<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t agree with this. Brilliance determination in IQ testing usually requires superior processing speed; at least the WISC III has a time component. The ACT is the more time-limited test. While it’s true that the SAT has more convoluted questions, it’s rare these days for a student to go into this test with absolutely no idea what to expect – in other words, the style of questions can be learned over time by practice until “translation” into ordinary English becomes automatic. Thus, it seems to me that a “diligent grinder” with previous practice experience should do better on the SAT, given the greater per-question time allowance.</p>
<p>Perhaps I can offer some insight into the thought processes of these “brilliant” students, since I happen to have two sons who each tested in the 150-160 IQ range; the younger one got a 36.0 ACT this year at his first sitting, while the older one got a 35 ACT, but at the age of 13 (he graduated high school at 14). </p>
<p>In the case of my younger son, we would sometimes, for fun, look over the explanations in test prep books and come up with faster solutions. He would look at the entire problem holistically, including the answers. The traditional solution to a given math problem might be a 7-step process, but he would immediately be able to eliminate several of the answers as being out of the possible range or of having “strange components” (“no way you can end up with a square root of 3 element in the numerator”). That might leave two answers only differing by a + or - sign, so he would just do enough to determine the correct sign. One of the non-obvious keys to taking these tests is that you rarely need to actually SOLVE the problems (you already HAVE the answer!), you only need to eliminate the wrong answers.</p>
<p>There are plenty of “backdoor” solutions to these types of problems which typically cannot be taught because they are highly dependent on the specifics of the individual problem and the provided possible answers. The benefit of pulling a solution to a 4-minute problem in 12 seconds is that it gives you a solid block of time to seriously consider the 1-3 ringer questions toward the end and get them right, time after time.</p>
<p>While the non-math sections don’t yield quite as much of an edge, the idea of looking at the problem holistically and attacking a question from multiple perspectives simultaneously amounts to a strong advantage for the exceptional child under tight time constraints. If you reduce the time constraint, however, you also reduce the exceptional child’s biggest advantage over the “diligent grinder.”</p>