<p>actually semiserious that is not right and impractical. Everyone has a different amount of opportunity so obviously less smart but rich and well-educated people would score much better than a very poor but smart person even with NO warning and no prep. Also it is very impractical and the SAT is a way to combat grade inflation. SAT does measure intelligence. In fact all tests measure intelligence. Even if the test asked what 2+2 is it measures basic arithmetic abilities. However, the reason why no one uses that test is that it is FAIRLY inaccurate. SAT as a test DOES measure intelligence and ability. However, there are some aspects that make people question its accuracy. So the SAT should be looked at after evaluating the opportunity the person has had and many other factors. </p>
<p>I do agree that high SAT scorers who boast r losers. Just say "Go to Collegeconfidential there's a bunch of u." Those who boast u MAY be intelligent but one's obvious u will not succeed because that's a matter of character.</p>
<p>Those with bona fide disabilities can have inaccurate SAT scores. My DS has, for example, severe documented ADD that significantly impacts his processing speed, etc. Because he was not granted extended time accommodations, his old SAT scores were about 110-200 points lower than on professionally administered practice tests with minimal extended time. DS's evaluators have said that ADD significantly impacts the ability to measure his IQ and achieve accurately. So with DS, no test is a reasonable or accurate measure of his ability or achievement, just indicators of progress. I'm not a big fan of standardized tests for that reason. If testing is interpreted with wisdom and sensitivity, it can be helpful in structuring learning programs. However, if used in a brash manner, it can exclude a lot of worthwhile kids from opportunities for personal growth. After all, learning is a lifelong process, and we each progress at different rates for different reasons. Our system tends to be exclusive rather than inclusive, and that tends to cut off significant growth for kids who develop late. And that is society's loss and burden.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Everyone has a different amount of opportunity so obviously less smart but rich and well-educated people would score much better than a very poor but smart person even with NO warning and no prep.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK...so you just proved my point that (even with my qualifiers) the SAT doesn't accurately and fairly measure innate intelligence. Thank you.</p>
<p>I think the SAT isn't a good indicator of intelligence. Studies have shown that someone's standardized test scores are more closely linked with their parents' income and educational background than with the test-taker's IQ. That seems really fair...</p>
<p>It also been proven that certain ethnic groups (blacks and Latinos) score lower, on average, than their white and asian counterparts. So I suppose some of you believe that blacks and Latinos are just innately stupider than whites and asians.</p>
<p>i got a 1870 and im in the top ten percent of my class, albeit almost the very bottom of the top ten. I didnt think it was too bad, better than i thought i would do 1st time around, but i bet some of you guys think its pretty bad.</p>
<p>StayGold: "I think the SAT isn't a good indicator of intelligence. Studies have shown that someone's standardized test scores are more closely linked with their parents' income and educational background than with the test-taker's IQ. That seems really fair..."</p>
<p>....Really? I don't understand how/why that is....?</p>
<p>semiserious, poor white kids, poor black kids, and poor latino kids usually test similarly. I don't think blacks and latinos are innately less intelligent at all; that is not even close to what I was saying. I was not even talking about race, but about economics. </p>
<p>And PointandShoot, think about the AP classes you have taken, and then think about the kids in those classes. How many of them have parents who have a very hard time getting by or who that money allows to get ahead in school for their entire lives, which really adds up and usually puts them ahead of poorer kids, regardless of intelligence. It is unfair, and I'm not saying a smart kid who's poor can't be successful; that definitely happens. I'm just saying that money drives educational success more than people like to believe.</p>
<p>A student in my class last year scored a 900 on his SAT, yet still applied to selective colleges. He was rejected from Columbia and Cornell, but he did get into Boston College, and he is an incoming freshman there.</p>
<p>Im black and i refuse to prep for standardized tests and i still got a 1950 which is very good on sat and a 30 on act. I think sat and act measure intelligence and prepping just helps with recalling. By the time you take it junior year your supposed to have already learned all that stuff anyway. While im writing i have a question. Does only taking act and sat once make you look bad on college apps?</p>
<p>It doesn't make you look bad to take each test only once. The only bad thing is that you don't have any chance to improve. If you are satisfied with your score, and don't think you could do better, leave it as it is.</p>
<pre><code> Lets say someone takes it but has not yet taken Alegbra II yet...
Lets say he's a bright student- studies well and listens in class. He scores low because he has never learned trig and factoring.
Is he stupid?
I hope you don't think so.
But its good for colleges to know that he can't answer all these questions. I mean - would he be a good applicant in a school where everyone had scores in the 2400's range? Probably not - he has some catching up to do.
I think scores between 1900-2400 are exceptional. I don't think lower scores are bad - I think they just show that either
</code></pre>
<p>a) someone did not take practices before taking the test
or
b) someone still has some holes in their education. They are not stupid - they just need to learn how to do the harder questions.</p>
<pre><code> So please- Remember ... the SAT does not measure how smart you are.... it measures how much you practiced or how much have learned. The test is VERY logical. All the questions are very easy once you know how to do them.
My best friend got an 1000 (old SAT) and she's one of the smartest people I know. My score is hundred of points ahead of hers but I tell you - in a political debate she'd make me look like a fool. She's very intelligent and has an incredible wit. The Sat just doesn't measure that.
<p>does this mean that paris hilton is smarter then some poor kid who studies a lot? I never knew that wealth bought you intelligence...</p>
<p>being successful and being smart are two very different things. I think that rich people have a better oppurtunity to be successful but are just as intelligent as any welfare case.</p>