<p>ouch, amazingspiderman, your analysis has really damaged my ego! Your observed sample of size 1 MUST hold true in all cases!</p>
<p>Look, it's not unreasonable to acknowledge a <em>statistical correlation</em> between SAT scores and intelligence. That doesn't mean that it's true in every case. Also, the majority of test takers haven't been "programmed" by teachers. At my school, few people took outside classes, and those that did normally started in the 900 range and took the class to get up over the 1000 hump.</p>
<p>All I'm saying is that there's a strong correlation. Some factor of intelligence results in the SAT score.</p>
<p>Marcus Vick almost certainly score in the 800 range. On the other hand, I'd bet any amount of money that the average score for a given class of rhodes scholars is in the 98th percentile range. Look, people at lower end state schools like James Madison are, on average, nowhere near as intelligent as students at MIT. The difference in average SAT scores is probably close to 400 points. Of course the SAT isn't an "intelligence test," but you're foolish to deny that intelligence doesn't contribute to scores.</p>
<p>The question was ,"does the SAT <measure> intelligence", not does intelligence contribute to scores. Of course intelligence contributes. But it doesn't measure intelligence.<br>
It's more a measure of educational background. Parental income and other factors contribute, as well as intelligence, to high scores.</measure></p>
<p>It can also "measure" persistence, as I know several people who have raised their scores by taking the test a number of times. I don't think they actually became smarter - except in SAt test-taking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The statistically inaccuracy in the test is 50 points, and people often improve by over 200 points by studying for it. I think there a correlation between people who are taking difficult college-bound curriculums and the SAT test, but that doesn't make it an intelligence test.</p>
<p>The SAT does not measure the same type of intelligence that is measured in school. I know plenty of kids who don't try in school, don't care, but are somewhat naturally smart and get a 1400+. Then there are the kids who try really hard in school, study all the time, and only get 1200s.</p>
<p>Honestly, which would your college rather have? A slacker who knows some vocab words? Or a committed student who will work at at anything you give her?</p>
<p>Sure, the SAT may have a correlation to intelligence, but its not perfect, and in no way should it be given the weight that it is already given in the college application process.</p>
<p>It measures intelligence somewhat. Other factors also contribute, but intelligence is definitely among them. Smart people usually get high scores. Of course, it is not an exact measure of intelligence (nothing is). The test is not very difficult in the first place, so one does not have to be a super genius to get a perfect score. People say "it only tests how good of a test-taker you are." But test-taking ability has some correlation with intelligence. </p>
<p>I think SATs measure intelligence better than GPA does. Scores are less subjective, and based less on effort, than GPA. I don't believe SAT scores only measure educational background. The level of difficulty of SAT math, etc. is much lower than most highschool students have experienced in their pre-calculus classes. You would have to go to a pretty bad school to be at a considerable disadvantage content-wise, at least when it comes to the math section. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, people at lower end state schools like James Madison are, on average, nowhere near as intelligent as students at MIT. The difference in average SAT scores is probably close to 400 points.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is a certain circular argument in saying that the SAT measures intelligence because people who did extremely well on the SAT and were accepted to MIT must be really smart because they are going to MIT. Maybe they are just going to MIT because they did well on the SAT. :)</p>
<p>While I agree that people at MIT are more likely to do well in engineering courses than people at local colleges, I would question whether somebody with a 1300 at a public university is going to be a worse engineer than an MIT graduate who had a 1600.</p>
<p>The initials SAT have been used since the test was first introduced in 1901, when it was known as the Scholastic Achievement Test and was meant to measure the level achieved by students seeking college admission. The test was used mainly by colleges and universities in the northeastern United States. In 1941, after considerable development, the non-profit College Board changed the name to the Scholastic Aptitude Test, still the most popular name. The test became much more widely used in the 1950s and 1960s and once was almost universal.</p>
<p>The success of SAT coaching schools, such as Kaplan and the Princeton Review, forced the College Board to change the name again. In 1990, the name was changed to Scholastic Assessment Test, since a test that can be coached clearly did not measure inherent "scholastic aptitude", but was influenced largely by what the test subject had learned in school. This was a major theoretical retreat by the College Board, which had previously maintained that the test measured inherent aptitude and was free of bias.</p>
<p>In 1994, however, the redundancy of the term assessment test was recognized and the name was changed to the neutral, and non-descriptive, SAT. At the time, the College Board announced, "Please note that SAT is not an initialism. It does not stand for anything."</p>
<p>SATs measure your ability to take the SATs. If you think otherwise I'm sorry to say that you're either grossly misinformed or an idiot. SATs do NOT measure intelligence in any way, they were not designed to and thus one cannot deduce intelligence from an SAT score. I know a complete idiot who got a near-perfect score on the SATs. Why? Because he has a good memory, I guess. But trust me when I say he's a dumbass. Conversely, I know a genius (seriously, the guy is one of the smartest people I have ever met in my entire life, and I've met some pretty damn intelligent people) and he got a very low SAT score (he has an IQ of around 160. His aptitude, potential and ability levels were found to be very high or off the charts in nearly every respect in the Morrisby test).
Just goes to show you that the SATs mean nothing outside of being an obligatory formality in US education.</p>
<p>It like sports. You can have the fastest racer. And the race measures the fastest runner at that time. But that does not mean the racer is the best athlete. The SAT measure a couple of very specific areas- no science, no economics, no art, no logic, no social skills, and even the SAT subject tests, with all the study guides out there, the answers are there. They need to be memorized, but not researched, analyzed etc.</p>
<p>ALL the SAT does is compare students on the same playing field. it does not take into account the training of those kids, the resources, the trainers. Yes, some kids just do well with no prep, a "natural", others do well with a lot of prep and memorization and practice, and some, they may be great swimmers, but on a soccer field, well, it that is the test, well, an olympic swimmer will not do as well</p>
<p>The SAT is supposed to be a leveler of abilities in three areas. Nothing more</p>
<p>As said before, I believe that there is a correlation between intelligence and SAT scores, but it is certainly not a perfect measurement. Anecdotally of course there are people who will not fit this spectrum, but if you take it as an overall trend you'd be hard pressed to prove that there is NO correlation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People say "it only tests how good of a test-taker you are." But test-taking ability has some correlation with intelligence.
[/quote]
I have a math degree and the math section absolutely does not measure how intelligent you are, at least in terms of math ability. A typical question on the SAT Math is "If you double the diameter of a sphere, then what happens to the Volume" or something like that. This is certainly not a hard question and anybody who know algebra can do it, but the right way to do it on a SAT test is to plug in numbers, because it is faster and the least error prone way to do it. Oh yea, look at the intelligent people plugging in numbers in order to get the answer. That is not math. That is the ability to take tests, in particular, it is the ability to take SAT tests. Does ANYONE think that they actually learned anything by studying for the SAT other than how to take the SAT? If your score went up significantly because you studied for it, do you feel smarter?</p>
<p>I think SAT scores show us more than we want to believe. Before, I always said that SAT scores show nothing. I think they show how intelligent you are, especially now that they are broadening their horizons (writing, math, reading). They really simulate college level thinking, and below. You have to know how to do the things, so in a sense you have to learn how the test works, but you can't just waltz in the room and expect an 800. You have to work at it, if you want. I totally respect SAT scores now. I wish they were weighted more in the college process now.</p>
<p>Well, I think it's obvious that smarter people will usually get higher scores, but the SAT measures skills LEARNED in high school, not a person's NATURAL ability to learn and retain information, as well as implement it.</p>
<p>I don't think it does... I think it can measure how well you have mastered the applications of certain concepts, but I don't think it measures INTELLIGENCE. They have yet to make a test that does that. Plus, there are too many factors that can bias the score you receive including access to tutoring programs, ability to memorize formulas, ability to "game" the test... which, I will be honest, srategy proably carried me through a lot of that God-forsaken test, not just "intelligence".</p>
<p>You either get a high score or not. You're either intelligent or not. I think this is the best indicator for high school, and lets there be a plain view of intelligence for America.</p>