Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Originally posted by: esun
Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Originally posted by: esun
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: esun
I'm sure you could. I'm using an example to point out how stupid it is to correlate SAT scores and intelligence. And I'm also pointing out that even if you were to correlate the two, a 1280 would certainly not be considered the score of an intelligent person. I'll try to be more literal next time.
You mean 'a 1280 would certainly not be considered the score of an intelligent person' by your own arbitrary personal definition of intelligent.
You're missing my point.
IF you were to correlate the two (namely SAT scores and intelligence), which I do NOT believe is a valid way to determine intelligence, then I would not consider a 1280 to be the score of an intelligent person (simply because it is quite clear that a 1280 is not a very difficult score to obtain).
Now do you understand?
If only 8% of test takers are obtaining that score, it certainly is not very easy to obtain.
Top universities around the country treat the SAT as a measure of intelligence, and I'd say their opinion is worth a bit more than yours is.
Completely false. Top universities treat the SAT as a measure of success in college, not as an intelligence indicator (and before you reply that getting good grades means you are intelligent, keep in mind that this is also misleading as it is equally if not more an indicator of hard work). Furthermore, for the typical student attending a top university, a 1280 is an easy score to obtain. You're taking it out of context (why should we compare Bush to some community college students that bombed the SAT?). Bush went to Yale with a 1280. I consider a 1280 to be low for a student attending Yale, or any similar university.
You could say a person who's making $20K per year living in San Francisco is making a lot compared to the world average, but clearly his or her cost of living is higher and therefore different standards are expected.
Uh huh. Do you have any evidence of this? The very defintion of aptitude means intelligence.
ap·ti·tude Audio pronunciation of "aptitude" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. See Synonyms at ability.
2. Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.
3. The condition or quality of being suitable; appropriateness.
SAT is no longer called the Scholastic Aptitude Test. If you want me to provide evidence, I will appease you this time. Otherwise, do you own research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT
"
History and name changes
The initials SAT have been used since the test was first introduced in 1901 as the Scholastic Achievement Test and meant to measure the level achieved by students seeking college admission. The test was used mainly by colleges and universities in the northeastern United States. In 1941, after considerable development, the name was changed to the Scholastic Aptitude Test, still the most popular name. The test became much more widely used in the 1950s and 1960s and once was almost universal.
The success of SAT coaching schools, such as Kaplan and the Princeton Review, forced the College Board to change the name again. In 1990, the name was changed to Scholastic Assessment Test, since a test that can be coached clearly did not measure inherent "scholastic aptitude" but only what the test subject had learned in school. This was a major theoretical retreat by the Educational Testing Service, which had previously maintained that the test measured inherent aptitude and was free of bias.
In 1994, however, the redundancy of the term assessment test was recognized and the name was changed to the neutral, and non-descriptive, SAT. At the time, the College Board announced, "Please note that SAT is not an initialism. It does not stand for anything."
The average score was initially designed to be 500 points on each section. However, as the test grew more popular and students from less rigorous schools began taking the test, the average dropped, bottoming out at about 450 for each section. Various attempts at balancing out this decline led to complex statistical anomalies. For example, in certain years it was impossible to get a score of 780 or 790 on a section; one could only get a 770 or below or an 800. To combat this trend, in 1995 the SAT was "recalibrated" (officially, the term is "recentered"), and the average score became again closer to 500. All modern scores are officially reported with an "R" (e.g. 1260R) to reflect this change."
Furthermore,
In 2001, Richard C. Atkinson, president of the University of California, urged dropping the SAT I as a college admissions requirement, in a speech to the American Council of Education. Here are some selections from his talk:
"Anyone involved in education should be concerned about how overemphasis on the SAT is distorting educational priorities and practices, how the test is perceived by many as unfair, and how it can have a devastating impact on the self-esteem and aspirations of young students. There is widespread agreement that overemphasis on the SAT harms American education."
and
"And in 1996, [the College Board] dropped the name altogether and said that the "SAT" was the "SAT" and that the initials no longer stood for anything. Rather than resolving the problem, this rhetorical sleight-of-hand served to underscore the mystery of what the SAT is supposed to measure. ... [People] have no way of knowing what the SAT measures."
In response, the college board has announced that in 2005, a new version of the SAT I will become effective, which will include a writing section, the abolition of analogies, shorter reading sections. In addition, the math section will be expanded to cover three years of high school math. Instead of just covering concepts from Geometry and Algebra I, the new SAT math section will contain concepts from Geometry, Algebra I and Algebra II. The new test will total 2400."
In essence, they originally indicated that the SAT tested intelligence. Then they realized they couldn't make that claim because, for example, taking a 2-week course could magically boost your intelligence by 200 points! The stupidity here is obvious. They are changing the SAT in part because of all of the criticisms that it does not test intelligence, because it
doesn't.
Done yet?
If you haven't yet realized, there is no good, solid, completely reliable way to measure intelligence. IQ tests aren't too bad, but even they are flawed (sometimes significantly). The SAT is an extremely poor measure of intelligence. The problem is with trying to measure something as general as intelligence. You can measure the ability to do stupid math problems and pointless english questions, which is what the SAT basically does.
Facebook
Twitter