<p>Exactly. Also, I’m not sure how accurate this is, but the SAT is endorsed like crazy. It seems like a money-grab.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I do hear the SAT and IQ correlate and they both do test on how quickly you can move information in your brain and put logical answers on paper. However, for the SAT, you need previous knowledge of algebra, geometry, and vocabulary. It’s not pure logic. Sadly, all I was doing was regurgitating information, hardly processing, and I received a decent score nonetheless. Technically, Stanford- Binet IQ tests are only meant to test how quickly one can move information around and process statements, not prerequisite knowledge. </p>
<p>It seems that even the IQ test doesn’t even test intelligence accurately. How do you think this could be improved?</p>
<p>IQ tests are founded on a bad concept. And in the end, you can’f test intelligence without also testing at least a little prerequisite knowledge.</p>
<p>I think that there is some correlation between IQ and SAT/ACT, especially for the SAT math section. All of the formulas needed to solve the problems are already provided at the beginning of the section, and the test-taker just needs to apply it. Also unlike the reading and writing sections, it is rather difficult to coach the math section, as this would require practicing every single type of question that could be encountered.</p>
<p>However, the correlation between IQ and success is another story. In my opinion, there is a threshold above which IQ matters less than other variables such as perseverance. For example, while a person with an IQ of 60 would likely be less “successful” than a person with an IQ of 100, there would be less correlation in people with IQs of 120 vs people with IQs of 160.</p>
<p>As the Princeton Review so wisely said, the SAT tests your “aptitude for taking aptitude tests.” In other words, it tests your test taking skills and your ability to avoid those tricky math traps. This is usually the type of test that gifted slackers (not an oxymoron) like me favor.
If you know your material, and haven’t memorized the equations for trig identities without having a clue what they mean, then the ACT is the test for you.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s an IQ test, but what it truly is: an “aptitude” test. The timing on the SAT/ACT doesn’t support the statement that it can be an IQ test… However, I’ve taken both, and if I HAD to choose one, it’d be the SAT.</p>
<p>The tests are different. SAT is closer to the IQ test but neither is better/harder unless you specifcally learn a certain way. For me I like the ACT because I can’t stand skipping questions</p>
<p>You all keep mentioning crap about the time it takes to finish a test and how higher iq people who read slowly won’t be able to do as well, but that’s ********, because computational speed is taken into account with IQ. Given two years the majority of people could get a perfect on the SAT by guess and check, figure out the words by listing out their entire vocabulary and looking for patterns, and figure out the grammar with logic. </p>
<p>The SAT test though is not a perfect indicator of IQ, as many of the things tested are memory, like word knowledge and grammar, which of course can be helped by having a high IQ but any average joe can memorize the dictionary if he really studies his ass off. </p>
<p>The math is probably the only section that indicates anything, but again IQ is innate and not learned, so testing things that can be learned over time is not perfect. </p>
<p>I scored a 740 on the math, a 710 on the reading, and a 630 on the grammar, and my Iq is clinically tested to be in the range of 147-163 (after higher numbers inconsistencies show up). My scores are not that great, but I haven’t taken an English or a math class in four years. My friend did better than me on the grammar but worse on the math section. </p>
<p>On the ACT the only section that really tests aptitude is the science section. People always say it has no science, but it does. It’s testing your ability to work with new data, which is science. Remembering a bunch of equations and theorems is not science. I got a 35 on the science section, and low thirties and high twenties on the rest of the test. Compare it to my IQ and lack of education, I find it has the highest correlation to IQ. I’ve noticed similar trends among my friends as well.</p>
<p>The math section’s just as bad as the worst of them. All you have to do is learn the types of questions the SAT asks and the basic way to solve them. :/</p>
<p>I took both SAT and ACT practice tests and in my opinion SAT is more of an IQ test. They give you tricky questions, while ACT is more of a practical test. However the ACT contains the science section, which requires knowledge. Thus SAT is closer to an IQ test rather than ACT.</p>
<p>The ACT is just a bad test all around. The ACT is primarily a test of speed. While speed is a factor in IQ, it’s just way overemphasized on the ACT. The ACT science, and the ACT in general, would be better if they presented harder questions with more time allowed.</p>
<p>The ACT is NOT an achievement test. The science section doesn’t test science. The math section may test a little more advanced content than SAT, but not much. The ACT will often give the equations you need for so called knowledge based questions. The English section doesn’t test grammar any more than SAT writing. The reading section is all based on the passages just like SAT critical reading. </p>
<p>The SAT subject tests are achievement tests, except maybe the literature and math 1 tests, which are fairly ability oriented. </p>
<p>There are actually fewer 36s than 2400s. And while you don’t have to get all 36s to average 36, you don’t have to get a perfect raw score to get 800. The ACT sections usually demand a perfect raw.</p>
<p>I’ve never taken the ACT, but I am considered a gifted student. I think people need to draw the line between analytically gifted and language gifted. I’m really bad at math. I don’t see math. I don’t get math. But I’ve been reading chapter books since I was a year and a half old. I had an early grasp on language and it’s still considered advanced. The SAT Reading and Writing sections are really easy for me whereas I had to prepare for weeks just to do semi-well in Math.</p>
<p>I agree that the ACT science can be ridiculous for students who haven’t bought a prep book or course. I think the perfect test would be the SAT Critical reading (minus sentence completions, although the passages should have relatively advanced vocab), the ACT math with a bit more trig and possibly calculus, and an optional 35 minute essay. The ACT’s “block” sections should be divided, too. And more focus should be given to the APs to adjust for the shorter test. My reasoning is that this would make memorizing long lists of vocab words unneeded. Most students would forget them by the week after the test. The ACT should test more advanced high school math- many Ivy League aspiring students take calculus by senior year. And shorter sections will make easily distracted students do better.</p>
<p>Basicaly ACT tests on book smart meaninag how a person has perfected their mind through learning and Sat is based on how much brains you were born with.</p>
<p>Not necessarily… Would you say that SAT vocab tests “how much brains” you were born with? But the CR passages tend to be more interpretation-based.</p>
<p>I always believed that the SAT somehow did test inherent intelligence, since I underperformed in high school (back in 1980), due to the lure of nonacademic pursuits but got almost 1550/1600 on the SAT, and 780/790 on SAT II (we called them achievements back then). I def had an East Coast Ivy bias, coming from a family for whom college pedigrees mattered (I did attend an Ivy, though not the most fabulous by a long shot, yeah that one) and I thought the ACT was a second cousin for less rigorously educated kids from the rest of the country. (Ugh, hard to admit now, but true…)
Now, looking at the results of my own kids, I believe the guidebooks which say that the SAT only tests your ability to take the SAT. Child One is a junior: super duper all around scholar, straight A+'s, 4 AP’s every year plus 2 foreign languages, blah blah, strong music, strong EC’s, varsity athlete, the usual (mention sports etc. because time consuming and preclude test prep). She got 780 CR/ 690 M/ 760 W on her first try w no tutoring or prep help. But if the test was a test of aptitude she should have done equally well in math as in the language based sections. Next child is a sophomore: not such a high achiever in school but a more glib facile mind, quick learner but doesn’t retain as much and doesn’t learn as deeply as her sister. She got perfect scores on her SSAT (for private school admissions) and perfect PSAT’s except math (again, she got around 700). My guess is with some preparation and understanding of the format/expectations/question types etc. of the SAT math, either child could bring up those math scores, (and I hope they do!). But I really can’t see what is being tested besides test taking skill except maybe their grammar and active vocabulary, developed by lots of reading for fun and conversing with adults. And as others have said, if you can bring your score up significantly, enough so that it matters for college admissions, it can’t possibly be testing intelligence or aptitude! And no question but that those high income kids (of any race) who have time a/o resources for test prep will be privileged in admissions process when that input is reflected in higher scores.</p>
<p>Interestingly, when we recently had a long meeting with the college counselor at my kids small private school (he was admissions guy at prestigious LAC for 10 years before switching to current role), he suggested child #1 focus on the ACT which is coming up soon (actually they have to take both SAT and ACT at their school before retaking whichever seems to fit better). This is what he said: “about 25% of our students do better on the ACT and they tend to be students like (child one). High achievers, well rounded, I call them renaissance scholars.” Apparently it’s easier to prep for the SAT because of availability of old tests, so high scorers on SAT (esp those who take it multiple times) may well be demonstrating diligence and work ethic, rather than intelligence. Anyway, it’s all a necessary evil, clearly imperfect but here to stay. Hopefully our students are not feeling evaluated in any real way by these tests and understand all the myriad variables that create intelligence which can’t be tested for.<br>
This was an incredibly rambling post with no apparent point but I’m hitting send anyway :). @SerenityJade: you “fare” well or poorly not “fair”. Since you made the same mistake twice, I thought I’d point it out so you don’t do that where it matters :)</p>
<p>In my opinion, you can learn how to take these tests and how to get a perfect/really high score, so while perhaps the SAT is closely related to your IQ, your IQ does not solely determine whether you’ll be successful or not, be it in the college process or in your future career.</p>
<p>SAT is more closely linked to IQ, ACT u need to know some scientific ‘knowledge’ whereas the SAT you could do if you had the thinking capability.</p>
but got almost 1550/1600 on the SAT, and 780/790 on SAT II (we called them achievements back then). I def had an East Coast Ivy bias, coming from a family for whom college pedigrees mattered (I did attend an Ivy, though not the most fabulous by a long shot, yeah that one) and I thought the ACT was a second cousin for less rigorously educated kids from the rest of the country. (Ugh, hard to admit now, but true…)