<p>…where’s the connection?</p>
<p>
I’d say those are decent indicators of intelligence, or at least a certain type thereof.</p>
<p>Working efficiently = thinking quickly and cleverly
Guessing = thinking logically</p>
<p>I fail to see how those <em>aren’t</em> parts of natural intelligence.</p>
<p>it’s really annoying…like, st fu & go study on your own.</p>
<p>A couple of points:</p>
<p>1) Like kameronsmith said, before you attribute SAT success to “test-taking ability,” please define what “test-taking ability” actually is. I have seen this term thrown around constantly on these boards and have never seen anyone explain what it is.</p>
<p>2) How do you explain the fact that there are thousands and thousands of kids who have taken math to a sufficient level that they should know how to do all of the problems on the SAT, and yet only a small percentage of these kids get 750+? The only reasonable thing I can conclude is that these students are not quick enough at applying basic mathematical reasoning, or in other words, they are not as naturally smart as their 750+ peers.</p>
<p>Edit: I agree that the 25-minute essay does not measure intelligence accurately at all.</p>
<p>you said it kameronsmith, its plain ol’ natural intelligence</p>
<p>there is definitely naturally intelligence involved, no doubt about it. BUT, among smart people…(over 2100 let’s say.) The difference is small. I have high 600s in W and CR because I never read/do any stuff like that. I’ve read 2 books since grade 9 that weren’t part of schoolwork. </p>
<p>So, my vocab. sucks, I read very, very slow in CR (so i mess up on q’s because I am rushed), I sometimes get stuck on CR q’s because I am confused with the intricate language presented in the passage and more. All could’ve, generally, been avoided by reading. </p>
<p>So, as it stand in practice tests, I have around 2100. Just saying that I read consistently throughout my life, I would say with no afterthought that I would have near 2250. I make 4-5 vocab error q’s a test (what’s that…like 70-80 pts.?). And, not to mention passage q;s. Writing section, the ID q’s are odd, because the complex ones trick me because I haven’t been exposed to literature that uses complex grammar that is grammatically correct, hence stuff that “doesn’t sound right” messes me up.</p>
<p>So, I could say that reading ardently from a younger age would yield me around 150+ more SAT points putting at around 2250 without too much prep.</p>
<p>So, what I’m trying to say is that, after a certain point, its not a test of intelligence. Only up to a certain point it is, after that it becomes the level of concentration and ability to not make silly errors (back to concentration) that one has. Like, you can’t tell me that the diff. between a kid with 730 in M with silly errors isn’t basically as smart as Joe Smith with 800 in M and no silly errors and other variables come into play.</p>
<p>Just look at the other thread. All those ppl complaning about missing out on 800s. All of them have low-mid 700s. If you messed up on multiple sections, the your down to 2300. That person should be consider as smart as one with 2400. After a certain point of intelligence (the 2100 line i would say it is) it comes down to variables (amount of reading in childhood, mind frame during the test, anxiety, etc.)</p>
<p>“Working efficiently = thinking quickly and cleverly
Guessing = thinking logically”</p>
<p>Thinking quickly does not indicate natural intelligence, it’s a skill specific to certain types of people that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with reasoning ability. Process of elimination is something that people learn from taking tests, i.e., “test taking ability”.</p>
<p>dunbar: The math is really basic, it’s true. Some people maybe get stuck, misread a problem, work less efficiently than they usually do – all issues that can arise out of the timed nature of the test. I think if there were more comprehensive problem-solving questions, there might be even more differentiation between those who are actually good at math, and those who are extremely solid in 8th grade algebra.</p>
<p>
Right. That’s definitely the only application of or way to learn process of elimination.</p>
<p>
But it goes even deeper than that. I accounted for mistakes in saying 750+, and yet 750+ is still an elusive score on the math sections. Natural intelligence anyone?</p>
<p>math is BS. idk if its a test of intelligence, but I will agree 750 is elusive (finally got that today in a practice test). but all my errors are silly errors every time.</p>
<p>idk if natural intelligence accounts for silly errors or not…but I do think that heightened concentration and determination/mind set do. which is why I say after a certain point variables come into play</p>
<p>Want to find this in April</p>
<p>dunbar: So if you make two mistakes, as opposed to one, you’re less intelligent? I’m not arguing that there’s no natural intelligence at all involved at all. I said before that anyone relatively smart will get within a certain range, but an 800 doesn’t necessarily take more natural intelligence than any 700+. I think the things I mentioned can easily account for 100 points (which in math is like 4 questions?)</p>
<p>"idk if natural intelligence accounts for silly errors or not…but I do think that heightened concentration and determination/mind set do. which is why I say after a certain point variables come into play "</p>
<p>agreed with this</p>
<p>natural intelligence doesn’t account for silly mistakes, and really, is there such a difference between a 750 and 800. at those scores, its negligible</p>
<p>that’s what i mean! ^after about 2100 in all (and a 700 in each section), a guy with 2300 is not that much smarter, if at all, than a guy with 2100. variables come into play like how much they read, ettc.</p>
<p>here’s an anecdotal example:
we wrote a math contest. i did better than 3 kids who are much better than me at math. i am not smarter than them at math, i was simply more aware of the easier questions while they went fast and focused on harder ones. this is like the SAT. it really depends on a lot of factors.</p>
<p>those couple silly errors on their part doesn’t mean they are dumber than me at math. it just means that at the time, i had different priorities and had heightened awareness on easy q;s. I had diff. things going for me. its all variables and stuff after a 2100 SAT score. (or a 2200 to be more accurate…top 1%)</p>
<p>agreed, as long as you hit the 750 mark you’re golden</p>
<p>lol, well lets see if I can raise high 600s to 750 to become golden lol. man i wish i read more as a kid. any relatively hard passage and i am screwed over. i get so confused in the psasage and MC becomes a guessing game</p>
<p>I got a nice score and didn’t study, couldn’t afford one really but did good enough (710 in math, 700 in reading). But I hear rich people can take the SAT multiple times, I get 2 fee waivers and a PSAT so, eh. Still my scores were the highest at school, course my school isn’t rich either.</p>
<p>The SAT seems like a bad way to test intelligence in my opinion, I think it’s just a copout for schools really.</p>
<p>I could only complain about rich kids in how they volunteer. I work at the good samaritan center and kids from up north come up in escalades, put in some volunteer hours, maybe donate, say “oh, the poor at risk/underprivileged/under represented kids” and trot off back to the suburbs full of themselves. What is that? I’m taking IB classes jerk don’t call me “at risk”! And they only volunteer to look good for college they don’t actually care about the kids!</p>
<p>God, I hate the term “at risk”. Like I’m on the brink of joining a gang just because I go to an inner city school and am a “under represented” minority. Bite me.</p>
<p>what helps me sooooo much on the CR is that i’m a fast reader (i can finish a 300pg book in ~2 hrs) because i read so much (a few books on the weekends during school year). try to read everyday and you’ll get better at it</p>
<p>^see, exactly what I mean. if i could do that…<750 CR would be pitiful for me. right now, i struggle to got 690. Once again, variables I guess. I have no time to read, really. travel baseball, high school baseball, volunteering, projects, homework, SAT, etc. </p>
<p>makes me wonder why i was so lazy as a kid and i wish someone forced a book into my hands. </p>
<p>300 pg. book would take me an entire day or more to read. Like idk 1.5 minutes a page…so 450 min = 7hrs. about?</p>
<p>YEA, MAJOR FAIL!</p>
<p>i wouldn’t say lazy, but your parents didn’t get you addicted to reading. when i was little, my dad would unfailingly read to me and my siblings every night. reading was definitely emphasized in my household at an early age which is why i have those reading habits</p>