for a 2250, you can get a 2400
you’d just need the best of circumstances, and a little bit of luck as any 2400 scorer would tell you</p>
<p>ie, you have to be in the mindset to read a question a certain way, not infested with cold medicine :D, and like i said, a little bit of luck for that ineluctable dilemma where 2 answers sound equally appealing</p>
<p>@ HYPhoper, yea I wasnt advocating taking 25 practice tests. i merely brought up that the author of the CR guide took 25 tests before his 2400; while he did not post his results of his practice tests or any real tests he took before his 2400(assuming it was a single-sitting), the 25 sure helped him tremendously.</p>
<p>who’s to say if they helped him more than the first 15 he took? or the first 20?</p>
<p>however, I do know a few 2400s who concurred and said that it took tremendous practice</p>
<p>silverturtle probably also agrees, although “a few” could mean anything from 2 to 50 for him :D</p>
<p>upon further browsing of this forum (aka snooping)</p>
<p>I found that monstor, who, if i recall correctly, got a 2400 on the Dec 09 test, only scored a 1880 on the jan 08 test</p>
<p>he is also a junior, again, if i recall correctly</p>
<p>so given that 2 year interval, I’ll bet that he did massive amounts of preparation</p>
<p>a 520 point increase isnt seen often, so it can be prepared for, but then again, if monstor took it cold turkey in jan 08 (that is, w/o any preparation), then by scoring fairly above average, he already demonstrated ‘above average’ intelligence–going by silverturtle’s definition</p>
<p>Silverturtle did a grand total of 3 practice tests, 2 of which he scored 2400 in. I recall him revealing that in another thread.</p>
<p>I’m wondering where this guy found 25 practice tests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He pulled from various sources – the College Board, Princeton Review, and Barron’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s correct, although my familiarity with the test was probably more significant than that of most people who have only taken three practice tests. I have been around CC for awhile, and helping others with questions helped me.</p>
<p>People think, that depending on how well you do, you are either smart or not.</p>
<p>I think it would benefit the discussion to define intelligence. Is it the ability to rapidly process information? To draw accurate inferences? To come up with original ideas? To “reason”? </p>
<p>Many posters on this thread seem to discount knowledge as a form of intelligence, but I would like to point out some psychologists recognize “crystallized intelligence,” which is not memory itself, but an ability to apply skills and knowledge. (Really, it seems a large body of skills/knowledge might be relevant to crystallized knowledge, not to mention the fact that practicing any skill generally increases the ability to apply it.)</p>
<p>So maybe the question here isn’t whether the SAT measures intelligence, but rather, whether it measures reasoning ability? </p>
<p>If it is the latter, I firmly believe reasoning ability/skills, like any others, can be developed through practice. If a person scores a 2400 after intense preparation, I would think that puts him on par with the person who walks in, w/o preparation, and scores 2400; both these people have the same level of reasoning ability, although the second person may have more potential. After all, if two people can both run a mile in five minutes, but one does it after practicing for months, and the other has never run a mile in his life, they both have the same running ability at the moment. Why should reasoning ability be assessed any differently than running ability, musical ability, etc.?</p>
<p>In many ways, intelligence, IMO, is akin to beauty. Part of it must be genetically inherited, but the environment also exerts considerable influence. For instance, I come from an extremely academically oriented family, and so (not to sound arrogant) I’ve likely inherited a portion of my intelligence, for which I am very grateful. However, I know reading Aristotle, Adam Smith, Kant, etc. when I was younger definitely developed my reasoning skills. Undergoing extensive preparation for the SAT is just another environmental factor that affects reasoning ability, similar to reading prolifically.</p>
<p>By the way, some people have mentioned the correlation (I agree it exists) between SAT and IQ tests as evidence that the SAT measures intelligence. Do IQ tests reliably measure intelligence, though? The first IQ tests developed had a very strong cultural bias. This bias may have been eliminated in recent years, but I’m reluctant to believe that, just one century later, all of the weaknesses of IQ tests have been fixed.</p>
<p>If I were comparing the two tests, I would say that Math and the Essay are a whole lot easier on the SAT. Reading and English are easier on the ACT. Reading on the ACT does not deal with any hard vocabulary words. From my own experience, I got a 650 CR score on the January SAT and a 36 Reading score on the February ACT. My essay, on the other hand, was a point less for the ACT. I really don’t think they read the essays for the ACT. Apparently, they look for the length. My essay for the ACT was about 1.75 pages and I received an 8. All they said for the critique was that my rigid structure didn’t allow for much discussion. The topics are also easier for the SAT because 99% of the time you can fit in books, historical figures, etc. For the ACT, I was asked whether high school students should be allowed to graduate early if they have enough credits. I had no idea how to fit in any books or history. I basically just wrote about my opinion giving some examples like student athletes. </p>
<p>On a side note, the science section of the ACT is hell. boooooooo!!!</p>
<p>And you can guess on the ACT without losing credit.</p>
<p>I think there’s a very rough correlation between SAT scores and intelligence. Some people get 1100s, and they’re just not as smart as the kids who get 2200+. But if you get a certain score, call it X, then depending on luck, how much sleep you got, how much money you shelled out for tutoring, how much time you spent practicing, and your environment, your score range is probably X±200pts.</p>
<p>I’m sure there are kids who live in places where people don’t study for the SAT. And since your scores tend to go up after you study for it, these kids are at a disadvantage. Maybe they don’t know that to do well on the SAT essay, you should try to fill up the full two pages and use lots of big vocab words. Does that make them less intelligent than kids who got 200 points higher than them? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>And as far as vocab goes, reading does develop your vocabulary, so it is based partly on how much you read, not just your intelligence. But I also think that people who have a tendency to turn to books, rather than video games or TV, are <em>likely</em> smarter. And then there are people like me, who have a parent with a PHD in English and a very good vocab. I grew up hearing my parents regularly used “SAT words,” and so these words have become part of my vocab. But does that make me smarter than some kid whose parents speak English as a second language? Obviously not.</p>
<p>^^^ Stop it with your politically correct nonsense. The key word you use is “some.” Sure “some” people do retardedly on SAT and are self proclaimed geniuses. “Some” people also win lotteries. “Some” people also are legally ■■■■■■■■- genetic diseases you’ve learned in Biology. But do “some” people represent enough of the sample size to be significant? No. </p>
<p>Therefore, the overwhelming majority of smart people will do well on SAT while the overwhelming majority of the dumb people will score poorly. If you have a low score, there is a VERY HIGH probability that you lack intellect.</p>
<p>Anyways…
SAT:</p>
<p>Pro- Highly Elite: Made by the Ivies for the Ivies
Con- N/A</p>
<p>ACT:</p>
<p>Pro-Easy
Con- made by Midwestern hillbillies for Midwestern hillbillies.</p>
<p>
That’s not true in any way. Have you ever been to the Midwest? There are no more hillbillies than anywhere else. If it was like that, then I would expect everyone from “elite East Coast” to be getting perfect scores on it. But they don’t. The ACT tests what you learn in school, while the SAT tests reasoning ability. But neither were made by hillbillies.</p>
<p>I have been to the Midwest. Midwestern states force their kids to take the ACT because that is what Midwestern schools prefer. Did you know that?</p>
<p>That doesn’t make them hillbillies, nor the test easy. Stop being an *******. Some like the ACT more, Some like the SAT more. You learn some of the SAT in school, and you have to study for both to do well for the most part.</p>
<p>The SAT measures intelligence. Sure, I can deal with that.
Now, could I deal with my own above-average status? Sure I can. I’m above average (<em>just</em> above average :rolleyes: ) according to a test professionally administered. I just see a strange problem with this. I hit the 95th%-ile in the professionally administered test and the 75th%-ile on the SAT. When I took the ACT I was at the 96th%-ile. Much more accurate, at least for me. I’m just one case though. The ACT was a lot more content-based as well.</p>
<p>Yes, I know that. In fact I was forced to take the ACT last Tuesday. But does that make me a hillbillie? No.</p>
<p>If the ACT truly was an easier test, then everyone would do better on it than the SAT, but this isn’t the case. It’s not that one’s easier or harder than the other, they are just different tests that test different things, and therefore, are bound to have different results for different students.</p>