[Jon1000]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that those three (SAT, IQ, grades) can not on their own be a complete measure of intelligence, since they only reflect on a small portion of possible mental tasks posed. Basically I'm arguing against the narrowing of the intelligence term, and giving academia 'sole ownership' of true intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Within a certain range of IQ/SAT tests that seems pretty reasonable, but there is some point where a lower score crosses an individual over from maybe less intelligent to most likely less intelligent than another. And the convergence of all three is certainly a fair indicator of intelligence even if it is not a complete one.

I volunteer taught the math side of the SAT in college and occasionally tutor the math/verbal side for one of those big prep companies now. I'd say that lower than a certain SAT score makes a student academically inept. That is not the same as unintelligent, but the two conditions are so similar that they amount to the same thing in most quasi-academic situations I can think of such as basic math and problem solving ability needed in everyday life. In my experience, significantly low SAT scores reflect poor education most often, but given that there is no math above very basic geometry and no verbal requirements above an intermediate grade school reading level, I would call most students who score below a certain level completely unprepared for higher academia.

To me, these students are not innately unintelligent, but if you asked me to characterize them in a vacuum, I would not be kind. Bringing things like social skills and work ethic into a discussion of their intelligence/academic preparedness seems silly because at that point you're talking about their ability to succeed (if you catch them up somehow), and that seems to be completely separate from almost anyone's definition of intelligence.