<p>They both judge innate intelligence. Are they really different kinds of innate intelligence?</p>
<p>They most definitely do not judge "innate intelligence", and I'm not sure where you got that idea.</p>
<p>The SAT doesn't judge innate intelligence. If it did, you'd expect people of equal IQ to score similarly (within 30 points either way). Unsurprisingly, they don't (necessarily). The only reason the SAT is still used is because it's universal (whereas there are many types of IQ tests)and expected. High schools no longer routinely subject students to IQ tests. Interestingly, early applications for admission (at least to JHU) requested IQ score.</p>
<p>lol the SAT is an achievement test. what are you talking about. I got a 168 IQ, but only a 1240 on the SAT currently.</p>
<p>The SAT doesn't measure IQ. I think it more measures how much experience you have reasoning things out in the context of an academic setting. For example, many of the words on SAT I can not define, but I have a feeling for what they mean because I've seen them in reading, and I could use my prior experience with them to choose the right word on vocab sections. The reading selections mainly test your ability to judge an author's meaning and purpose in a passage - a skill that comes with having experience writing and, not surprisingly, reading! The math section may be closer to testing "IQ", but it too tests algebraic and geometric concepts that are recognizable and that make sense depending on one's experience with SAT-type math. And the writing section, at least the multiple choice, pretty much entirely tests knowledge of a set of English grammatical rules - which is not IQ. Basically, I think the SAT tests a) one's ability to focus through a 4-hour test (which is actually a skill useful to college preparation, I think, despite what people may say about this being silly - my friends in college have 4-hour tests several times every semester, and some much longer...), b) one's ability to gain meaning from reading based on prior experience and reasoning ability, and c) one's ability to use logic quickly in (usually) fundamental mathematical concepts. These are somewhat similar to, but certainly not identical to, IQ, which depends less on prior exposure to specific topics, knowledge of English grammatical structure, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I got a 168 IQ, but only a 1240 on the SAT currently.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Get retested.</p>
<p>The SAT is less expensive to administer, and provides almost the same information. </p>
<p>There is a large literature on rank-order correlations of scores on the SAT and on various brands of IQ tests. </p>
<p>SAT</a> IQ correlation validity- Google Search </p>
<p>Some of the Web links on this issue are lousy, and miss important issues, but if one reads the primary research literature (as I have, in dead-tree books and articles in a major research library), it is clear that the reason the SAT is preferred to IQ tests for college admission is primarily </p>
<p>a) administrative convenience, </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>b) a richer research base of specific validation studies.</p>
<p>The SAT isn't an achievement test, unless you count Alg II as "achievement"</p>
<p>It's more of a great equalizer, imo. You can't standardize school curriculums, but you can with the SAT.</p>
<p>Here is my theory:</p>
<p>You can score high if:
1) You are smart (innately) but not "that" well educated (for example if you go to a poor public school.</p>
<p>2) You are of average IQ (slightly above or slightly below) but are well educated (rich private bording School)</p>
<p>3) You have both (high IQ and Are well educated)...probably most of the people who score perfect (but certainly not all)...</p>
<p>yeah, that's my theory...good bye.</p>
<p>I don't think anybody in the real world gives a damn about your IQ unless you are incredibly brilliant. In fact, I don't think anyone in school does either. I mean, seriously. Do your classmates come up to you and say, "Yo, what did you get on your last IQ test?" No. They don't.</p>
<p>I think the ACT is definitely a better college admission test than the SAT. At least it doesn't test pointless vocabulary. :P</p>
<p>For more fun reading on just how stupid it is to require the SAT (or even the ACT) for college admissions, visit</p>
<p>The</a> National Center for Fair & Open Testing | FairTest</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
Quote:
I got a 168 IQ, but only a 1240 on the SAT currently.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Get retested.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Get retested on which (SAT or IQ)?
It was the Stanford-Binet test btw.</p>
<p>I know that I can bring up my SAT, but I really haven't learned anything important during high school (to warrant getting a good score in the first place). I have been extremely lazy and don't really seem to care much. I took the SAT for the Duke talent search and got a 1290 in 7th grade, so this just goes to show you that I become stupid ever since I went into high school. I also find it difficult to concentrate during long periods of time which probably attributes to my poor score. I am just saying this to show that IQ and SAT score are not always correlated. If College admissions were based on IQ, I would probably be going to HYP next year :P</p>
<p>I imagine he meant get your IQ retested. I assume you didn't use one of those online IQ tests (worthless), but the only valid IQ tests are those administered by a professional psychologist. A Stanford-Binet, with a mean 100 and a standard deviation of 15 means a random person would have a .0000029 chance of getting that high a score. That's almost one in 350,000. Theoretically, there are less than 1000 of those people in the United States. Quite frankly, the odds of someone having that high an IQ score are very low (at the very least it a cause for the skepticism Duper expressed), let alone with that SAT score.</p>
<p>The Stanford-Binet IQ test that yields scores that high is obsolete. (See the Buros review from the 1970s.) There isn't a good webpage on this subject--I may have to post one myself.</p>
<p>Although there is generally a strong correlation between the score one receives on the SAT and the score one receives on a professionally-administered IQ test, there are significant differences between the two. Most notably, it is possible to prepare oneself for the SAT by studying, as many of the concepts that can be tested are well-defined (vocabulary, algebra I, probability, etc.) whereas it is impossible to prepare for an IQ test in a like manner. Most American colleges don't value intelligence so much, but rather ambition -- that's why extra-curricular activities play a role in the admissions process. Consequently, an IQ test cannot be used in lieu of the SAT as it fails to gauge a quality that is important to many colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
whereas it is impossible to prepare for an IQ test in a like manner
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is very possible to prepare for IQ tests.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
It is very possible to prepare for IQ tests.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>It is inherent in the nature of an IQ test that it is impossible to prepare for. The quality that it (purportedly) measures is an intrinsic characteristic of a particular individual; thus, one's IQ cannot be altered by studying. Granted, not all IQ tests are valid predictors of innate intelligence; however, a viable IQ test measures abstract reasoning ability. While no test that can perfectly measure one's IQ has yet been devised, several come close. For such a test, no amount of preparation can help. If it can be prepared for, it does not measure IQ -- it's as simple as that.</p>
<p>An entire paragraph devoted to expressing something that can be summed up in one sentence...</p>