<p>When I took the CogAT (the cognitive abilities test), I hit the ceiling on the test and scored a composite of 150 when I took it twice for middle-school GT purposes. The CogAT tests only for fluid intelligence (i.e. problem solving, patterns, etc. independent of prior knowledge) rather than both fluid and crystallized intelligence (previously learned knowledge), so it technically isn't a full IQ test, but it's the closest thing I have.</p>
<p>I scored a 1530 superscore on my SAT for CR+M (760, 770), 2330 overall. Since it's 150+, it's pretty spot-on for me, although it would obviously vary if I retook another time. (Highest individual sitting was 1480, 2280 overall). </p>
<p>Do I think that means much beyond a certain point? No, not really. Although this is a hackneyed statement, there's probably a correlation, but it's definitely not absolute when people can prep their brains out for the test. Also, I've have an incredibly smart friend who did not score to his/her liking in one sitting (1460), and then got a near perfect the next time (1580) without prep. </p>
<p>It really depends, especially since we're testing in the peak time of stress in high school. Plus, not everyone is taking the test at once, which results in curves where if you miss one, your scores may drop quite a bit, especially in Math (-30 for one wrong for March, for example) in order to keep it comparable to other testings. There's more chance involved with the SAT.</p>
<p>I'm not a big fan of SATs because I believe that they test one kind of abstract reasoning and problem-solving. That kind of reasoning is useful in certain kinds of academic coursework and thus the test has some value. </p>
<p>I have not read the study but I wonder if there are two related methodological problems with all such studies. There is a selection mechanism determining who gets into a particular college. As a result of this selection, admitted students reflect a limited range of SAT scores. Within this limited range, perhaps SAT scores would not be a strong predictor of grades, but if they didn't have the selection mechanism, there would be a much stronger relationship. That is, if people were admitted at random, kids with 1500 SAT scores (on a 2400 point test) would perform a lot worse on average than kids with 2300 SAT scores. But, within the range of 2100 to 2300, maybe there is a lot less predictive value.</p>
<p>Second, the selection mechanism is a little more complicated. It is based on SATs and other data about how students will perform. When a school accepts students at the lower end of its SAT range, it is likely that such students have something else in their record that suggests that they will perform well at the school. For example, evidence of great perseverance or self-motivation and drive. Posit for a second that students with a 2000 SAT score but strong evidence of self-motivation and drive will perform on a par with students with 2300's but a lot less evidence of drive. If so, even if there were a stronger underlying relationship between SAT scores and college performance all other things equal, the performance of admitted students would not show much relationship between performance and SAT scores.</p>
<p>So, the fact that the don't don't show a strong relationship does not mean that it does not exist. </p>
<p>That said, I agree with ralph4 that generic abstract problem-solving skills, as measured by the SATs, don't predict success in college or in life. My observation is that success is the result of intelligent tenacity. The people who succeed the most have the self-confidence to see that when the first approach they tried to meet a goal did not work, they do not stop and they do not repeat the same failed method. Instead, they find other means to meet the same objective and typically, they keep trying until they succeed. This takes both intelligence (sometimes of the abstract problem-solving variety that the SAT seems to measure), personal strength, and drive and determination.</p>
<p>shawbridge, your last paragraph is not just your observation, but the results of studies that the Elites have done, following their own graduates. The highest correlate for that tenacity factor was actually e.c. achievement, including prior to college, not SAT "achievement." That's why e.c.'s continue to be an important selection factor for HYPSMC, etc.</p>
<p>Or maybe a necessary ingreedient for "success" is belief that what you are working toward is a "worthy endeavor". My son lost belief in the K-12 educational system long ago when when he was never challenged in school. Knowing everything before it is taught or being given practice assignments and homework over grade level standards that are way too easy teaches some "very bright" children that grades are given mainly for compliance. Just do all the work, jump through every hoop, and you will get your "A". A few independent thinkers will not play that game. My son won't do homework that doesn't teach him anything, and would rather take zeros on homework assignments than do busy work. So even though he usually makes "A"s on tests, he gets very bad grades on homework that he doesn't believe he needs, so he makes course grades of "B"s and "C"s. (since in HS homework is still wighted quite heavily). </p>
<p>I don't know that his lack of success in high school necessarily indicates that he won't be successful in college or in life. His high school grades will keep him out of elite colleges, but that's ok with him because he hates and refuses to play the GPA game that almost everyone in those schools plays so keenly.</p>
<p>I went to the site which questimates IQs from SAT scores and I found the following quote ...</p>
<p>"Note: Mensa considers that scores from after January 31, 1994, "No longer correlate with an IQ test." "</p>
<p>I would still like to see the spread of IQs from the top SAT scores. I found the site over estimated one of children's IQs ... I did not look at their methodology.</p>
<p>I saw that note about MENSA, but whatever formula was used ("The first two links are based on my formulae..") was spot on accurate in my son's case. I was curious if it was accurate for others as well.</p>
<p>epiphany, can you direct me to the study you are citing? It would be useful to me for something I plan to write and I did not know about this study.</p>
<p>In The Chosen, the author seems to say that HYP's decision to look at ECs in addition to grades and test scores did not have to do with predicting success; it had to do with keeping out (relatively poor) Jews. Athletes showed Christian virtue while Jews were thought to be sickly and pale. The Adcoms were seeking ways of detecting Jews so that they could keep the proportion of Jews below 15% when, by virtue of grades and test scores, they would have been the majority of the class. The "right" ECs made that easy (as did geographical distribution requirements).</p>
<p>I'm disappointed in the PSAT/SAT. I know I'm smarter than a lot of people that scored higher than me on the SAT. These same people scored lower than me on the ACT.</p>
<p>I would say that GPA is more reliable to use for college success prediction. SAT and ACT both test at such a low level, that they actually test only ability to read fairly fast. GPA points to work habits. Actually college advisors that gave presentations at D's HS pointed out that they pay more attention to GPA for the reason above.</p>
<p>^^Absolutely, the two biggest items in selective college admissions is the Transcript. Ok, it's only one piece of paper, but it demonstrates two items (or maybe three): gpa, strength of schedule and, possibly rank/decile.</p>