<p>@darthcat: The SAT critical reading is more based on thinking capability than the ACT reading, but the math sections both rely on prior knowledge. No matter how smart you are, if you don’t know the concepts, you’re screwed. Also, you don’t need to know anything for the ACT science, but it helps.</p>
<p>IQ doesn’t determine someone’s talent, but I have to admit it determines intelligence.
Sometimes, or always IQ could be very good tool to study or do other stuff.
What I really want to say is that I know people who got 100% on every single ACT tests and got 2400 on SAT. And his IQ was 114. I think we don’t have to think about if iq affects the ACT or SAT. The thing really matter is how much we try, isn’t it? I don’t think practices and studying couldn’t pass SAT.</p>
<p>mainly based on hardworking</p>
<p>The SAT is not too clear of an intelligence indication. The math and essay part of the examination definitely do have a strong correlation to smarts. However, the English sections - not so much. It really mainly tests the test takers knowledge of many uncommon vocabulary words.</p>
<p>I agree with other people in the thread. The SAT tests how well you prepared for the SAT.</p>
<p>I find considering either one to even resemble an IQ test is ridiculous. </p>
<p>They all preparation based, but if I had to choose I’d definitely say SAT.</p>
<p>Honestly, I believe the SAT has more to do with IQ. It’s pretty well known that Collegeboard is out to trick you on the SAT, at least that’s what most of the SAT prep courses claim. Otherwise, why is there so much hype for “SAT secrets” and “strategies to beat the test”? </p>
<p>On the other hand, the ACT generally tests more of your knowledge, which is why some kids always score higher on the ACT than the SAT no matter how much they prep.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, IMO neither test is great for overall IQ. If you want something more comprehensive, consider the Stanford Binet or one of the MENSA approved tests.</p>
<p>Someone mentioned marilyn vos savant.
No offense to anyone who looks up to her or anything…but really, all she did was take a test.
And that’s really all the SATs is – just a test. </p>
<p>A person can be extremely intelligent, and brilliant, and whatever…but what’s the point of learning and practicing when you do absolutely nothing with it? </p>
<p>All the great people in history were not remembered because they did well on tests, but because they did great things. </p>
<p>To me, Marily Vos Savant is simply a really good test-taker and nothing more. She’s certainly not worthy of being quoted. </p>
<p>Anyway, yeah, quick rant. I apologise if I’ve offended anyone.</p>
<p>But yeah,the point is…if you do poorly on the SATs or whatever standardize tests, don’t beat yourself up over it. Marilyn vos Savant outscore Einstein on the IQ test, but he was the one who discovered mass vs energy and all she will be known for is a half page in a book.</p>
<p>More people think the SAT has to do with IQ because the SAT tends to feature “trickier questions” where figuring out what the question is asking can actually be the problem. The Collegeboard actually vehemently denies this and wants us to believe that the SAT measures the same skills that we learn in classrooms – clearly not true. </p>
<p>The ACT on the other hand has actually been shown to be more of what is learned in classrooms, and “responds” better to practice. Essentially, it is more productive to study for the ACT because it truly does measure classroom learning, and at a higher level (including precalculus, science reasoning, complex punctuation etc.) more so than does the SAT. Plus, ACT timing is very different and it works more like the Welschler IQ scale, nobody knows if that actually has any effect.</p>
<p>My point is that I think the ACT has better predictive validity for your performance in college than the SAT, which may be a better measure of g or fluid intelligence.</p>
<p>For the record I have some numbers from a page I found on the internet titled something like psychology assessment. It showed an estimated correlation, not equivalency, between academic level, ACT, SAT and various IQ scales such as WAIS. I have some of the old ACT correlations below. </p>
<p>Average high school graduate ACT 19, IQ 104.<br>
Average college graduate: ACT 23, IQ 115.<br>
Average MD & PhD: ACT 27, IQ 125.<br>
MENSA minimum: ACT 29, IQ 131.<br>
Poetic genius: ACT 32, IQ 139.</p>
<p>Old school intelligence theory was that vocabulary was closely linked to “g,” some sort of core intelligence, hence the heavy emphasis on vocabulary on the SAT (and if you think this is bad, you should have seen what it was like back when I took it in the olden days–antonyms AND analogies AND sentence completions). The vocabulary part of the Wechsler is still considered closer to a pure measure of intelligence than some of the other subtests. What intelligence actually is is another story.</p>
<p>“Well of course they aren’t perfect predictors, but IQ isn’t really a perfect indicator of intelligence, either.”</p>
<p>Good point.</p>
<p>Can you raise your SAT with studying? Hell yes.</p>
<p>Therefor it’s not correlated to IQ.</p>
<p>Bass guitar, you can increase your IQ through different means.</p>
<p>and btw, none of the tests correlate in anyway with IQ. A person which doesn’t have English as his first language will score less then the guy who has it as his first language (in 1st attempt). </p>
<p>I scored a 650CR, 660W. 790M, 800MIIC, 800Phy, that doesn’t make me an idiot, does it?</p>
<p>ACT tests a bit more on curriculum while the SAT tests your problem solving abilities. BOTH can be improved with preparation, so NEITHER are indicators of IQ</p>
<p>BOTH can be improved with preparation, so NEITHER are indicators of IQ</p>
<hr>
<p>faulty reasoning + doesn’t answer </p>
<p>Definitely the most g-loaded (g-loaded means “IQ measuring” basically) test item ever on the SAT was the analogies in the verbal section, which they dumped in 2005. But even those were somewhat flawed as IQ measurements because they relied on pretty advanced English vocabulary knowledge to a large extent (which can be memorized from vocab lists of course).</p>
<p>Just a data point, but my SAT combined score was in the 99th percentile, my ACT composite score was in the 98th percentile, but my official WAIS IQ (test was given by a psychologist in her office when I was 18 years old, less than a year after taking my college entrance tests) was only at the 90th percentile of the general population. The difference? I had prepped for years for the SAT and ACT but no prep for the IQ test. Your SAT or ACT score may significantly overstate or understate your real intelligence. </p>
<p>@cloudeleven “real intelligence” what the hell is that haha? it seems that you’re implying the “wais iq” is the indicator of “real intelligence” lol</p>
<p>anyways … the op asked which test was more correlated. the obvious answer is SAT. </p>
<p>is the sat the same as the “WAIS IQ”? of course not … that’s pretty evident. also, do you mind sharing why you went to get your iq officially tested? im just curious as to why people take them. </p>