<p>Wow, I didn't think Bush could have scored that high.</p>
<p>Nah, Bush is a moderately intelligent guy. He's just nowhere NEAR intelligent enough to do his job.</p>
<p>shopoholic: sounds like some mad grade inflation there, which is a major reason why the SAT is valuable.</p>
<p>yeah Bush is a pretty smart guy.</p>
<p>also: I'm sick of the nepotism arguement about Bush becomeing president...that's what it takes to become president--money and connections. it's not Bush's fault that he was born with this things and did not have to work for them (or in Kerry's case, marry for them). but, in general, idk why we're even discussing Bush in this thread. An isolated example means nothing.</p>
<p>yea i no im above average on a whole compared to college bound students but compared to cc standards im below average ...and i don't want to attend an overly prestigious school ....a state university is fine for me</p>
<p>this is ****.
SAT doesn't measure anything. if you say SAT measures how you concentrate and do problem solving, i can say the same thing for AMC and other math competitions. They don't require much knowledge about the subject unless you want to score near a perfect score. I wouldn't laugh at your face and tell you to deal with it when real problem solving skills are replaced with SAT.</p>
<p>I don't think the SAT counts like it used to. I got 2310, but it seems lots of people on this forum do as well, not so much because they are just that smart, but because they study for months for it. I didn't study at all and took it once. I think you should only be able to take it once. But I have something to gain from that; I might be biased ;).</p>
<p>Dark Ruler, there's definately no more than 5,000 2300's in the country. I wouldn't worry too much about it.</p>
<p>Yeah, I guess CC is somewhat decieving. Either way, I don't really think the SAT and an IQ test are comparable.</p>
<p>The SAT is wonderful because it measures your actual intelligence! If you have a 5.0 GPA but a 1600 SAT, it means you can work hard, but are not very smart. I know plenty of people with GPA's much better than my own, but who are not NEARLY as intelligent as myself. I go to a competitive high school and have a 3.3 GPA (very low.) Guess my SAT. 1600? 1800? Guess again. Try 2100. SAT = IQ. GPA doesn't.</p>
<p>I have a 3.6 GPA and a 34 ACT. I'm barely in the top 20% at my school, because of grade inflaters (rank is UW), but they're all getting 1200's. Good job doing nothing but work for three years and getting owned on standardized tests! =D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeaaaaaaaaaah right. I can name ten 2300ers at my school off the top of my head, and more if I sat down thought about it. A 2300 is not in the 99.6 percentile, no matter how much you want it to be.</p>
<p>Yea, standardized test measures intelligence but for many fields intelligence is only half the battle. Many require creativity, social skills, and certain abilities that standardized tests cannot test.</p>
<p>Ex) architecture, engineering, law, business, - you could be the smartest man in the world 2400 sat and still be a terrible lawyer</p>
<p>when it comes to these important skills that can't be measured through standarized testing it is unfair that an average SAT score ruins a very natural gifted persons chances.</p>
<p>I have 3.5~3.8 GPA... 1300s on the SATs..</p>
<p>f**k SATs...</p>
<p>It's sad how some on this forum limit their IQ to their SAT scores...</p>
<p>Octalode seems to think that he can argue with statistics... Either he goes to an extremely selective private school, or he goes to a school where people enjoy lying about their scores.</p>
<p>Combination. He goes to a competitive public school, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few kids "round" their scores when sharing. On the other hand, I go there too and for the most part, I agree w/ him.</p>
<p>The SAT has never been correlated to IQ, that I know of. Alleging a correlation doesn't create one.</p>
<p>There is a correlation (although surprisingly weak) to how one does in college. The ACT has the same correlation, even though people claim it isn't "an intelligence test like the SAT." Further, some people do better on the SAT, some on the ACT, and some do equally well on both.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think it pointless to get into arguments about "intelligence" when there is no common, accepted definition. There are those who say that IQ is nothing more than the ability to do well on IQ tests. This gets defined as intelligence -- it isn't as if people had a definition and could validate the IQ test by comparing scores to people of "known intelligence." Plus, my daughter's IQ scores went up over the years and this is theoretically impossible -- I just reached the point of thinking the tests just measure where you are, not what your potential is.</p>
<p>Grades can reflect hard work, but also native ability. Standardized test scores can reflect native ability, but also work at learning certain subjects.</p>
<p>SATs also depend on your education and how rigorous your school is. For example, I never learned grammar from my school. That's why I got a pitiful 57 on my PSAT writing.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm</a>
This is a chart that supposedly correlates IQ and SAT. Don't think I buy it as for my kids scores it didn't match their tested IQs.<br>
It seems that back in the "dark ages" when I took the SAT no one prepared for it, you just walked in cold and took the test (that's the way my kids took it too). Now though people spend mega bucks and lots of study time to prepare (results artificially inflated?).</p>
<p>GPA matters most..</p>