SAT/ACT scores

>SAT/ACT SCORE

>Alma mater/School attending

>Do you believe that the SAT/ACT tests are good indicators of intelligence? What would you change about them if you got the chance?

2130 (730/710/690 M/R/W), 32 ACT
Georgia Tech BSME, UCSD MSME
I think the standardized tests are a good indicator of probability of success in college, so they fulfill their purpose in the admission process in that respect. There's certainly a relatively strong correlation between the scores and actual intelligence but they're not even close to being the only factor. I've met a lot of genuinely dumb people with good test scores and quite a few people I'd call intelligent with poorer ones.

2080 (770/680/630 M/R/W)
Cal Poly Pomona
No. Make them an IQ test. There is no reason to screen candidates for non-STEM colleges, and only IQ matters for STEM.

>1560 / 36 (new sat score /1600)
>uc berkeley pure math
Not at all. I'm really good at testing, that's why I did so well. I just feel absolutely no pressure, I find it fun. That's a much bigger part of standardized tests than intelligence.

I'm not necessarily saying that my scores dont mean anything, because I think being good at testing is important for college (where exams matter by far the most). But I don't think they directly judge intelligence. There's probably some correlation, but I doubt it's very strong since people can be intelligent in very very different ways.

1830
UC Irvine
I'm honestly not sure. I took a proper IQ test which ran me over 100 dollars and I got a 132, and I got a 167 Q, 169 V on the GRE. Looking back on the questions I missed, I apparently didn't even know things like the equation of a circle, or that (ab)^x = (a^x)(b^x), so not sure what happened. I recall never learning anything in high school, graduated with a 2.something and just playing vidya all day long, but people on here apparently did the same thing and got 2300+, so who knows?

It's probably a decent predictor when you compare scores from the same school system.

>35
>ou
Well i went to a shit school for no reason other than to pay more than a good school so i must be fuckin retarded

Also worth considering, the SAT I supposedly is about more general knowledge while the SAT IIs are obviously more specific. But what exactly about the SAT I is really general? It is possible to be good at basic math and reading but not know many sat words or what an algebraic equation even means

>not know many sat words
Literally only one question was about an 'sat word' for me, and it was something really normal like rudimentary iirc.

SAT: 1420 (new) ACT: 32

UCLA

The point of standardized tests are to make it easier for admin to gauge a student’s potential, hence the term “standardized”

I guess I don’t like it doesn’t measure “raw intelligence” but rather work ethic aka practice problems

Got a 2150 SAT and like a 35 ACT but was a lazy fuck with a 3.2 GPA so I went to community college, get straight As and some Bs in humanities classes I can't be fucked with to do anything, apparently I also have a 115 IQ cuz I was tested back in middle school cuz they thought I was retarded due to me not caring enough and reading naruto all day. Am applying to go into UCSC and some other UCs and like SJSU, Cal poly ect.. So I guess I believe due to me being a lazy piece of shit and getting into UCs and having a above average IQ.

I scored in the 1400s years ago when the test was very different. I think they are great for looking at large groups of people within two SDs of the average. So, for most college admissions they make sense. I do not think they are good at determining who is brilliant or who should get into schools like MIT. They are speed and accuracy tests at the extreme right tail, which tells you little. I would make elite universities use IQ or a much better proxy for High IQ than SAT/ACT scores.

To clarify, the problem with SAT/ACT scores at the right tail is that you start testing for how fast and accurate you can do relatively easy problems. Instead, high scorers should be given a second test that tests G-Loaded skills that have been found to be predictors of excelling in elite environments. I think this will help get smarter people into the best schools. I think the SAT and ACT are fine for places like Montana State (no offense meant at all).

2300
3.8 gpa
Emory

35
Boston College
Yes

2290/34
RIT

>2250
>33
>Ohio State

no, i think the correlation is positive but not by as much as administrations might think or as much as people assume administrations think.
like another user said it's a lot about not letting it stress you out, just enjoying the test, and keeping your wits

I'll have you know that montana state has a pretty good materials research program.
(I might be thinking of north dakota)

Hello fello Ohio State-kun, what do you study? I'm a physics student.

I have a 4.0 HS GPA and average above 97s for each quarter.

I took the first SAT. Got a 1220.
studied 40 hours
Took the second SAT, got a 1270
Studied around 30 more hours (Tried to ace reading section)
Took third SAT, got a 1320.


I felt like I aced the math section in my third exam. I'm not bad at all at math, perhaps a bit stunted walking into there the first time, but I blossomed later that year, and yet I still bunged up the test, whereas my friend, who failed his AP Calc exam, didn't study whatsoever, got a perfect score.

The question is more so if it matters or not. I perform better academically than many other students who got 1400s and up and are socially and at time mentally retarded, if higher "tiered" schools want them, take them!

1500/2400 SAT
Now in grad school

>Don't remember but below average on everything is all I recall

>FSU for bachelor's chemistry
>Georgia tech for PhD organic and polymer chemistry

The tests mean fuck-all for kids that age, especially for those that don't know what they want to do with their lives. You don't know what the fuck you are even doing and likely do not care. You go to college to find yourself and what you are good at. Hell I changed my major seven times just to avoid math but ended you taking almost all of the math requirements to get a degree in it because it crept up on me over time.

It's really not even a debate, my man. The tests used to be highly g-loaded decades ago. They no longer are.

>36 (35 E, 36 M, 36 R, 36 S)
>2310 (800 M, 770 R, 740 W)
>UChicago
No, no way. Testing well is largely psychological and isn't a reliable indicator of intelligence, beyond a certain base level of competency.
If I could, I'd have high school teachers stop teaching to the test and just teach the materially normally; as it is, a lot of schools game the metric.

720 math/720 verbal
166 V / 164 Q gre
I don't think they're good indicators of innate (as in maximum potential) intelligence; however, they do indicate how well the test taker has been prepared.
They are also poor indicators of performance in academia and industry. GPA (i.e. work ethic, ability to focus and prioritize, etc.) is far more reliable.

>There is no reason to screen candidates for non-STEM colleges
Pretty sure philosophy and law require a fair amount of reasoning ability. And any sort of quality history major requires a good working memory.

Even for GPA it can be misleading where someone can start with a 2.0 then bust their ass (or pad) to a 3.8

34 ACT
Purdue for physics currently

I've thought a lot about standardized tests and its really weird because my personal experiences conflict heavily what the data supposedly shows. At my high school I knew people whose parents spent

>philosophy
The ideals of philosophy do, but all philosophy professors I've had have been brainlets. I've heard absurdly better philosophical arguments put forward in discussion of super structures than I've heard in a philosophy course.

>law
No. If logic determined the winner, lawyers wouldn't be necessary.

>And any sort of quality history major requires a good working memory.
Fair enough.

>ACT: 24
>University of Michigan Ann Arbor
No, not at all. When I received my ACT score my high school teachers told me I would fail in a college environment. Despite this, I did have a high gpa (3.8) and a lot of extracurricular's in high school. Towards the end of high school I suddenly developed a passion for mathematics. I ended up going to a local university. I noticed that I had a talent in mathematics when I consistently scored the highest in my class in physics/math classes to the point where I got an override from my professor to take grad level physics course (statistical thermodynamics) that I got an A- in. The next semester I transferred to umich. Its been a rough path to where I am and I am sad that I didn't realize my talent and appreciated education earlier in life.

>34
>UIUC, Electrical Engineering

I agree with this user here

Many of you may not know this, but a good portion of students get extended time for taking the ACT and SAT for very questionable reasons. It is the PC thing to give accomodations and parents take full advantage of shady doctors and questionable psychological standards. At the elite boarding schools, fully 1/3 of students get extended time testing, which basically shows what a joke it is. If you got 50% more time on each section, how could you not get a much higher score?

I worked in education, so I know these figures are accurate for several elite boarding schools in California.

Took act in 8th grade, got 26

>how could you not get a much higher score?
I never learned the quadratic formula. No finite amount of time would let me derive it.
I've finished calc 4, and I still don't know it.

33 on ACT never took SAT cause I figured my one 33 was good anough
Northeastern
Absolutely not
It's mostly just test taking skills and a bit of general knowledge

also my major is cybersec

34 act

a small christian college that no ones ever heard of
ee
2.85 gpa right now
JUST

1480(new sat)
USAFA
A little bit, they just show how much you understand of the basics of high school material. It's usefulness really depends on what you are planning to study. I'm currently doing doing physics so it makes no sense to judge me based on my English score on the test but it does matter for the math portion, or an english/language major for their math score.
Schools should focus more on the subject tests relative to their planned major, and the letter of recommendation from the teacher. A kid can be an absolute brain in math but a brainlet in english.

>33 act (36 reading 32 math 26 writing or something)
>rutgers
>yes

still not sure how they calculate act composite because my average wasnt 33. I feel like im more cut out for humanities but i think studying them at the university level is worthless so im a stemlet now. I'd be happy to go into academia but I doubt I'm good enough so hopefully i can get some job doing physics/math that isnt too boring.

>tfw you go into a field knowing you will probably always be mediocre

the rutgers math department is pretty exceptional, people just underrate it cause princeton is next door

you sound like a brainlet tee be h

yeah I know, im still considering whether to go into math or physics and the math classes I've had here have been good enough that I'm leaning towards math.

>tfw prof can't be there for a day so he has us watch a video of some prestigious math people talking about infinity
>one of them is William Woodin, one of the foremost set theorists in the world
>later woodin gets brought up by a different proffessor and he mentions the first prof actually btfod Woodin as his phd dissertation

>2240 (790 CR, 750 writing, 700 math)
>UCSB alum

>Yes and no. It was easy to game the SAT

31 ACT
University of Tennessee
If I were reviewing students, I would much rather take the high ACT/low GPA over the high GPA/low ACT. GPA is possibly the dumbest measure of all