<p>The link below needs some updating, but it leads to some very good research literature about IQ testing: </p>
<p>Books</a> on IQ Tests and Human Intelligence (Learn in Freedom)</p>
<p>
[quote]
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)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No you wouldn't, because IQ tests don't accurately test "innate intelligence" either.</p>
<p>There can be quite a lot of variance between the scores of a test-taker on one IQ test and on another. Several of the books in the bibliography I already linked to </p>
<p>Books</a> on IQ Tests and Human Intelligence (Learn in Freedom) </p>
<p>give references to this phenomenon. If we want to be scientific about this, we don't replace observing by expecting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I got a 168 IQ, but only a 1240 on the SAT currently.
[/quote]
er, out of 2400?</p>
<p>
[quote]
because IQ tests don't accurately test "innate intelligence" either.
[/quote]
does a lot more than SATs do.</p>
<p>Although this doesnt seem like a <em>terrible</em> idea considering that your GPA tells colleges how hard you work and your IQ would tell colleges how smart your are--both important things they want to know and value. With the SAT and GAP system, all they can do is try to guess.</p>
<p>I agree that no test, SAT or IQ, tests intelligence (innate or otherwise) perfectly. And many professionals have acknowledged that IQ tests are definitely not the best way to measure someone's capacity to learn- those tests don't take into account the multiple intelligences, etc. A LOT of things wrong with both tests.</p>
<p>And SAT requires math classes to do well on- you can't take it as a small child and do well because you haven't learned geometry. IQ tests can be administered to small children (not the same type an adult would be given) and the child still can get the score that they'll get in another 20 years. I'd say that's the biggest difference between the SAT and IQ tests- IQ is supposed to test innate intelligence, while SATs don't.</p>
<p>IQ scores vary over the course of childhood and vary as between childhood ages and adult ages--there are whole books on that subject.</p>
<p>SATs both are and aren't intelligence tests. They are in that, if you're comparing appreciably different scores (ie 2300 vs 1700), there is more or less a strong correlation between score and intelligence. They aren't in that you can train yourself to score high on the SAT. I had the highest score in my graduating high school class, but I could easily name at least ten people who were clearly more intelligent than I was.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I got a 168 IQ, but only a 1240 on the SAT currently.
[quote]
er, out of 2400?
[/quote]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>hahaha no, out of 1600. I got 640M 600CR 660W = 1900/2400
We don't use the writing section in Florida, so I just discount it.</p>
<p>thats still pretty low when you consider your iq level...</p>
<p>sorry if i'm repeating but IQ tests are not a judgement of intelligence. IQ tests definitely measure something, but there is no IQ test on earth that can truly accurately judge intelligence. imagine someone from an isolated tribe in africa taking the same IQ test as your typical white middle class person in the US, if they were of the same intelligence you'd expect them to get the same score but that doesn't happen. the questions in IQ tests are designed for the type of people who have been conditioned to taking tests. IQ tests measure something, but you can't call that intelligence.</p>
<p>damn furyshade, you should write a book.</p>
<p>^i agree. they measure the intelligence of someone who grew up in the same environment as the person who made the test, but nothing past that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
IQ tests definitely measure something
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, there is a whole book by a scholar who doubts exactly that. That is, he thinks IQ scores are best not considered "measurements." </p>
<p>A lot of psychologists who make a living by giving IQ tests are upset by this point of view, but the book is well worth reading and thinking about.</p>
<p>Sligh_ Anarchist: actually, people do ask me that all the time! I just can't answer 'cause I've never taken an IQ test.</p>
<p>My brother received a 176 iq on the old Stanford Binet in the 1960's. He always did terribly on SAT tests (like ~1100) because of his dyslexia. He was determined to become a doctor however. He got into one bottom-rung med school (of the 29 he applied to because of family pull) with middling MCATS (equivalent to his SATs). At graduation, after only 4 years, he received both a medical degree and a PhD in biochemistry. He is now a full professor at Yale Medical in charge of a department where he oversees 20 doctors (not including residents and interns). He has testified to Congress, presented his research all over the world, etc. </p>
<p>Anyway, my point is that IQ scores do give some information that can be a predictor of brain-power where at least dyslexia is an issue. I imagine ADD would prove to have the same negative effects on SATs vs IQ tests.</p>
<p>An interesting perspective related to this discussion is provided in this fascinating 2001 article from the New Yorker...</p>
<p>gladwell</a> dot com - examined life</p>
<p>...which discusses the early use of SAT tests as a supposed way of "separating ambition from brains" and how Stanley Kaplan (yes, THAT Stanley Kaplan) turned that concept upside down by demonstrating the coachability of the SAT.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link to the article mentioning Stanley Kaplan. I had forgotten that Gladwell wrote that.</p>