Is the SAT or the ACT a better indicator of intelligence?

sure you did buddy

Wasn't the SAT more psychological, bombarding you with a fuckton of questions that may or may not be trick questions? The ACT seemed like a more straight-forward "Do you know this? Yes or No".

rule Britannia desu

lgtss:
>indiana

What about the GRE?

ACT is factually better and has been for some time. SAT has had major problems with quality control on some of their questions and the type of questions they used to like to ask lead to some big discrepancies for every test when compairing scores. The SAT is now changing its self to be more like the ACT because theyve been very solid for a long time. I dont see why people dont just take the ACT.

>thinking those scores are somehow unreachable or impossibly impressive
are you serious? lmao fuck

>alaska

purely anecdotal, but the sat was significantly more unstable in my experience
sat scores among the higher tier students ranged from about 1800-2400, but act scores were consistent 35/36

gre can be trained by studying for it.
i'm a brainlet and on first practice exam i ran out of time and got like 310ish and after learning how to take the test i scored above 330.

most high iq societies deemed all 3 tests to be not strongly correlated to iq anymore.
the sat = iq meme is a remnant of the pre 90s sat, which was significantly harder and that's why top schools thought 1200s and 1300s were impressive scores back then.

What about my great state?

kek

pretty much

Neither.

Standardized testing is not an indication of someones intellect or how they will do in life. I know someone who scored perfectly on their SAT's and now their working some low paying non profit job.

Neither. They just test how much you studied for the test, and how well you know the tricks to them.

The SAT in particular is just garbage, because they'll toss in questions intentionally designed to trick you. That's not good design: it just tests whether you're prepared for the tricks or not.

The ACT is a little more straightforward, but even they do some bullshit as well.

Implying you're not a brainlet if you don't know basic math and vocabulary.

not him, but that happened to me. I ended up with a 510 in Math, I think. I didn't even know basic geometry or algebra 2. now i'm currently a 3rd year at Berkeley, but I ended up spending 3 years at a CC.

3rd year at Berkeley studying Math*

As someone who tutors SAT/ACT regularly, I can attest that both exams are great at figuring out who is bottom of the barrel. This, however, cannot be equally said for the converse. Students who score low on the tests do so for two reasons: they are behind academically or they don't study (or both). Students who are behind academically will tend to be behind in college as well since American highschools don't know what it's like to have to fail a student for their own benefit, i.e. don't push kids into a geometry class if they can't add fractions. Students that don't study for the test when they know well ahead of time when the test is tend to do the same in college. You know those kids that fail 1000-2000 level courses in college in the easiest of courses? It's because they pulled the same shit they did with the SAT/ACT: they don't fucking study and complain how the tests are "unfair". Very rarely do you get students that under-perform on the SAT/ACT and then go on to college to do well. The ones who do are the typical "smart but lazy" outliers that already are succeeding in their normal classes or succeeding in their hobbies that are related to what they want to do in college (they practice programming, read math on the side, enjoy literature beyond the classroom, etc.). At the other end of the scores, you can't really tell who is "smart" and who isn't given that tests are so easy that the average student can do well.

what is considered low to tutors?

no memes of

Good thing you asked me lol. I consider Anything lower than 500 on a certain section "low" and anything below 600 on a certain section "average but still kinda low". Without the written portion, a "low" score overall would be around the 1000s with

>Considering that the lowest automatic score you can get is 200, scoring 300 points amounts to getting maybe 30%-40% of the sections correct.

correction: "scoring 300 extra points amounts to getting maybe 30%-40% of the sections correct."

Bump.

>Is any standard test an indicator of intelligence?

kek, no.

SAT, ACT, GRE, etc are cashcows for ETS or whatever fronts it puts up and nothing more. I'm glad they're being phased out since $205 for a GRE without even sending out scores is nuts

ACT because i got the higher score (35 vs 2240)

young niggas think they know about cashcows with the SAT/ACT but haven't even entered the realm of GRE subject tests

It's a whole nother realm of wallet rape

There's probably a statistical correlation but for any individual person, they're a poor indicator. Anything you can study for is not going to accurately reflect intelligence.

>Sign up for GRE
>Oh alright, the SAT was $50 so that'll be easy
>Fucking $205
>Non-profit my ass
>Mfw I fuck up and leave my wallet, have to pay another $205 to take it again
I got a pretty shit quantitative score for BioMed PhD program standards but I'm running with it because I'll be fucked if I'm giving them another $205 if I don't have to

>be taking the PGRE twice
>still need to sign up for the GRE
>need to send scores to all schools
>tfw will cost >$2000 to apply to graduate schools I probably won't get accepted to

Neither. Both tests are just college entry tests and are only designed to test how much your learned in your primary education. It's mostly just a rote test to see what skills you learned. They are not psychometric tests in any way.

Shut up

>got bad score
>says they dont correlate with IQ
>secretly knows they do
>tries not to think about it

I never noticed a difference. I took the SAT twice and the ACT once. Felt like I was just taking the same test.

> Implying that you're not a brainlet if you don't know basic algebra despite taking Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, and Precalculus which review this material year after year.
> Implying you're not a brainlet if you can't learn basic vocabulary despite living in a country where the native language is English and reading books in English your entire life.

I remember the act being way harder for me cuz it felt like it just went on forever and there was hardly any math just constant reading whereas the sat was small intervals of testing and more logic/math based

We're gonna make it bro (at least assuming you have some research experience)

Agreed

doing my senior thesis right now trying to do LCAO calculations for periodic delta function potentials in two dimensions.

you?

Been involved with determining a novel transcriptional mechanism in B anthracis for the past year, hopefully that's enough

that sounds sweet. Don't know how stringent the reqs are for (bio?) grad school but that sounds interesting. Found anything interesting?

Alright post your scores lads
>35 first try
>Cornell and Dartmouth reject me
>end up going to little private liberal arts school

Neither. They are both bullshit now. Pre-1994 the SAT meant something. Every iteration since then has become less and less g-loaded.

all I did was run PCR machines

We're at the phase where we'll be isolating RNA so we can quantify how much our genes of interest are being used in a stressful condition, so the actual results are going to be more fruitful at the end of this semester or (I hope) by the time I graduate in the spring. I'll admit I kind of fall into the stereotype of biologists being brainlets in math, but how's your project going?

That fucking blows, not that my research is going to be that groundbreaking, I don't think we're going to a high-impact journal or anything

>That fucking blows
Idk at my school that seemed like the average experience, if you were even lucky enough to do research to begin with

it was honestly all I could find
It was kind of a mid tier school. I dont know if that has anything to do with it.

What about the PSAT?

The tix a whole week five days it's much longer a lot more information I scored in the 98th percentile on that but I never took the SAT

when did the top SAT score go above 1600?

I think he's referring to the old exam which included a shit-tier writing section.

lmao underage

>better indicator of intelligence?
i cant imagine being this autistic desu
i thank the gods every day

ALL HAIL BRITANNIA

When I took the mandatory ACT as a junior in HS, I was in the process of failing 3/4 classes that semester, and didn't study at all, compounded with zero studying for several years prior. Got a 28, with a 36 on the reading comprehension segment. It's basic stratedgy, answer what you know and mark what seems suspiciously tricky or incoherent. And honestly, there's no exuse to do badly on any multiple choice test, the answers are literally in front of you.

I'm brain dead with 1490/1600, meaningless test imo

The previous SAT was up to 2400.
The newest one is up to 1600

I did both.

Tell me about it, I got a 32 on the ACT and the only reason I didn't get a 35 was because they did the essay last and I had typed a big essay the night before and was fucking done with the test by that point and I got somewhere around 80% on it. The multiple choice is a joke and all the test does is weed out people who are literally too stupid to be helped. I can count the number of problems I got wrong on it on one hand, and I'm not some autistic savant.

The ACT does what standardized testing is meant to do, gauge a base level of academic competence. Universities should base the rest off of your EC's, application essays, and interviews. SAT scores are for Asians to inflate their egos over.

I've always considered myself pretty smart. I never took the SAT but supposedly it's the more studyable test. I took the ACT twice and got a 35 and a 34. The second time was way easier and I was sure I didn't miss a single question so idk how I got a 34.

But yeah as far as determining who is most smartest I'd say the ACT however I'd hazard a guess to say that it won't test the smartest of the smart. I know some other people who got 33 and 34 and I'm pretty sure I'm smarter than them so the fact that they got similar scores leads me to give less credit to the test.

Imo it's easier for a tard to improve their SAT scores. The ACT is the better test as no matter how much you study the test is still going to force you to think creatively about how to go about solving the problems. And while the questions aren't as studyable the test itself measures how good you are at taking tests. It definitely weeds out the smart but slow as even though it's a long test, there are still time limits for each section and if you're smart but a slow test taker it will hurt your score.

However I don't think I would have done as well on the SAT as I don't study very well. I'm good at critical thinking but if I took the SAT without studying specifically for it I don't think it would go well

Tl;dr ACT is less about memorization and more about logic and good test taking practices, SAT is more about studying. Neither will separate the smart from the truly gifted, but the ACT probably weeds out idiots just a little bit better

For the record I would have dreaded the SAT if it were required in my state as I fucking HATE analogies. I can always find more than one valid answer

I got a 1950 on my SAT
I never took the ACT

Its ok so far, I'm still getting into the meat of it, but so far I've only run into one problem with being able to get some complex (imaginary) phases to drop out of an equation for the energy of an electron in a molecular solid

my professor basically said 'yeah you might not want to worry about that, just focus on the phenomenology of what you can do'

so hopefully good

>SAT score below 2000

pls leave

...