<p>IQ tests measure one’s ability. However, the potential for that individual may be higher. There is most certainly a strong correlation, because what would be the consequence if it wasn’t true? It would mean that people with high IQs would be no more likely to do well on the SAT. This is not the case, Look at anyone who has an above average IQ, and they almost always have an above average SAT.</p>
<p>There isn’t very much correlation between the two. One is an entrance exam, the other a measure of one’s innate abilities.</p>
<p>
This. And the samples used aren’t a good indicator either.</p>
<p>
Not true.</p>
<p>I believe the analogies section of the old SAT was for all practical purposes an IQ test and I think there was little, if any, cultural bias in the questions asked. With the elimination of the analogies section the verbal SAT is much less of a test of pure intelligence than it used to be.</p>
<p>The SAT is NOT an IQ test, it can be studied for, if studied for in the right way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I indicated, any test can be studied for.</p>
<p>^ Wrd, but I also at the same time think that there is no College GPA and SAT correlation.</p>
<p>^ There is, though.</p>
<p>The results of my children’s IQ testing and SAT scores are the exact opposite of this. Child #1 scored in the upper 1400’s/1600(8 yrs ago, can’t remember exact score). Child #2 scored in the upper 1200’s/1600. Child #2 has an IQ that has consistently measured 10+ points higher than child #1. Both kids are in the 99th percentile and both went through a full battery of educational testing three times prior to high school. I believe that the difference in SAT scores has to do with exposure to standardized testing. Child #1 was in a college prep school and took standardized tests every year beginning in first grade. Child #2 was homeschooled until high school and only took two standardized tests prior to ninth grade. Both kids took the SAT with no prep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your sample size is not very large. :)</p>
<p>Absolutely anectdotal, but based on the scale in the first post, child #2 should have scored 1600/2400!</p>
<p>^ Yeah, that scale seems skewed to me. Moreover, the correlation is not strong enough to warrant a straight conversion.</p>
<p>I think the first SAT practice test you take without any studying is a good indicator of your IQ. Granted, you have to take your age into consideration, but overall a 15 year old person with an IQ of 125+ would NOT get lower than 1600 on the SAT.
I reckon the math and critical section (excluding vocab) indicate your level of intelligence.</p>
<p>Half a year ago, when I was 14 1/2, I took an SAT practice test and scored 1960 (680W, 660M, 620CR). I have an IQ of 132 though (I was tested when I was 5)…so I reckon with a bit of preparation I’ll be able to score 2200+ in my junior year.</p>
<p>There’s some correlation, but its not just IQ.</p>
<p>It’s also a money test. People who have more money and can afford more tutoring/prep are going to get better scores. Does that mean their IQ is higher? No way.</p>
<p>The SAT can be studied for, it is not an IQ test, and anyone mentally capable can do well on this test.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Preparatory courses are not an effective way of preparing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IQ tests can also be studied for, as I have repeatedly pointed out.</p>
<p>Of course, many tests that are intended to measure things that one should not be able to improve by study can be studied for. Prospective pilots have memorized colorblindness tests, for example.
Good IQ tests are difficult to study for because the details are kept secret. I know about some of the material on a couple of the commonly used tests because the tester told me about a couple of interesting results when my son was tested. I would never talk about those details with anyone.
IQ tests cover areas that are not covered by the SATs (particularly since the analogies are gone).</p>