<p>also naidu and nyjunior- calm down.........</p>
<p>I disagree that the SAT can be taught. Look up "Confessions of An Average CCer" for my thoughts about the SAT. A lot of people told me that I had the ability to get a good score if I studied. I did, pretty much locked myself into my room and studied. However, I did not get a great score. You can see my argument with someone else who believed that the SAT could be "taught".</p>
<p>I cant say exactly what I do for a living, because CC hatz me, but when I started in my current line of work, I took the SAT and scored low 600's, then I worked my a$$ off to understand the exam. I took the exam about a year later and I scored 780 in Math, 730 in CR, and 740 in WS.</p>
<p>Now I am trying for my third 2400, so dont tell me I have become that much smarter in the past couple of years, I would like to believe it, but I know that it isnt true. You, anyone, can learn the SAT. Like most things in life it makes hard work and dedication. There is probably a natural limit to most people's SAT scores, but I would argue that if they worked hard enough that any natural limit is fairly plastic.</p>
<p>Ashraf,</p>
<p>You wrote: "I thought it used to be purely achievement, but in a recent thread nyjunior helped me realize that it is, in fact, dependent on your IQ."</p>
<p>What thread? </p>
<p>Are you sure that the authors were arguing causation OR were they merely arguing correlation? We all know the famous: correlation does not equal causation maxim, and maybe there is something underlying both IQ and SAT scores: socioeconomic factor that confound the purported relationship, but correctly explain the paradoxical relationship.</p>
<p>murkywater,
I cut and pasted your reference into the search function, but got no results.</p>
<p>Chris_C,
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=299257%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=299257</a>.</p>
<p>If the link doesn't work, I believe you can look up threads started by my username.</p>
<p>Anyways, there was a very long discussion, some people telling me I had no chance at my dream school because my practice SAT was too low. I promised myself I wouldn't ruin my chances by doing well on my first SAT. However, I underperformed and it is not through any lack of effort on my part. I used Xiggi's method with the Blue Book.</p>
<p>There ARE upper limits for some individuals (at least for a short period of time). I am struggling to hit or break 2200. I try very hard. I don't know what exactly is wrong with me. My weakest score was in the Math section, but that was what I studied most extensively.</p>
<p>Anyways, goes to show that hard work does not necessarily mean a good SAT score.</p>
<p>hey, you used the "h" word, unacceptable my friend, unacceptable, yes, I'm talking to you Fred.</p>
<p>Murywater, </p>
<p>I am not going to insult your intelligence, and I will say that Xiggi's advice is applicable, but isnt it a bit convenient that everyone seems to love him?</p>
<p>I mean, there is a post by Xiggi, and then someone praises that post. Doesnt that strike you as a bit weird? </p>
<p>See, I have exposed a few posts as astroturfers on CC, and I guess I have exposed people who were allowed to do so, and for that CC has changed my name, refused to let me post, etc</p>
<p>Also, </p>
<p>A 29 is a good score on the ACT, you should try to improve on that test first. If you want I have an old ACT in PDF that I will gladly send to you.</p>
<p>This doesnt mean that you cant do well on the SAT, it just means that your time would be better spent on the ACT.</p>
<p>The SAT measures nothing. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. I wish it werent true, but here goes: the SAT was designed to measure critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills are thought of as a de facto measure of aptitude (intelligence). </p>
<p>Now we know that intelligence is an nebulous a concept as there is. In fact Harvard is just the latest school to redesign its curriculum in order to make their students more intelligent. Aptitude is a concept that lacks a consensus on even its definition. Alright, last in line is critical thinking. There is again no consensus on what it is, much less how to measure it, much less whether the SAT does a good job measuring it.</p>
<p>The salient point here is the SAT doesnt tell you who you are. Maybe it would take you a year to dramtically improve your score. Maybe it will never happen. But unless you are planning a career in SAT test prep, flick off the test when you are done with it, and return to more important things in your life!</p>
<p>Chris_C, </p>
<p>I don't know what you're saying. I think Xiggi's method is well-grounded in logic. Looking over one's answers is common sense. Taking the test in parts? Makes sense. All of it is based on logic. I don't see how everyone praising him can mean that his method is useless.</p>
<p>You've changed your original argument. You first said: "You, anyone, can learn the SAT. Like most things in life it makes hard work and dedication." And now you are saying the SAT measures nothing and that I should focus on the ACT. I provide a good example of why I think the SAT cannot be taught, and you change the topic. </p>
<p>A 29 is not a great score on the ACT for the schools that I am interested in. Again, I think all standardized tests measure absolutely nothing and that there are upper limits for everyone (at least in a short period of time). I'm sure that if I started studying for the SAT in 5th grade, that I would have a higher upper limit. But I still believe there are upper limits.</p>
<p>I don't think I really have a year to dramatically increase my score, but my past experience with the SAT has told me loud and clear that it is not about hard work or dedication at all.</p>
<p>All one can really do is just try to reach their plateau, their best. How does one really know what his/her best is? One just has to continue working hard as hell, trying to learn everything possible (of course I am talking about the really elite students), trying to see all the tricks of THE GAME, and then just let it be. I agree with you murkywater, 29 is not a great score on the ACT, but do not give up, do not be discouraged by the fact that certain exams rely heavily on natural intelligence. </p>
<p>Also, I think a good project, like maybe an intel/westinghouse project (I do believe social projects are considered) would be to try to see the correlation between IQ and SAT scores. And then one could break down the SAT question by question to explain the results. I'm already working on an Intel project of my own, but if anyone is interested in doing one, you might just want to look into this (if someone has not already done it, that is).</p>
<p>I don't think the tests are based on natural intelligence, nyjunior. You might be calling me dumb, then ;-) The SAT is not based on 'natural intelligence'. It is based on how well you can take a timed test. Nothing more. </p>
<p>IQ is not even a good measurement about how smart someone is. Does everyone on this board think IQ and SAT scores are good measurements of intelligence? Wow, that's sad.</p>
<p>Well, a lot of things in this world are sad (trust me, I know just about all of them!) but are just true. Reality stinks. And I am obviously not calling you dumb! If you read what I wrote more carefully, you would know I wrote about preparing enough to reach your best, and I never said a 29 on the ACT was your best! That is why I said it isn't a good score, because I am pretty sure you can do quite a bit better (considering your motivated enough to join CC). </p>
<p>Anyhow, I do know that the SATs are designed to test natural ability (at least to some degree), and whether they are very effective at doing so is very questionable, but they do depend on natural ability to a fair extent.</p>
<p>Again, I didn't call you dumb! I may have sounded like it, but OH BOY, have I been getting some bad luck trying to talk to people on the net: first Naidu was mad at me, and now you. I gotta take a class on communication skills in college.</p>
<p>IQ just measures how efficiently you learn, and so I regret using "natural intelligence" as my choice of diction, I'll give you that much. But a higher IQ is very VERY important, as much as I hate to admit it since I personally don't have the genius IQ I always wanted to have. In college, you will have to do a lot of work, and have to study for a lot of exams in a short amount of time. One will not have the practically unlimited amount of time he/she has to study for the SAT. So, since SATs are designed to help (keyword: help) colleges pick the better candidates, natural ability is heavily weighed by CollegeBoard when designing the exams.</p>
<p>So with that being said, IQ is not a good measurement of intelligence, but a good measurement of how well a student can perform when a load of work is given. You can still have someone with a high IQ who hates the world and does not care about anything but video games; such a person will probably have a lower intelligence than other people with lower IQs but greater interest in learning. But the same person will still be able to perform better on tests if the level of caring for the tests was equivelent to that of the others. So, no, IQ is not a good measurement of intelligence, but it is a very good measurement of how well a student CAN perform, which is what the SAT attempts to measure as well.</p>
<p>the SAT only measures one kind of intelligence that unfortunately by colleges in considered "smart". There are lots of people with high IQ's that are good at specialized things, unfortunately for them, the SAT isn't it.</p>
<p>So basically the general middle ground i'm getting here is that, yes the SAT can be learned, but those with a higher IQ are much more adept at taking it and get higher scores much easier.</p>
<p>yup .</p>
<p>"IQ just measures how efficiently you learn, and so I regret using "natural intelligence" as my choice of diction, I'll give you that much. But a higher IQ is very VERY important, as much as I hate to admit it since I personally don't have the genius IQ I always wanted to have."</p>
<p>I don't think it has anything to do with IQ. No, you didn't call me dumb, but if you're saying those that are naturally intelligent do better on the exam, that IS what you are essentially saying to those who can't achieve better than a 29, for example. </p>
<p>I'm sorry, but IQ isn't even a legitimate measurement of intelligence. There are many different types of intelligence. I guess you haven't looked this up on the internet or whatever.</p>
<p>" So, no, IQ is not a good measurement of intelligence, but it is a very good measurement of how well a student CAN perform, which is what the SAT attempts to measure as well."</p>
<p>No, it isn't a good measurement of performance, either. It's very clear that some very successful people in college did not have good SAT scores (and in your case, did not have very good IQ scores, either). The SAT measures how well you can do on a test. An IQ test measures how well you can take a test.</p>
<p>If you think IQ measures any definable quality in people, I am shocked. At my school, everyone sort of laughs at IQ tests, and anyone who mentions them isn't taken seriously. I spoke with my highschool counselor about how some people were bragging about IQ scores. He said that when you enter into education, you learn the different types of intelligence and how some people use their right brains more than their left brains, etc. And that IQ tests essentially are ways for social scientists and such to try and quantify intelligence.</p>
<p>Intelligence cannot be measured. Neither can natural ability. :)</p>
<p>okay, whatever then. I'm tired.</p>
<p>IQ doesn't measure how efficiently one learns; rather it measures one's ability to solve problems and to synthesize new data based on a given input (the lesser input required to produce something, the greater the intelligence). </p>
<p>You can learn a lot of facts/formulas/ideas, but intelligence is really the ability to synthesize and make connections. And THAT's what the SAT tests as well as IQ tests.</p>
<p>You have just contradicted yourself Ashraf. You say "IQ doesn't measure how efficiently one learns", and then you say it is "the ability to synthesize and make connections." But this very ability, to be able to connect one thing to another, to be able to derive several useful blocks from another larger whole, to be able to also synthesize a lot of smaller blocks to create another larger whole, all affect how efficiently one learns.</p>