<p>topic, Im just curoius to see everyones oppinion</p>
<p>I think it does to a certain extent, but there are a few exceptions</p>
<p>It doesn't measure intelligence but intelligence definately has an effect on the score one receives....</p>
<p>yes. I predicted most of my friend's scores to within 50 pts of accuracy. Obviously practice can improve scores, but intelligence plays the major role.</p>
<p>Absolutely not. Some of my friends are so smart yet they received average scores on the SAT. Being smart helps, but if you aren't good at taking the SAT then you won't do well.</p>
<p>I've always told myself that there are two types of genius:</p>
<p>-Those who are born with an incredible mind</p>
<p>-Those who work incredibly hard</p>
<p>I believe the SAT can measure both. For months, I studied like heck and managed to raise my SAT score by 450 points, and my ACT by 5; all without any help... I guess I fit catagory two</p>
<p>There's definitely a correlation between intelligence and scores, but it's not perfect. Obviously someone very, very smart will likely get a good score, and someone very, very dim will likely get a poor score. And, of course, there will be people who post in this thread who got 1200's who will go on and on about "omg omg i am so much smarter than that i have a 3.8 at a REALLY competitive school omg omg lolZ!" </p>
<p>The fact is, the SAT is not a terribly difficult test and if you're relatively smart you should be able to go through and get 90+% right, which would put you in the 700 range for every section. Sure, there are probably a few smart people who "just aren't good test takes," but the bulk of sub-99th percentile testers are likely sub-99th percentile in intelligence. I'll probably get flamed for my assertions, so bring it on.</p>
<p>there is no way a four hour test can measure one's intelligence. There is many people who know what they are doing but are not good test takers...</p>
<p>I agree with cavalier. We have IQ tests to prevent people from getting executed, right?</p>
<p>Perhaps it isn't obvious, but it absolutely can NOT measure intelligence since you can improve your score by studying. If the test measured intelligence in an IQ sense, nobody would ever be able to improve.</p>
<p>The real question is whether it is an indicator of success in college. If doing well on the SAT means that the test-taker is more likely to do well in college, then the SAT is useful. If not, then it should not be used in admissions. This point is currently being debated. I am told that the best predictor for success in college is gpa.</p>
<p>As a personal comment, I have no idea what it takes to do well on the SAT. Everyone can improve their score to some extent by studying for the test, but an individual does seem to have a ceiling that they can't get past. It is difficult to predict what that ceiling will be for an individual just by knowing them, and so it is hard to know what it is about a person that means that they will score well on the test.</p>
<p>Of course a four-hour test can't perfectly measure intelligence, theinfocenter. Hell, there's probably no test that can perfectly measure intelligence. What is likely, though, is that there is probably a much stronger correlation between scores and intelligence than those with mediocre scores would want to acknowledge.</p>
<p>There are many kinds of inelligence. The SAT measures the high school curriculum you have assimilated and can recall either through schooling or on your own, or through practice. It may measure college preparedness, but I don't think I'd even go that far.</p>
<p>dufus, people can improve their scores, but normally within a small range. Someone who natively tests at the 1100 level will likely not go higher than 1200 or so. Someone who natively tests in the 1400's could likely get a 1600. I live in an honors dorm at a top public university where the average SAT is in the 1500 range. Not only do my dormmates take extremely hard courseloads, but they also pull off GPAs in the 3.7+ range. They're smart.</p>
<p><the fact="" is,="" the="" sat="" is="" not="" a="" terribly="" difficult="" test="" and="" if="" you're="" relatively="" smart="" you="" should="" be="" able="" to="" go="" through="" get="" 90+%="" right,="" which="" would="" put="" in="" 700="" range="" for="" every="" section=""></the></p>
<p>It may surprise you cavalier, but a 660 on the new SATw is still a projected 91%.</p>
<p>The SAT doesn't measure any type of curriculum or what you can recall, ASAP. HTH.</p>
<p>aren't these supposed to be yes or no answers? 4 me, yes</p>
<p>I don't the answer can be yes or no, ultimate...it's more of a "it has a strong correlation" kinda thing.</p>
<p>cavalier- perhaps not specific curriculum in the sense that the AP tests do, but certainly in the sense of grammar learned, math concepts mastered, etc. I'm not saying that you can memorize everything, but practice helps. People with a fourth grade education would be hard pressed to do well on the SAT, regardless of their innate intelligence. That was my point.</p>
<p>DEFINITELY DEFINITELY NOT.
One doesn't figure anything out or reason anything during the SAT.
They just repeat/ spew back out the exact methods/ operations their teachers programmed them to use.</p>
<p>Definitely not. I know HUGE dumbasses (both intellectually and defficient in terms of social skills) who did amazingly on the SAT.</p>
<p>Hope I didn't deflate too many egos...</p>
<p>The SAT only measures how well exam takers prepare to take the SAT. </p>
<p>The SAT, ACT and even PSAT has lost all meaning because of the way people obsess over studying to achieve the highest possible score. There are 8th/9th/10th graders stressing over PSAT scores, like their life depended on it, when that exam was designed to be just a "practice" test.</p>
<p>Students and parents are totally out of control with test taking. Taking the SAT over and over again (i.e. 3+ times), just to gain a few more points, is a prime example how out of control students are!</p>
<p>No way does it measure intelligence. No way at all.</p>