<p>I'm sure I'm not the first to ask this, but is the SAT I Reasoning Test essentially an IQ test? The reason I say this is because all of the many hard workers at my school who aren't terribly bright study like hell for the test but still receive fairly low scores. Since the test doesn't seem to be that prone to intensive studying and originated as an IQ test, do you think it roughly retains its roots? It seems to me seem that performing well on the SAT I is generally an indicator of good intelligence, but not performing well doesn't necessarily mean you're dumb as rocks.</p>
<p>PS I know about the new changes and eliminations which take it further from the IQ test it originated as, but based on new PSAT with most of the added/eliminated features it would seem that score trends between hard workers, bright slackers etc. continue.</p>
<p>Neither the SAT I or IQ tests measure intelligence.</p>
<p>I know you're probably thinking that I argue their validity because I did poorly on those tests. This is not the case. Although I only achieved a 1360 on the SAT, I am a card-carrying member of Mensa Canada. For a long time I argued the credibility of IQ tests, yet recently I have realized the flaws that are inherent to all 'intelligence tests'.</p>
<p>It is widely known that neither test measures actual intelligence. The credibility of IQ tests was blown out of the water when the theory of multiple intelligences was first published. As for the SAT, it only measures reading comprehensional and mathematical skills, along with vocabulary. It tests what one has learned throughout highschool, not the ability to learn or perform academically as the name suggests. </p>
<p>The fact that there is a correlation between SAT and IQ scores is most likely due to the fact that most intelligent people have large vocabularies and are good at math. This is a generalization and a theory, but it would explain the correlation.</p>
<p>I used to think vocabulary was a measure of intelligence, but now that I've memorized words and got perfect 19's on analogies and sentence completions, I know that it is not intelligence. If it were, I shouldn't be able to get better at it. There is some essence of an IQ test in the SAT, but it really isn't one.</p>
<p>The SAT I wouldn't be a good measure of some kind of innate intelligence because a lot of it is learned stuff. For example, nobody is born with vocabulary and grammar, it is an acquired skill. Same with some of the math. I used to to be below average on that section until I started to learn some more math at school. Critical Reading may be hard to define, since it basically comes down to reasoning and trying to eliminate faulty answers, but even that section has strategies that can be used to "crack the code".</p>
<p>SAT I is sort of descended from early IQ tests, but it is not an IQ test. IQ testing is controversial, with at least three theories out there that I am aware of. There's the traditional view that IQ exists and is a single, immutable quantity by the time one reaches 15 or so. There's the theroy that hypoxia mentioned that people possess (to greater or lesser degrees) different kinds of intelligence such as language ability, calculation ability, spacialization skills, hand-eye coordination skills, the ability to synthesize written or spoken arguments... And there is the theory that there is no such thing as intelligence at all, that what we perceive as intelligence is really just the result of education and environment, without a heritable component or a rational means to compare individuals (this last theory is my intrepretation of Gould's position).</p>
<p>Most people on this board are already so smart that they can succeed anywhere. You just need to persuade the right adcoms to admit you to the right college and you are off to the races!</p>
<p>Reasonabledad, I couldn't agree with you more. Persuading the adcoms to admit you is merely a game. The best thing is that if you learn to play the game well, generally you could make it into any college you want. The hard part is learning the game, which takes time that we don't have.</p>
<p>I think an IQ test is a better measure of intelligence than an SAT test...that is my opinion. Of course I know some incredibly bright kids with great scores (that are naturally brilliant) but I know too many who were trained like robots to take those tests. If you become conditioned to these tests by taking sat classes starting in 2nd grade or something then OBVIOUSLY YOU WILL DO WELL!!! like the term goes...practice makes perfect. Another thing is that the SAT has taken a turn for the worse. Back in the day very few study resources were available thus the kids who did well (for the most part) were naturally bright kids. Nowadays you get quite a mix of kids getting high scores.</p>
<p>According to the Mensa website, if you receive a 29 on the ACT, you can be eligible. Do you have to pay in order to be in Mensa (sounds like an obvious answer to me)? Is it worth it, having the title, "that you are in Mensa"? </p>
<p>Hypoxia ~ the fact that you are on these boards indicates that you and your peers know a tremendous amount about what you need to do. You are right, admissions is sort of a game. A game in which hard work and planning count for more, IMHO, than native brilliance. But maybe they should?</p>
<p>I think the SAT measures effort, at least on verbal. I'm pretty sure most people could score in the upper 750s if they actually memorized all that vocab <em>shudder</em>.</p>
<p>In fact, the entire IQ concept is completely and utterly crap. </p>
<p>There's no standardization between tests, and most measure by percentiles while having complete disregard for the testing population. Yes there are differences between individual's faculty of thought and reason and their effectiveness of adaptive behavior (thats what "intelligence" is), but believing this can be measured in any precise manner through a single written test is utterly absurd. </p>
<p>And a note about high IQ societies (of which mensa is the LEAST selective), theyre crap as well. Mostly full of pretentious arrogant people who maintain the claim the intelligent have different needs to somehow justified their elitism. Dont get into them. </p>
<p>To conclude, a quote by Stephen Hawking, a true genius..</p>
<p>People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.</p>
<p>Reasonabledad, very true. I think that they should count more, because what is the point of admitting someone with an IQ of 150 if they are apathetic. The system requires a desire to learn, which ultimately makes the college experience better for everyone who manages to get in. </p>
<p>The unfortunate part about the game is that international students are at a disadvantage from the very beginning because the game is much different. Where I live, for example, the most selective schools have an acceptance rate of 43%, and the only requirement is a 3.7 gpa. </p>
<p>The American system is much different and hard to get used to, but the more I learn about it, the more I've come to appreciate it.</p>
<p>frankenchris1 wrote, "To conclude, a quote by Stephen Hawking, a true genius..</p>
<p>'People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.'" </p>
<p>Do you have a citation for that quotation? I can, um, think of a few places online I might like to post that quotation someday, if I can verify it.</p>