<p>Memorization IS not intelligience. The SAT requires significantly more memorization than the ACT so therefore the ACT must be even more correlated to intelligience.</p>
<p>You can’t explain the descrepancy I described in my anecdote nor the other million which contradict your statement. Sure there’s a trend – if you remove every single outlier (which is quite a large percentage).</p>
<p>
If an achievement test means it tests for useful skills like logic, then i’m very much satisfied by your labels. And reasoning must be a measure of how many vocabulary words one wastes his or her time memorizing. Or maybe it’s the number of idiomatic phrases and history facts that are mindlessly ground into the mind. Or perhaps it refers to the total amount of time tossed away to make a person sound smarter with little substance.</p>
That’s hilarious. The whole point is that the SAT is correlated highly with IQ. Clearly yours isn’t every high if you think IQ tests have anything to do with memorization.</p>
<p>Furthermore, in what way does the SAT measure memorization? It <em>gives</em> you all the math formulae you need & vocab is only a small part of CR.</p>
<p>
ROFL. By definition, outliers can’t be a large percentage (technically, less than 95%).</p>
<p>The ACT tests your knowledge; the SAT tests your reasoning.</p>
<p>Just leave. You apparently have no idea what the SAT and ACT are like and your knowledge of statistics is laughable. Oh, but wait, you want us to rely on your oh-so-sound anecdotal evidence. Since we all know its a GREAT form of evidence.</p>
<p>Actually, I think I see the whole reason for your failed arguments. You apparently believe that you’re very intelligent and logical, and thus expect a high SAT score. Yet, as your failure to argue logically attests to, you’re actually rather unintelligent. Thus, when the SAT confirmed that, you chose to discount the test instead of facing the fact that you’re really just an idiot.</p>
I haven’t memorized a single grammar rule for the SAT. It’s just based on logically reading sentences to see if they make sense. You don’t need any history facts for the essay. Nobody says you need to use historical examples, and you can completely make them up/</p>
<p>
Wow, so if you missed all the vocab questions I’m wondering how you can even read. Most of them are pathetically simply. Also, even if you were to miss every vocab question, you’d still get high writing and math scores.</p>
<p>
Do you even know what irony is? Because saying blatantly false statements isn’t it.</p>
<p>Somebody call me out on this If I’m wrong, though I’ve failed to get something so merit-worthy on the SAT, isn’t most of it common sense once you’re past the class you needed to take to understand what’s on it?</p>
<p>Kameron, the writing is indeed 100% rules… I basically made a word document and documented all the tricky rules I didn’t know to study from. I improved from a 470 to a 700 just by memorizing and recognizing them.</p>
I’m not saying you <em>can’t</em> memorize them. For many people, that’s the easiest way to do it.</p>
<p>But it’s not <em>necessary</em>. I haven’t memorized a single rule for the SAT. If you just have a strong logical mind and have read plenty of English, it’ll just come naturally.</p>
<p>For example, compare this to elementary math. You <em>could</em> memorize all the perfect squares. Or, you could know how to derive them. Likewise, there are two ways to approach the SAT, depending on your intelligence and tolerance for memorization.</p>
There’s the flaw in your argument: it doesn’t come naturally. You don’t speak english when you were born. It’s learned and it really doesn’t matter how someone learns it. If someone grew up doing it or someone bought some books to learn it, who cares – one option is no worse than the other.</p>
<p>Colloquially, the expression “comes naturally” means that one is able to acquire the skill without any concentrated effort. We don’t learn to speak by being <em>taught</em> it or read it, we learn it from absorbing our parents speech. I couldn’t tell you the name of most grammar terms, but I can still <em>understand</em> grammar.</p>
<p>Are you attempting to prove some intellectual superiorty or something? There’s a group called MENSA which is an absolutely worthless collection of very smart people. The fact of the matter is intelligience is not everything nor is it the basis of college success so I see no validity in you preaching about the SAT’s ability to show IQ. If it were one (which it’s not), it would be no better than it is now.</p>
Actually, they didn’t have particularly high grades. They weren’t 4.0 students. Study after study has shown that SAT is a much better indicator of intelligence than GPA.</p>
<p>Success on the SAT does not require memorization. When I took the test as a freshman, I had never even glanced at a vocabulary list, yet I did not miss any vocabulary questions. Nor had I ever studied any grammar rules. Nowhere on the test did I need to have any knowledge of history.</p>
<p>(Moreover, your leap in the quote above is illogical. By your thinking, a sprint, which does not test any memorization, is a perfect indicator of IQ.)</p>
<p>@ kameronsmith, I agree. It’s so stupid for someone to say that GPA is a better indicator of intelligence than the SAT…because GPA depends a lot on your school/classes whereas the SAT is standardized.</p>
<p>The mathematics is definitely a measure of reasoning ability. The SAT can be taught, but only to a certain extent. It’s like training for a race. Some are naturally gifted, some aren’t, and those who aren’t can train to become good, but those who are gifted can train to be great. And some are even so good they don’t need to be trained.</p>
<p>cjgone - You argued that English is learned and not inborn, and thus the SAT, which tests grammatical rules/vocabulary, does not measure intelligence/reasoning ability. </p>
<p>English is a language, though, and language is based on logic. Logic, after all, is simply an awareness of the rules (of physics, of math, of English, etc.) and an ability to infer and make decisions based on those rules. If you have strong reasoning skills, you should <em>naturally</em> pick up those rules without having to memorize, and therefore the SAT does not require memorization. English itself may not be innate, but learning languages? That is, at least partially.</p>
You innately knew all the vocabulary for the SAT when you were born? Am I right? No, you didn’t so you must have learned it at one point or another by memorizing roots or words themselves over a long period of time, which you indicate as meaning not memorization. The time period doesn’t matter, you could have learned vocabulary over 20 years, its still memorization one way or another. Someone who never learned vocabulary words outside of everyday talk WILL NOT KNOW the vocabulary on the SAT. There’s absolutely NO way to argue that. This is true with the grammar rules presented on the writing portion too.</p>
<p>There may as well be questions on the math section requiring you to know what the xth digit of pi or ‘e’ is because it would be no different. And if you tell me thats not memorization and it just comes naturally, I will be speechless ( which I already am about your vocabulary argument).</p>
No, i’m using your argument that what’s logical is not memorization therefore it must be an indicator of IQ.</p>
<p>
No, my argument is that it is not meant to measure intelligience to the extent of an IQ test. And even if it did, then the ACT must also be highly correlated to IQ too using the above arguments of logic over memorization and what not.</p>
<p>
So, the SAT is now a basis of all the above and yet the ACT is just an achievement test? I see some bias here.</p>
<p>I wrote nothing about the ACT; I’ve never taken it, and therefore I don’t feel qualified to make any statements about it. My major point was that having to learn/memorize a language does not mean learning/memorizing the language did not require logic in the first place.</p>
<p>Also, whether IQ is a measure of intelligence is debatable. IQ is based mainly on Spearman’s two-factor theory. There are other theories besides Spearman’s which are also highly respected, so why base everything off IQ?</p>
<p>And now I’ll have to contradict myself. According to Dictionary.com (yeah, I know, not the most reliable source, but bear with me), intelligence is the “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.” To learn, in turn, is “to acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience.” Is memorization not a way to acquire knowledge? I don’t see why reasoning ability alone is regarded as “intelligence” on this thread.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that we’re all arguing about whether SAT/ACT measures intelligence, when intelligence itself is so difficult to understand and label.</p>