<p>Of course it is an IQ test. All those useless words in the analogies that are never used by anyone except sadistic SAT preparers could only be known to idiot savants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mensa used to allow you to join based on SAT scores, but some years back they stopped, because they determined it wasn't a test of IQ.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong. The reason its no longer admissable evidence is the recentered scaled since 95 or so. The test still works as a valid IQ test in Mensa eyes - but since the top two standard deviations (of 100) are trimmed off down to an 800 there is no way to tell apart from the 98+% range (mensa req) to say 97th percentile.</p>
<p>The SAT does not measure intelligence. I don't care what you have to say, it doesn't. Period. Anybody can take an SAT course, and as long as they actually use the course to its fullest, they will get an increased score. Speaking from experience, I went from a 900 to an 1120 as a result of one Kaplan test prep (an increase of 220 points). I am, by no means, a dum-dum. I just have difficulties taking tests, I am not a good test taker. I should clarify: standardized test taker. I'm good on regular tests in class, every once in a while, I bomb a test, but that is to be expected, and usually I have enough grades that when I do bomb, it barely scratches my final grade.</p>
<p>My point of the previous paragraph: anybody can take an SAT prep class and do better on it. The SAT measures how much stuff you can regurgitate (esp. in the verbal sections). Math sections tend to test you on your ability to see shortcuts in solving it.</p>
<p>Crap, gotta get back to writing 3 english essays at 3am, that's just great. All three due in roughly 8.5 hours. Not too good, my friend.</p>
<p>Intelligence is in part how fast you can do calculations, and in part how well you do them. Since the SAT is a timed test, intelligence would also help you in that sense. However, the test is for reasoning, not intelligence; close cousins perhaps but twins not at all.</p>
<p>I have an updated opinion. Call it what you wish, but I have just seventeen words to call it: a pointless, retarded-ass test that wastes three hours on a saturday and it should be abolished.</p>
<p>I have a feeling 90% of the people in the world would concur with my description of the test.</p>
<p>I have a little secret to tell everyone: the only way I was able to do the verbal section was by reasoning. I did not know most of the vocab, so I read the word and used multiple techniques to eliminate wrong answers. Considering that got me a 510 (and I didn't know most of the vocab), that's not too bad at all. Technically, I completed the section how it was meant to be completed...everyone else with these extreme scores in excess of the late 600s (but more-so those who study vocab) defeat the purpose of the test! Since everyone's getting high scores, you wonder why collegeboard decided to change the layout! It's so not as many people ace the test. If it's a resoning test, you're supposed to reason through it and not be able to know all vocab words. I think you can follow what I am saying. Most would disagree because they don't want to come to the cold, hard fact that they "cheated" by just memorizing vocab versus actually knowing how to eliminate wrong choices without even knowing the words. What I am saying is true...is that not the point of a REASONING test? TO reason through the answers...not necessarily fly through because you know what everything means already.</p>
<p>I don't care which side anyone supports, but you must admit, I do have a valid point.</p>
<p>Such a pointless argument going on in this thread, I don't know why I decided to join in.</p>
<p>you can study for an IQ test too. i duno waht you guys think amkes that not possible. just study the type of relational and logic question. First year uni logic is good prep.</p>
<p>Anyways I got 1340 on my SATs without any kind of prep and that 90 percentile is much lower than my IQ percentile but I think it's fairly accurate. A reasaonble person that studies root word sand waht not will get their IQ scoreo r higher</p>
<p>Found the quotation myself: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12QUESTIONS.html?oref=login%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12QUESTIONS.html?oref=login</a> </p>
<p>Interviewer's question: What is your I.Q.?</p>
<p>Hawking's answer: I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.</p>
<p>Mz, the older you get, the more intelligence you gain. Intelligence or intellect are relative qualities that can't be measured precisely, but I can surely tell you that a person with 1400 is smarter in almost everyway than a guy with 1000, and let me make a bold statement that a person with 1600 is a genius or a quasi-genius, whereas a person with 600 is a moron.</p>
<p>The SAT I probably measures the intelligence that is involving in not making careless errors, concentrating under pressure, and being able to use judgment to best guess between two "right" answers. Obviously, a monkey would not be able to pass the SAT test, so there is some kind of brain activity going on. But the things that the SAT I measures best are not terribly important or indicative of your future talents. Acing the Math section doesn't mean you're going to be the next Albert Einstein, or acing the Critical Reading/Writing section doesn't mean you're going to be the next Robert Frost.</p>
<p>I believe that there is a strong correlation between IQ and the math section of the SAT I. I've taken an IQ test before to get into a private school, it's all about how fast you can reason, it would make sense. And apparantly, you can do (next to) jack in school and still potentially score an 800. </p>
<p>Verbal depends on how much you read, and what you read.</p>
<p>This is all in my humble, humble opinion, of course.</p>
<p>Doing jack.. hmm not necessarily. the few questions i was unsure about was due to lack of familarity such as dealing with prime numbers (when I learned itl ast in middle school it was a number divisble only by 1... didn't know there had to be two factors) and special triangle ratios and angle ratios (comp etc.). Since I didn't have time to memorize those I obviously did poorly. Now if I did even less in school and didn't know stuff like the quadratic formula and trig then i would have failed.</p>
<p>So it's not true, but ceteris paribus (all other things being equal) it measures IQ.</p>
<p>E.g. someone that spent exactly the same amoutn of time prepring under the same conditions with the same experiences but differeing iqs would have differing scores.</p>