<p>Personally, I find the test completely retarded....especially the new test. I mean, look at the score range. I scored a 62 on the CB CR section of a test. The range is 690-790??!?!! W T F!??! I mean anything between 2000 - 2400 about would show the person is one of the following:</p>
<p>1) innately intelligent
2) hard worker
3) average kid but who's a lucky bastard that day</p>
<p>The SAT measures how well you take the SAT. End of story.</p>
<p>The SAT definitely, without a doubt does NOT measure intelligence. The SAT test might as well be a test on the History of Guantanamo Bay. Will you innately know the information? Of course not.</p>
<p>You, intelligent poster, can you tell me the full history right now, without going to Wikipedia? No? You're a dummy I guess.</p>
<p>You, chimpanzee, can you study that book on History of Guantanamo Bay for weeks and months, and then be able to reproduce vague generalizations of what you read?</p>
<p>The SAT measures how much information you retained throughout your High School (or perhaps middle school, if you're smarter) curriculum. Thus the test measures KNOWLEDGE not INTELLIGENCE. The test score is a function of hours studied. Now, granted, an intelligent person will perhaps only have to study 1 hour what a normal person will have to study 6 hours. Nonetheless, both can attain high scores.
The reasoning is, though, that intelligent people are already trying to make the perfect grades in high school and thus already have extensively studied and used things like algebra. But the SAT indeed has no meaning of intelligence. Average kids have, can, and will do very well 1450+ on the SAT.</p>
<p>Btw, I personally scored a 2380 for anyone who assumes posters who don't think the SAT measures intelligence scored low themselves.</p>
<p>Any if you think the SAT does measure intelligence, then take a look at yourself: you scored high on the test, but you're a complete f***ing moron. I rest my case.</p>
<p>"The SAT only measures how well exam takers prepare to take the SAT. "</p>
<p>I disagree with this; I prepared for the SAT for about 15 minutes one night to make my mom leave me alone, ended up with a 2300(1600)... don't mean to toot my own horn or anything, just giving an example.</p>
<p>As to the SAT measuring intelegence, I'm gonna agree with cavalier.. there is a strong correlation. Most smart people at my school did fairly well on their SATs, most average people did well, and dumb people did badly. Of course there are deviations from the norm, but overall it does a good job. Is it fair to those who are among those deviations? Of course not, but that is an entirely different debate.</p>
<p>No - esp. not anymore, since the new SAT is structured as an achievement test - measuring what u've learned in school, as opposed to what was formerly an aptitude test - measuring well... innate aptitute</p>
<p>"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. "</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? Memory doesn't come into play WHATSOEVER in the SAT. Taking tests for school? Yes.</p>
<p>Typically, people who don't do as well as they'd hoped on the SAT tend to try and say the test is stupid, while people who do well think it's the end-all and be-all of intelligence measurement. I, personally, would think it'd be a more accurate judge of intelligence if people were given the test unannounced, with no time to prepare or learn how to take the SAT. You can't discount the SAT and say it should be obsolete since it's practically the only universal, completely objective way of comparing people. We need the SAT.</p>
<p>I think the SAT would have a lot more meaning if no one studied for it. Then you could compare results. Some people study a lot, some not at all. You can't really compare the scores of those two. If it was taken unannounced with no preparation the results would probably be a little more telling. And if you were only allowed to take it once.</p>
<p>I never had testing at my school. Ever. The classes were small and all the grades were assigned by oral or written examinations. Most colleges and universities are the same. Testing is only used when the classes are too big or as a surprise 'quiz' that doesn't really affect your overall grade.</p>
<p>in a few cases, it does measure intelligence. for example, if 2 kids have been to the same school, and taken the same classes for all their lives--and one gets a 2300/2400, but one gets a 1300/2400, you obviously know that the first kid is smarter. but in a case where some people just don't try, and some people work really hard--that's not a measure of intelligence. and if one person gets a 2050 and their friend gets a 2060, or even a 2160, you cannot assume that the friend is smarter.</p>
<p>basically, it tests intelligence in a really huge ballpark scale, but not for any practical purposes. it tests achievement.</p>
<p>if the sat measures intelligence maybe it is true from the president's SAT scores :D</p>
<p>Not everyone tests well first of all....and obviously it is evident that the president's scores were predicted well, if he made low marks (at Yale?) in college.</p>
<p>To an extent, yes. I don't believe someone who gets a 1500 is any smarter than someone who gets a 1450, just because of the margin of error. But, it does seperate those people who aren't smart but work their asses off and the people who are really smart but don't work super hard. I think it measures natural intelligence, which doesn't mean much if you don't work hard, but still. If you really are smart, there's no reason you shouldn't get a high score. If you are not smart, you will very likely get a bad score.</p>
<p>It is an endurance test. Proof is that I got a 760 Math on the SAT I after 3 attempts, but on a day where I was sick and had no review time I got an 800 on the Math II. Harder material and better score don't correlate, but time does. I can't focus for 3+ hours because the way I normally do h/w and study is in short blocks with my computer, music, tv, and dog jumping up and down.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As to the SAT measuring intelegence, I'm gonna agree with cavalier.. there is a strong correlation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A correlation in math is a relation existing between phenomena or things which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone. </p>
<p>Showing a correlation does not mean that the one thing directly affects or is directly associated with the second. In order to do this, you have to show a causal relationship. There is a joke that math professors use about how there is a very high correlation between teacher salaries and liquor sales. They use this joke to illustrate the point that there is a correlation but no causal relationship.</p>
<p>Besides that, to my knowledge there has never been a study showing a correlation between IQ and SAT scores. That is why the CB keeps changing the test and then finally changing the test itself. The actual controversy about the SAT is whether it is an indicator of success in college, and this is argued extensively.</p>
<p>The quote above is basically just saying that there is a correlation between SAT scores and the "public perception" of how smart people are. duh</p>
<p>The SAT only measures your verbal, math, and writing skills. Some people may be ok in those areas but extremely intelligent in the social sciences and other humanities. I think if you get a good score, you are obviously smart, but getting a "bad" score does not necessarily mean you are not smart. I am in the top 10% at my high school and a CA ELC student but my scores are average compared to other people on CC. Just my .02 :)</p>
<p>To add one more thing, I am not ashamed of my SAT scores. I studied and did the best I could. The SAT will never take away my curosity and love of learning.</p>
<p>You people are so amazingly ignorant. The reason you people say smart people do well is because these so-called "smart" people have probably taken the toughest courses their entire lives and have done a lot of required reading for English class or for leasure... And that's without assuming that they preped or had tutors. It's so stupid. The courses you take, the amount that you read, and many other factors contribute to your score. </p>
<p>"Are you kidding me? Memory doesn't come into play WHATSOEVER in the SAT. Taking tests for school? Yes."</p>
<p>Ok--- How is someone who doesn't take tough courses or read EVER supposed to know what large words such as scintillation mean? Or someone who doesn't know that a^2+b^2=c^2 supposed to figure out what the hypotnuse of a right triangle is? </p>
<p>Just to let you know, I have a friend who has an IQ of 189 and he was thought to be stupid when he was younger simply based on the reason that he had problems with bipolar disorder, adhd, and more recently found out that he has aspergers. This friend is a 6'4" guy with a body I wish I had and is good-looking enough to be a model. He has perfect grades, but his level of thinking is so high that many don't understand a lot of what he says. That's another issue, though. I don't believe looks have anything to do with intelligence. Also, many of his problems on the SAT that he found to be difficult were rated as "easy." --- People with extremely high IQs often find problems most consider simple to be difficult. </p>
<p>In conclusion, to say that someone scores high because they're naturally smart is a bunch of crap. There's a difference between a well-educated person and an intelligent one.</p>
<p>Agreed with everything you said. </p>
<p>And then there are those with the double combination of being both intelligent and highly educated.</p>
<p>"Ok--- How is someone who doesn't take tough courses or read EVER supposed to know what large words such as scintillation mean? Or someone who doesn't know that a^2+b^2=c^2 supposed to figure out what the hypotnuse of a right triangle is?"</p>
<p>Taking tough courses does not guarantee that someone will know what the word scintillation means. Regardless, he or she would have to have read books and newspapers or be able to logically define the word on the basis of syntax and placement. Hence, both personal achievement and intelligence, not memory, come into play in that scenario. </p>
<p>Your right triangle argument makes no sense whatsoever. If someone doesn't initially even know the formula, how is there a platform on which to apply memory? Remembering that a^2+b^2=c^2 isn't the difficult part of the SAT. Many people know and are able to remember that formula, but cannot figure out where to apply it. Still has nothing to do with memory.</p>
<p>BuzzingBees-- You have issues. I've never in my life even seen the word scintillation until today when I looked it up to use as an example. I think you just don't understand the difference between a well-educated individual and an intelligent one. How can not knowing definitions and formulas not have anything to do with memory? I do agree, however, that if one takes tough courses and reads a lot, that one should easily know this information. You need to understand, though, that many people don't know, read, or use words like that in their average lives. No two people read the same amount for leasure, have taken the exact same courses, and come from the exact same family where proper English and large words may or may not be spoken. THerefore, using the SAT to measure intelligence is ridiculous. If there was such a case, we could force each person to memorize information and prove they memorized it and then take the SAT to see which one could apply it better. You seem like a well-educated individual, but really, if you weren't from a wealthy family and didn't go to a good school, would you be where you are today? Would your scores have been the same? I only agree with you on the applying part. You can memorize information all you want, but you must know how to apply it. But still, some students don't have the material memorized in the first place. That's why doing practice tests probably increases one's ability to increase one's score the best... They have to actually APPLY previous information that they should have read/been taught. However, what if, for example, I didn't know ANYTHING about, let's say, the shifts, stretches, and reflections of functions or something like that? The thing you DONT understand is that NOT EVERYONE HAS ALL OF THE NEEDED INFORMATION (AS YOU STATED ABOVE "If someone doesn't initially even know the formula, how is there a platform on which to apply memory?" ) memorized that he/she NEEDS to know in order to get a chance at a high score. If everyone memorized this information, and then didn't get assignments by teachers to apply it, then we could compare as to who would be more intelligent... But wait, people who are extremely intelligent almost always have a learning disorder--- But I'm sure you'll disagree with that, also... Not even going there, buddy.</p>