<p>yeah…</p>
<p>IQ tests are fun</p>
<p>good luch studying sat</p>
<p>what DDHM said is so true,especially for people whose mother tongue is not English…
I think SAT should be more like an english ability test rather than an IQ test since the more passage you read, the faster and more comprehensive you can acquiant yourself in the context.</p>
<p>Interestingly enough,</p>
<p>An ACT composite score of 29+, if the test score was achieved prior to 1989, allows you admissions into Mensa.</p>
<p>Similarly, you would have needed an SAT score of 1250+ from before 1994 to get into Mensa.</p>
<p>Any test score achieved after those dates is not accepted.</p>
<p>[Qualifying</a> test scores - American Mensa, Ltd.](<a href=“http://www.us.mensa.org/join/testscores/qualifyingscores/]Qualifying”>http://www.us.mensa.org/join/testscores/qualifyingscores/)</p>
<p>That is hilarious - my SAT score was just over 1400 in the 1980s, and by no means did I consider myself “a GENIUS” and people between 1250 and 1400 were usually VERY disappointed with their scores. Mensa is a joke.</p>
<p>The thing about an IQ test is that you should be able to take it in any language, but still it can’t measure “real” IQ as you need to have a significant comprehension of spoken and written language, which does not always directly correlate. The SAT ends up being more biased based on socioeconomic background than the ACT.</p>
<p>And the real key to this discussion is that you can study for the SAT, but it is a lot harder to “study” for an IQ test - there are too many other factors than actual learning in an IQ test.</p>
<p>I think the SAT is more related to general intelligence whereas the ACT is more related to what one learned in HS.</p>
<p>idk maybe.</p>
<p>I think its important to note that your IQ test score isn’t necessarily your intelligence. You could just as easily say that IQ scores correlate to SAT scores as the other way around. There are a million ways to measure intelligence.</p>
<p>Also in my experience, studying excessively doesn’t help much on the SAT/ACT</p>
<p>Your IQ is only one piece of the puzzle. Basically, those who work hard will almost always surpass those with higher IQs who don’t work. There are many cases of kids with high IQs who perform abysmally in school for a myriad of reasons.</p>
<p>Neither one is that close. My IQ is unknown, though it was tested at 150 several years ago and due to a low test ceiling, previously uncontrolled ADHD, severe anxiety, and high blood sugars due to type 1 diabetes, it is probably actually higher than that. When I took the ACT I got a 35 without studying, with high blood sugar, and I had maybe slept four or five hours the night before. In fact, the only thing that prevented a perfect score was that midway through the Reading section the proctor thought I was out of time (the clock broke and he thought more time had passed than had actually did). As I did not have a watch and his was in his backpack, I legitimately thought I was out of time and missed several questions on the Humanities passage. Other than that, I had perfect scores in math and science, 10 on the essay, and 35 in English. The Reading, which was 31, was what cost me due to the clock issue, but anyway, long story short, that test did somewhat reflect my IQ. When I took the SAT, I got a 2200, but after seeing the test come back I probably could have had at least a 2300 had I studied. So to an extent, the correlation was about right. However, there is a set of identical twins at my school, both with IQ’s in the neighborhood of 145, and on the ACT they got a 25 and a 24, which is not a correlation at all. A girl in my grade who had an SAT score in the 1700’s and an ACT of (I think) 24 probably has an IQ of at least 135 and probably more like the 140’s. A friend of mine has ADHD as well. He has an IQ of 135-140 and dropped out of high school, so did not take either test, but took the GED. His average was something like 578, which is equivalent to the top 15% of his class nationwide, but that would be like an IQ around 115, so those two main tests and even the GED can be poor judges of actual IQ as they grade based on knowledge, rather than abilities. There are no prerequisites to an IQ test, so the difference is probably that, but it is speculated that since the people who do not take the two tests probably are the ones who have lower IQ, the average IQ of an ACT or SAT taker is probably at least 105 and possibly 110, the latter of which is the 75th percentile, but still possible. </p>
<p>Conclusion: it is likely to score similarly for IQ, ACT, SAT, and even GED tests, but no, I do not see a direct correlation as they require different things. Of note: many IQ tests are not timed.</p>
<p>Out of the two, the SAT is by far more closely related to IQ. However, even then, it can be pretty inaccurate, as its critical reading section is too crystallized to be compared with the more fluid Stanford-Binet IQ test.</p>
<p>Both tests assume more preexisting knowledge than the IQ test.</p>
<p>Nowadays SAT, ACT, and IQ tests are all very manageable. If you are willing to invest time and money to study it, you can do pretty well on it as long as you have an average IQ and super self-motivation to do well.</p>
<p>Yeah I guess it is closely related. But a higher SAT score doesnt necessarily mean you’re smarter though. Some people just practice SAT more.</p>
<p>Imho, standardized tests have nothing in common with IQ - SAT and ACT just test your ability to take tests under time pressure(sorry for tautology)! IQ on the other hand tests your brain’s ability to solve some artificial problems…</p>
<p>IQ tests carry very little weight when it comes to success in life. There are other factors that matter much more. Why do we have IQ tests?</p>
<p>Absolutely. That’s why it’s Scholastic “Aptitude” Test!</p>
<p>ACT is achievement.</p>
<p>36 ACT’s occur more often than 2400 SAT’s because:</p>
<p>-There are more highly knowledgeable people than geniuses.</p>
<p>-If you get subscores of 36, 36, 36, 34, you still get a 36 ACT because it’s on average, so you can mess up on some questions and still get a perfect. For the SAT, if you get a 790 on math, you are shunned with the “pathetic” score that is a 2390 haha. Of course there is a standard deviation.</p>
<p>I don’t know. The fact that both SAT and IQ originated from the Eugenics movement still creeps me out, even if it’s only for checking “aptitude.” </p>
<p>Goddamn it, measuring aptitude is still a ball of white hot controversy. (And for good reason.)</p>
<p>Sorry Marshallmeyer12, you are incorrect. Quoth wikipedia: “It was first called the Scholastic Aptitude Test, then the Scholastic Assessment Test, but now SAT does not stand for anything, hence it is an empty acronym.”</p>
<p>The ACT more or less measures what you know. The old SAT was an aptitude test and had some correlation with IQ/intelligence. The current SAT measures how good you are at taking the SAT. </p>
<p>At the high end of the scale, as I am sure you all know, a lot of points are lost for careless errors (one wrong = 760 or 770, instead of 800). I would argue that there is no distinction in ability or aptitude between the person getting the 770 and the person getting the 800 on, say, the math portion. I also would argue that the 800 says very little about the person’s actual ability.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that the either test is correlated with IQ. The SAT and ACT can be prepared for. Student A may have a higher SAT/ACT score than Student B. But Student A could have prepared intensely to get that score and Student B could have a higher IQ. So in reality, the SAT/ACT scores are only a measure of how well you take the SAT or ACT.</p>