The evidence is that Murray understands the correct technical meaning of ‘correlation’.
SAT correlates with the porper preparation. As the exception, there are “test taking” geniuses who simply have a rare “test taking talent” There is nothing else. And higher level of exams (like MCAT, Medical Boards,…etc.) correlate again with amount or proper preparation, period. The higher level of exam, the less an intellegence level of test taker has effect on the result. The hard work is the only thing that makes the difference…By proper preparation I meant not only amount of time that suits specific person, but also the customized preparation plan.
Are we really arguing here that nearly anyone with right customized preparation plan can achieve a perfect score on the SAT?
My son would really like to play his college ball at the University of Kentucky and then go on to a career in the NBA. He is 5’9 and 125 pounds currently, but I think he will grow another inch or two. He has relatively average speed and leaping ability. What does everyone think? If I find the right customized preparation plan, does he have a good shot?
“Are we really arguing here that nearly anyone with right customized preparation plan can achieve a perfect score on the SAT?”
-I never mentioned a perfect score. Some will get it and some will not. Just keep in mind that SAT is a low level test of the very basic academic backgound. It does not even check any closely if person is ready for college or not. The SAT test is not an IQ test and is not one;s parents IQ test, has nothing to do with it.
"If I find the right customized preparation plan, does he have a good shot? " - absolutely “yes”, he has a shot at the great SAT score, I do not know about his shot at the NBA. One cannot go over one’s physical limitations. there is NO mental capacity (aside from impaired who will not attend college anyway) that limits one’s ability in taking SAT exam, just go over it, you will undertand what I am talking about. SAT exam is way below the level that one has to be in freshman year at college.
Comparing apples and oranges is not a valid argument.
I guess my son inherited my husband’s IQ and the girls inherited mine. 
No, I don’t think the SAT measures (or reflects) IQ. My kids had over 300 point difference of SAT scores among them (all only took it once). It was more a matter of preparation and ambition; the highest scorer practiced more.
Their ACT scores were closer together, with a 4 pt range, FWIW.
Of course there is a correlation between SAT scores and IQ, a very strong correlation. To say that it doesn’t measure mental ability is to invalidate the entire reason for giving and requiring the test in the first place.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906000869
Actually, there is. Someone with a say, 90 IQ, could study full time for a year (or two) and could not score a 36/2400. The ACT in particular, puts tremendous time pressure on the test takers. Someone with slow processing cannot physically get to all the questions. It is impossible, by design. The SAT uses reasoning questions (if a train leaves Chicago heading east while train leaves Cleveland heading west…) as its difficulty factor. (Of course the SAT is now moving closer to ACT.)
Same story for scoring a 170+ on the LSAT. It can’t be done by someone with lover level of intelligence.
Best SAT Improvement Plan
I’d recommend parents take about a quarter of what they think they will spend on test prep and, instead, fill their home with examples of classic literature and then instill a love of reading and knowledge in their children.
Do that early on instead of trying to buy amulets and potions at the last minute.
[QUOTE=""]
The evidence is that Murray understands the correct technical meaning of 'correlation'.<<<
[/QUOTE]
Understanding the technical meaning of the term does not preclude relying on dubious data. Have you read the article before questioning the understanding of others? Are you familiar with Murray thesis?
His four simple truths?
- Ability varies. 2) Half of children are below average. 3) Too many people are going to college. 4) America’s future depends on how we educate the academically gifted.
If so, yes and he is right about all of them.
Clearly a kid with a higher IQ is usually going to do better on the SAT than a kid with a low IQ. Even with lots of prep, a kid with an average IQ is mostly likely not going to score over 1450 (CR&M). In the vast middle, however, preparation, quality of schools, and parental support will make much more difference. A kid with the potential to score 1300 may score a few hundred points lower if their school is terrible or if they don’t have any opportunity to study. Yet a really bright kid, even with little prep or support, may score very well.
The correlations with income are not that great, according to this from Slate
Further, test prep does not take a kid that would score 1000 and get them to score 1500, except in very rare circumstances. Again from Slate:
I am not a fan of Murray’s or the way he uses data to promote his positions. However, there is definitely a correlation between SAT and IQ. There is some correlation between SAT and family income, but that is likely confounded by correlations of income with good schools, prep classes, parental college and, to some extent, parental IQs.
IQ levels among siblings have a higher correlation than among non-siblings, but again not prefect.
I think preparation can get a kid to attain his/her maximum score. But that maximum score will vary - some kids can get perfect, some will plateau at a certain score.
I think the test entry high schools in NYC have proved that you can prep successfully for almost any exam - including IQ tests.
Lots of moving parts here.
- There are many types of intelligence.
- IQ tests don't really measure any sort of intelligence, per se, as much as how good you are at conforming to a type of thinking (a very useful type, albeit).
- The SAT isn't a pure IQ test. Specifically, you have to be well-read or simply crammed a ton of words in to memory in order to be close to perfect in the CR section. One of the brightest guys I know would do terribly with it. He'd do very well if it was in his native language, though.
In any case, doing practice tests are fine, but reading a ton from a young age is best for learning (for vocabulary, I recommend Dickens; translations of Dostoyevsky I’ve found have been fine too).
Back in the '80s, the old AD&D Dungeon Master’s guide helped me a lot with the SAT/PSAT vocabulary. But, I guess I was also a Dickens fan in high school.
Sure, u can certainly improve your score by prepping. But let’s not fool ourselves; some people simply don’t have the raw stuff to score highly no matter how much prep they do. Just like I’ve accepted the fact that no matter how much mentwill or training I get, I will never make it to Wimbledon.
My kids got 800s on the CR section due to a steady diet of sci fi and science fiction. And my youngest got the top score at his school once year on the geography bee solely from Civ 4 he claimed.
I don’t disagree - GMT of course not every one can score highly, but most above moderately average kids with enough prep can.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hang on there everyone.
Are you guys saying that the SAT and IQ could be related (no, I’m not talking about the OP- I’m talking about more recent posts)?
It couldn’t possibly be because the SAT and IQ tests developed alongside each other with the same major players, could it?
Nah, that wouldn’t make any sense.
(We’ll ignore the incredibly racist, sexist, and classist roots to both types of testing that continue to permeate the tests and results)
LOL
Like what, for example?
I’m sure reading a lot helps, but is there something about science fiction that makes it particularly useful?