<p>Why was the old SAT so much more difficult than the new SAT? I've heard from many sources that in the old SAT, a a score of 1560 was sufficient to have a 1 in 30,000 IQ. Now, having a score of 2340 doesn't seem to mean much (there are probably thousands of people with scores like this). Isn't it disadvantageous to do this, as the intelligence cannot be differentiated anymore? It seems like a person with an IQ of about 120 can achieve a score of 2400 with extensive study.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the SAT is not a test to be studied for...and making the test easy is not an effective way to do things. I'm startled that the difference was indeed so great between the old and new. For example, Bill Gates said he got a 800 on his math SAT. If I were to say I got an 800 on the Math SAT, people would assume that was a given. Was the Math SAT at that time like the AMC, or a test of that sort?</p>