<p>Back in the day the SAT was a legitimate IQ test.</p>
<p>SAT does a poor job distinguishing within the top 1 or so percent of intelligence. But it is usually safe to say someone who gets a 2200 is brighter than someone who gets a 1600.</p>
<p>hobbithill: He didn’t say intelligence determined your grades. Quite the opposite, actually.</p>
<p>Total BS. You can raise your score a ton if you take a look at what they ask and how they ask about a given topic by studying it. Intelligence is not merely memorization.</p>
<p>“SAT does a poor job distinguishing within the top 1 or so percent of intelligence. But it is usually safe to say someone who gets a 2200 is brighter than someone who gets a 1600.”</p>
<p>I concur.</p>
<p>same kellian.</p>
<p>I can see how someone who can solve almost all of the SAT problems is smarter than someone who barely gets more than half, but past 2300 it doesn’t really measure much. Becomes more of a perfection test: The one with the fewest careless errors wins.</p>
<p>Memorization helps with any kind of ingtelligence test. Memorizatoin makes up for intelligence: If you figure out the problems on the SAT without memorizing the test, and you do better than someone who also doesn’t, you both started out on an equal footing.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m an outlier… but to me the SAT is no more an intelligence test then a regular high school exam or an AP test. Both measure learned information under timed circumstances and both can be equally studied for. I really don’t understand how people hold the SAT up as some infallible intelligence test when in reality I find little difference between it and the tests I take normally in class except for the content in which they examine. </p>
<p>My experiences with the test furthers this point. I increased my math score over 100 points the same way I would increase my grade on a calculus exam: by working problems and reviewing topics. I realize that in almost every math problem on the test lies a ‘shortcut’ which usually involves ‘seeing it’ (what you might call intelligence), but even these can be learned or ignored. It is possible to do well (or perfect) on the entire math section by simple math brute force with the aid of a ti89. All in all I really see no evidence that the SAT measures anything other then the limited set of topics the questions ask on. No one would ever say that the SATII US History Test is a measure of intelligence and I view the SATI in the same light.</p>
<p>To the person who said failing a geometry test means that one is “genetically stupid”:
…no. That’s not how intelligence works. If a person knows nothing about geometry but is brilliant, they will still fail the test. It is knowledge based. As someone said previous, crystalline versus fluid intelligence is the key difference. Fluid intelligence is hereditary. Crystalline intelligence is not.</p>
<p>To apyyy:
The SAT is a rough measure of ability, not a perfect one.</p>
<p>My scores went like this: 1940–>2140–>2250 w/ a minimal amount of studying. Much of it was confined to to the week before the test, and I couldn’t really sit still long enough to study much. This might sound weird, but I think it just comes down to the right mindset and a certain amount of concentration. Every time I took the test, I just told myself to concentrate harder and not be a ■■■■■■. I mean, take the USH SAT 2 for example. That’s supposed to be a test that measures knowledge on a given subject. I got a 680 on it my first time, and a month later, I got a 790 with absolutely no studying. My Lit. score also went up from a 620 to a 710 (not an amazing score, but the increase was obtained with no studying). The only difference between the two test dates was my mindset and depth of concentration. However, I won’t dispute the fact that a 2300+ SAT 1/ 35+ ACT would take a bit of studying. Heck, I’m actually sitting down now and trying for that 35.</p>
<p>csokoane: IOQ scores can vary 15 points between each adinistration of the test ( a standard deviation_</p>
<p>What are IOQ scores?</p>
<p>Sure the SAT to some degree measures intelligence, but it’s a damn sucky measure.</p>
<p>As we all know, you can apply certain logarithms to answer certain questions on the SAT. Learn these logarithms, and you’ll pass. If you go in cold and get a good score (we’ll be arbitrary and say 2000 and up), then one can say you’re intelligent based on your SAT score, since you figured out these logarithms all by yourself. However, the relationship between score and intelligence varies inversely with the amount of preparation, since with more preparation the more you’ll know about the logarithms beforehand.</p>
<p>The older SAT was a MUCH better test for intelligence, as it involved things like analogies. The analogies were tough, and required you to find the relationships between words. There isn’t a set logarithm to find “wolf:lamb as hawk:______” (just to come up with a quick example). Plus, there was no such thing as a preparation class back in those days. Most kids went in cold, got their score, and didn’t even retake (or, at least, that’s how it was for all of the adults I’ve talked to about it).</p>
<p>They hardly even use Analgoies anymore on IQ tests. The new Wechsler doesn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you meant algorithms, but anyway, I think that learning how to “beat the test” is overrated in its effectiveness. If the SAT was so easily overcome with memorized algorithms, wouldn’t 2350+ scores be super common? And wouldn’t Princeton Review et al. have marketed these perfect strategies to greater success than they currently have?</p>
<p>But I agree with this for the math section, since 800s are fairly common. But there’s no magic algorithms to memorize to virtually guarantee an 800 on the CR section, so I think the CR section is a better measure of intelligence than the math section.</p>
<p>^ Don’t they curve/normalize the SAT test? That way, there will ALWAYS be very, very few 2300+ scores regardless if a bunch of people memorized algorithms. Those test prep companies make LOADS of money, b/c everyone wants all the little advantages they can get. I think there should be less emphasis on the SAT, it creates too much stress, test perp is VERY expensive, and the focus should be on education and learning (such as creative thinking, thinking deeply about complex matters, learning to organize information/essay writting, etc). Too many people are going crazy over test prep. </p>
<p>To the OP: I don’t agree that intelligence is hereditary. I took the SAT and apparently, I’m rather dumb. If the SAT measures fluid intelligence, then I guess I won’t get far in life! Where is the study about fluid vs. crystalline intelligence, and the study that states that fluid intelligence is hereditary–I REALLY wanna read it!</p>
<p>Brando…There have been literally thousands of studies. THOUSANDS.</p>
<p>Actually according to the fluid/crystalline argument, MORE people can get higher scores on math b/c math can be learned, whereas the lower CR scores can be attributed to differences in the people’s ability to innately reason out the answers.</p>
<p>Edit: LOL, I’m not a psychologist! I’m an engineer!</p>
<p>^ No, bc the SAT math is still not purely content based. It requires logic and reasoning, more so than SAT II Math, ACT Math, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you deny that intelligence has at least SOME hereditary component, then you are likely too stupid to reason with. Thanks for the sentiment, though–it was eloquently expressed.</p>
<p>To other, more coherent posters: </p>
<p>I will agree that the SAT essay is pretty poorly designed and graded. The Writing section, and the essay in particular, is likely the least indicative of intelligence (of the three sections). </p>
<p>Also keep in mind that nobody is claiming that a 2180 scorer is undoubtedly more intelligent than, say, a 2120 scorer (although if you had to place a bet, let’s be honest, who would you choose?). The SAT is a pretty blunt metric–particularly at the higher ranges of scores. </p>
<p>Additionally, nobody is denying that prep affects one’s score. My point was simply that huge score increases have been statistically shown to be extremely rare–anecdotes be damned. Such increases happen, but tend to be the result of the type of intensive test preparation that doesn’t happen outside the 0.01% of college-obsessed high schoolers that post on CC. </p>
<p>To the people with SERIOUS test anxiety issues: I’m on your side! I’ve struggled with the anxiety thing myself from time to time. I was saying that you are some of the very few people who have a legitimate claim to saying they are “bad test takers”–you are the people who have scores that are not necessarily indicative of intelligence. Although to be fair, you will be facing pressured, high-stakes situations for the rest of your life in the work world…perhaps it is fair for inability to perform under pressure to be reflected in somebody’s SAT score? Just food for thought. Keep in mind that I’ve struggled with this myself. I am not picking on you. </p>
<p>As for the “logarithms” (?) that easily let you master the SAT: if you had not already figured out concepts like process of elimination, don’t pick the politically incorrect/inflammatory answer, etc. by 11th grade, you won’t be scoring high on the SAT anyway. If the Princeton Review’s “tricks” were really revolutionary, SAT prep classes would boost scores by more than 20 points.</p>