<p>My and my sister’s SAT scores correlated well to IQ. Her IQ was tested at 121 (~90th percentile), and she always scored around the 85-90th percentile on standardized tests. </p>
<p>My IQ was tested at 153 (~99.95th percentile), and my SAT score was the 99.6th percentile among college-bound seniors when I took it with no preparation as a freshman.</p>
<p>Of course, my sample size isn’t meaningful. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, so now even school is based on IQ too, so what. Your argument is meaningless. There are significant amounts of people who are smart who don’t succeed on the SAT and there are also smart people who do well. It goes either way, no correlation.
Cool, read my anecdote too. My sister tested a 140-145 on her IQ test, was in a gifted program and other stuff and she had a 1700 on her SAT. Thats a 99% vs a 70%, so I don’t see a correlation. She did fine on the ACT though so it worked out. She didn’t spend her time memorizing vocabulary and obscure grammar rules. I also did better on my ACT than SAT too because I don’t waste time memorizing facts and vocab words either( 32 ACT vs 1910 SAT).</p>
<p>“Okay, so now even school is based on IQ too, so what. Your argument is meaningless. There are significant amounts of people who are smart who don’t succeed on the SAT and there are also smart people who do well. It goes either way, no correlation.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure to what your school comment refers. However, you have made a logical error in interpreting facts that smart people do badly and that other smart people do well as proof that there is no correlation. The fact that there are outliers in a data set does not necessarily preclude the presence of a correlation, as evidenced by the fact that there is a correlation in this case in the presence of outliers.</p>
<p>“Cool, read my anecdote too. My sister tested a 140-145 on her IQ test, was in a gifted program and other stuff and she had a 1700 on her SAT. Thats a 99% vs a 70%, so I don’t see a correlation. She did fine on the ACT though so it worked out. She didn’t spend her time memorizing vocabulary and obscure grammar rules. I also did better on my ACT than SAT too because I don’t waste time memorizing facts and vocab words either( 32 ACT vs 1910 SAT).”</p>
<p>Just as my anecdote was not intended to prove anything, I’ll assume that yours doesn’t either, and I will accordingly not attempt to comment further on it.</p>
<p>More anecdotal info: WPPSI-R at age 5: 145
SAT early Jr year: 2360
ACT Jr year: 36</p>
<p>The early testing was to qualify for Gifted Program.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, my IQ was tested at around mid-high 140’s. Maybe 150. </p>
<p>I got a 2210 on my SAT with basically no prep, then I took it again 3 months later (with no more prep, though I did read a vocab book), and got a 2340. </p>
<p>I think the percentiles on that are pretty similar.</p>
<p>I found this thread from the Harvard subforum that contains a lot of discussion on this matter, with opinions on both sides of the issue as seen here.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/197699-average-iq-harvard.html?highlight=genius[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/197699-average-iq-harvard.html?highlight=genius</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All you have is an anecdote. Your reasoning is flawed. I will not commment further on it.</p>
<p>According to your argument, the ACT must also be correlated to IQs too because i’m sure someone who was smart probably got a 36 on the test. School must be IQ based because a smart kid got an A. Writing music must be IQ based because a smart guy wrote a complex song.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They aren’t outliers so your logic fails completely.</p>
<p>Just to point out, correlations mean nothing.</p>
<p>IQ: 135
SAT: 1460 (760 CR, 700 M)
Family Income: 20,000-29,999</p>
<p>No correlation.</p>
<p>/facepalm .</p>
<p>“According to your argument, the ACT must also be correlated to IQs too because i’m sure someone who was smart probably got a 36 on the test. School must be IQ based because a smart kid got an A. Writing music must be IQ based because a smart guy wrote a complex song.”</p>
<p>You have misinterpreted my argument. I didn’t apply unsubstantiated induction and make my conclusion based off of one correlation. I used common sense.</p>
<p>If someone argues that there is no correlation between IQ score and SAT score, they are saying that, in the following example, neither those of group A nor those of group B are more likely to have a higher average SAT score than the other group:</p>
<p>Group A: All current American high school seniors who speak English and have an IQ between 150-160.</p>
<p>Group B: All current American high school seniors who speak English and have an IQ between 70-80.</p>
<p>If you believe that either of these groups is more likely than the other to have a higher average SAT score, then you believe there is a correlation. If not, then I believe you have failed to apply common sense.</p>
<p>IQ is such bull. I have a 150 IQ and scored 1900 on my first SAT attempt junior year.</p>
<p>I find it amusing how everyone on here has a 120+ IQ.</p>
<p>Even though the average IQ on here is higher than the normal average, 120+ is pretty rare. The correlation is there, but the SAT is very coachable. I scored a 202 on my PSAT sophomore year without studying, but after a month of light review, I’m scoring 2200 ish on BB tests. It’s an extremely coachable test, and coachability goes both ways.</p>
<p>Let’s say your a foreigner who has just moved here. If you only have a light grasp of english, your writing + reading scores will obviously be low. This doesn’t imply anything for your IQ - you simply lack exposure. I know people who I would consider “smarter” than me. They are usually better than me at math, but they simply do not read, so their literary analysis will be correspondingly weak. </p>
<p>This also shows in that certain schools have extremely high SAT scores when compared to an average high school. They do a good job of prepping their students…exposure does not = IQ. However, as silverturtle said above, if two groups receive the same amount of exposure and have the same level of motivation, then the ones with the higher IQ’s will tend to do better.</p>
<p>All of this is common sense 
High SAT scores don’t = high IQ scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, so both school, college, and the ACT are as equally IQ correlated as the SAT. Sure, it’s true an ape can’t get a 2400 on the SAT, so if you call that a strong correlation, then I will have to agree with you. But someone with an IQ of 120+ can get 2300+ with the correct amounts of effort. Your correlation fails at this point, making it a very weak link.</p>
<p>Read my post above…</p>
<p>120+ is a high IQ. The SAT is coachable. Put those two together and obviously someone with 120+ can get a 2300+</p>
<p>His correlation is not a weak link. People with higher IQ’s with the same amount of education will do significantly better on the SAT. By the way, someone with an IQ of 120+ who has had analogy training will also perform “above their IQ” on an IQ test. IQ tests are designed by humans. They are thus coachable to an extent.</p>
<p>“But someone with an IQ of 120+ can get 2300+ with the correct amounts of effort. Your correlation fails at this point, making it a very weak link.”</p>
<p>You continue to misinterpret my point. I never suggested someone with an IQ of “merely” 120 cannot get a 2300. My point doesn’t go much beyond what I illustrated in post #31, which I found to be rather irrefutable. Let’s just settle this debate: IQ does correlate to SAT to an extent, but neither is a very strong indicator of the other.</p>
<p>I found a website (<a href=“http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx[/url]”>http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx</a>) that converts IQ to SAT I score.</p>
<p>An IQ of 115 (15 point deviation) corresponds to a SAT I score of 1090. That’s similar to a 1635 on the new SAT (assuming I can just multiply by 3/2). </p>
<p>Your situation doesn’t seem all that strange to me. A 1460 corresponds to an IQ of about 107 according to the website (I again converted your score to an SAT I score and found the corresponding IQ score in the table). </p>
<p>My opinion is that, for Americans who don’t have reading problems and who paid a minimum of attention is school, the SAT is basically an IQ test with extra emphasis on your attention span and ability to handle time pressure (when taken under normal timing conditions). After making the assumptions I’ve made, it may be concluded that your results aren’t that strange: it’s not uncommon for someone to take 2 different IQ tests and get 120 on one and 108 on another.</p>
<p>Nowadays the average IQ of college graduates is about 105. But I think that number includes graduates from 2 year colleges and, “recreation science” degree holders who barely pass their courses with C averages tend to drag the IQs down. My point is that college students are a bit smarter than you might think.</p>
<p>SAT =/= IQ Test</p>
<p>Simple as that</p>
<p>^It definitely doesn’t.
I ceilinged on 2 sections of an IQ test with a full score of like 150 or something, and I scored 2000 (with studying) on the SAT, you’d think I’d have like a 2300 or something.</p>
<p>Your sister’s SAT score corresponds to an IQ of about 127 or 128 (depending on whether it’s a 15 point or 16 point deviation IQ score). </p>
<p>Some people really don’t like the complicated way in which some SAT questions are phrased. They can’t persevere and keep focused through the grueling test. For those people, it’s often better to just test directly how much they have learned, using a test like the ACT.</p>
<p>I don’t think the SAT is, in general, particularly coachable. But there are some (unique) situations where becoming familiar with SAT question formatting can affect a huge score increase. So if you learn how to deal with SAT-type questions and remain focused, your score will probably go up to around 1700 and your sister’s to around 2130 or so. That is, assuming you’re telling the truth about your IQ.</p>