<p>Sat I Math is certainly not a math achievement test. It's barely a math aptitude test.</p>
<p>It does measure intelligence. There is a clear correlation. Despite grades, the bright kids score highly on the SAT and the less intelligent kids, even those that study hard simply will not score as high. I don't care if you have a 4.0, if you score low on the SAT, you are not the full package. Some people will be up in arms about this but it is the facts folks. Those who themselves don't score highly on the test are in denial.</p>
<p>I think the SAT used to be more of an IQ test..hence people not studying for it years ago. The new SAT I is much more of a knowledge application test than an intelligence test, although I agree that the math section is the most IQ-test esque of all of the sections.</p>
<p>SAT is a reasoning test, not an intelligence test. Those with intelligence usually have reasoning, which is why people think of it as a measure of intelligence, but some people may have one and not the other. (Not many, but it is possible.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
It does measure intelligence. There is a clear correlation. Despite grades, the bright kids score highly on the SAT and the less intelligent kids, even those that study hard simply will not score as high. I don't care if you have a 4.0, if you score low on the SAT, you are not the full package. Some people will be up in arms about this but it is the facts folks. Those who themselves don't score highly on the test are in denial.
[/quote]
Sure, it's a perfect test without any flaws. Collegeboard is god. Humanity is just in denial.</p>
<p>That was sarcasm by the way.</p>
<p>Of course it measures intelligence. It is no accident that white upper crust males from nice neighborhoods and excellent, well-funded, grade and high schools, who can afford prep courses for the exam generally do better as a group than those from lower middle class and poor neighborhoods with underfunded, inadequate grade and high schools, where many of the students spend a lot of their time not engaged in the much desired activity of learning but instead in trying to find places to hide from gangs. The score differences are an obvious reflection of the difference in intelligence of the those two groups. At least that is what Carl Bingham, the distinguished Princeton professor who created the SAT in the mid-1920's firmly believed. That gentleman of social class had been involved in war-time military intelligence (yes, that is an oxymoron) tests, which themselves had been based on the original IQ tests created in the early 1900's. What he discovered is that upper crust white males did better on the test than minorities and many immigrant groups (particularly those from suspect countries like any other than England). Now, that discovery may have led a truly intelligent person to conclude that there might be somewhat of a bias in those so-called IQ tests that the nation was latching on to. But to Carl that was not the case. For you see, Carl started with the presumption that white upper crust males were in fact the only true intelligent people and all minorities and immigrants from suspect countries were somewhere in the neighborhood of being neanderthals. Thus, the test was simply confirming what Carl knew was true in the first place. Carl was a member of the American Eugenics Society, a group of wonderful Americans who believed in white supremacy and promoted at every chance that the country should take steps to eliminate immigration and set up barriers that prevented all those low-lifes from coming into contact with the superior moneyed whites so they would not contaminate those whites with their low intelligence, a thing, which if allowed, would ultimately lead to the fall of the US.</p>
<p>Thus, from those military intelligence and IQ tests, Carl created his SAT test, the original of which actually was very similar to the format, method of questioning, and structure of the ones we have today. He knew those upper crust white males would score better than minorities and immigrants and thus if colleges used it as a standardized test for admission he would accomplish his desired goal to assure that colleges, which were training the future leaders of the country, would remain uncontaminated by minorities and immigrants from suspect countries. It was used experimentally for several years but its popularity did not really get going until the 1930's when Harvard and Cooper Union became the first to adopt it as an admission test. Princeton, Carl's home fort, and many others joined the fray shortly thereafter. Carl himself became a leader of then infant College Board which promoted the test. </p>
<p>A funny thing happened several years later. Hitler's rise to power and his profession of the master race and his attack of several countries led many Americans to rethink their beliefs in a superior race. In fact, it became quite unpopular to hold such a view. It was about that time that Carl had an awakening. He came to believe that the real reason for the differences in SAT test scores lay not in differences in true intelligence but instead in differences in educational opportunities, economic status, and the fact that the test was biased in its format and questioning towards upper crust white males. To the surprise of the colleges and members of the College Board, he took a 180 degree turn and started to challenge his own test and argued it should not be used as the standard of admission. This was not taken well since the test by then had become popular and the College Board was firmly entrenched, ETS had been created, and the test was its means of financing. Fortunately for all concerned, Carl did them all a favor by dying and thus assuring that those left in charge would only be supporters of the test.</p>
<p>The College Board itself eventually abandoned claiming that the test measured intelligence, but of course, it never abandoned the test itself. So if you want to believe the test truly measures intelligence, you can take comfort in the fact that its founder and many from the time of its founding, and many for a long time thereafter, were definitely of the same belief, although you may be somewhat concerned with Carl's later change of mind.</p>
<p>and to add to drusba's story - <a href="http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/race_class/edu-matt3.htm%5B/url%5D">http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/race_class/edu-matt3.htm</a></p>
<p>SAT math is a test of how well you can stay awake and avoid stupid mistakes.</p>
<p>Carl Bingham, although he made a valiant effort, ultimately failed because there is no way to sit someone down and sum up their intellectual potential through a standardized test. The math test also happens to favor people that are fresh out of algebra one. I can score a 790 on math iic, but I can only manage a mere 700 on my SAT math because I am prone to stupid mistakes.</p>
<p>The fact that people can study and "prep" for the SAT makes it even more of a joke. You can't study for an IQ test, but you can pay thousands to have a private tutor cater to your needs so that colleges will see a slightly higher number and assume you are more intelligence than the kid who took the test cold. Its too bad this has to be the way colleges look at us.</p>
<p>No, I don't think these tests can measure even test-taking intelligence very accurately; my scores have simply fluctuated too much for me to see them as indicators of anything. My scores on practice and official GRE tests covered a range of about 200 points in each section (on an 800 scale, just like the SAT). Also, the percentile rankings of my high school ACT scores and current official GRE scores are significantly different, and I can't believe that my personality and IQ have changed dramatically during the past five years.</p>
<p>What about someone who never got lower than 99 percentile on any non-achievement test, without preparation. What is that measuring?</p>
<p>It's measuring how well that person takes the tests. If he/she is that good - they should be nominated for a Macarthur genius test and maybe even get a half a million dollar grant.</p>
<p>Macarthur genius grant...now that is something special</p>
<p>What is the qualifier for it anyways? Sanford-Binet of at least 150?</p>
<p>"It's measuring how well that person takes the tests."</p>
<p>You have the Princeton Review motto down cold. But what does it mean?
If someone runs the 100 meter dash in, say, 10 seconds, it shows how well he runs this kind of race. There might be some implication, too, about both his aptitude to do such a thing and his preparation for it. If a person is one of the best 100 in dozens of varing physical events, it's a pretty good indication of aptitute.</p>
<p>By the way, 99th percentile still includes a lot of people.</p>
<p>Of course not.</p>
<p>Unless you consider intelligence a 2300+ on the SAT that was "earned" by one's mumsy and dah-day dishing out over $1000 on prep courses so their precious, little star could appear competitive to the top-knotch ivies.
The only way I would personally give any credit to the idea of the SAT illustrating intelligence is if all students took it once in the beginning of their senior year with no prep and we all know that isn't going to happen.</p>
<p>this thread is simple ; not much too it</p>
<p>people who score on the lower end will talk about how much of a BS test this is and how its all about money and preparing and knowing the information</p>
<p>people who score on the higher end will tell you that it requires critical thinking and high reasoning abilities, and that prep courses cant give you those things</p>
<p>i mean come on; how many low sat scorers will say its an intelligence test and vice versa?</p>
<p>personally, im not a low or high scorer, well maybe low by CC standards but I agree with the last post about if no one prepared it woudl show intelligence, but unfortunately that will never happen</p>
<p>Absolutely, the SAT is probably the BEST indicator of intelligence. </p>
<p>I took it once without prep and scored really well. I felt the score reflected my intelligence. Other not smart, but rich, kids have retaken it four to five times, with test prep, and have still scored 200 points lower than me. </p>
<p>Yes, I agree that poorer people are at a disadvantage. Still, you shell out 20 bucks for the blue book (like I did) and you WILL score well, it's as simple as that. </p>
<p>Finally, I could predict what my friends would get on the SAT. It's a very accurate estimator of intelligence.</p>
<p>Way to be an elitist bill_smear. You sure showed all those spoiled rich kids! And I'm sure your friends greatly appreciate you judging them by a flawed high school aptitude test.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Macarthur genius grant...now that is something special</p>
<p>What is the qualifier for it anyways? Sanford-Binet of at least 150?
[/quote]
There is no qualifier. 20 to 30 nominees a year are carefully chosen by an independent Selection Committee composed of about a dozen leaders in the arts, sciences, humanities professions, and for-profit and nonprofit communities. If you're outstanding - they'll notice you. You can't apply.</p>
<p>Absolutely not. The SAT focuses too much on English/Writing skills and practically no higher level math/science skills.</p>
<p>The SAT DOES NOT require anyone to be above average intelligence to score perfectly. You people kill me sometimes. It's not possible to use it to test for intelligence because some people have been preparing by going to the best schools their entire lives. Also, some people, even if they go to the same school, may work harder than others or maybe one students listens in class, but the other doesn't... THere are too many factors to make it an acurate intelligent test.</p>
<p>I'd love to see evidence of even a few people with +/- 0 Std. Dev. IQ who score even +2 Std. Dev. on SAT I, let alone "perfect", which is about +3 Std. Dev.</p>