relationship between SAT scores and intelligence?

[hitch1978]

So do you disagree with DS's statement or agree, as worded? It is a one worded answer.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
So do you disagree with DS's statement or agree, as worded? It is a one worded answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't, as I already readily explained. A one worded answer is exactly the uselessness of the intelligence term I am arguing against.

If you say no you are assuming good intelligence isn't needed to do well in physics. If you say yes you assume a person is intelligent because he has mathematical aptitude.

Obviously some facet of intelligence will help you do well in physics, that doesn't mean you are intelligent at other mental tasks.

[Philo]

There's nothing more I can do to demonstrate what I've claimed. I've given evidence that students at Ivy league schools have said themselves that they can get an A in a class just by turning in a semi-intelligible paper. This is not a generalization--it does not mean that for any class at Princeton a student can get an A by turning in a semi-intelligible paper. It means that in that particular class the grading standards were lax, such that simply turning in a paper that was not incoherent sufficed to receive an A. If you want to discount the Princeton student himself who said it was easy to get an A in that class be my guest.

I've been a student at eight different schools that run the gamut in terms of rankings, and I've experienced first-hand the fact that some classes at lesser ranked schools can be harder to get an A-range grade in than at an Ivy League school. I've also taught students at Columbia University, so I'm well aware of the abilities of students at an Ivy League school. I've never claimed that students at Ivy League schools aren't more intelligent on average than students at an average state school, though for some reason people keep making that inference.

You consistently misrepresent what I've claimed by saying things like, "Even if it is easier to get an A- at an Ivy League school than a typical state school, I would still bet that an A- at an Ivy League school represents more understanding on average than an A- at Iowa State." I've never claimed otherwise and in fact I agreed with David when he said the same thing. Get your facts straight. I've also never claimed that in general it's easier to get an A- in a class at a state school than it is at an Ivy league school, which your remark seems to imply, or that an Iowa State education is the equivalent of a Harvard education. It's not, I've never said it was, and it's just silly to keep making inferences from what I said to conclusions that do not follow.

Here is what I'm claiming, and this is the last word I'm going to say on the subject. If a student at Iowa State gets an A- in a class, let's say "Social Psychology," and a student from Harvard gets an A- in "Social Psychology," that does not by itself mean that the A- from Harvard was a harder grade to earn, or that the student from Harvard necessarily had a higher level of academic achievement in that particular class than the Iowa State student. This is a fact that I've experienced first-hand in comparing the grading standards for classes I took at the University of Louisville, Amherst College, Columbia University, and five other private and public institutions. Turning in a 'semi-intelligible' paper will not get you an A in every class you can take at any state university.

[David Sklansky]

"Included in mathematical aptitude I would probably include the ability to work hard with studies, which will always be incredibly helpful in mathematics/physics."

Both clauses are just wrong.

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
"Included in mathematical aptitude I would probably include the ability to work hard with studies, which will always be incredibly helpful in mathematics/physics."

Both clauses are just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

first clause i agree, but being able to work hard is helpful in any aspect of life

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

You consistently misrepresent what I've claimed


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see that. I responded to an incorrect statement of yours,

[ QUOTE ]
The content of many courses in the U.S., especially science and math courses, is pretty uniform. Often the very same texts are used. You can't take calculus at the University of Louisville and only be taught half as much as someone taking the equivalent course at an Ivy League school.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is nothing logically wrong with this idea, but it doesn't describe this universe. I have given examples showing that it is indeed possible (in fact, common) to be taught less than half as much (or less in a full year class than in a one semester class at an elite school), and often the texts used are quite different.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pzhon: If you want to take it easy, go to Harvard. If you want a challenge, try to learn the same material at Iowa State University, where you have to learn most of it yourself at the library or from the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]
philo: People don't want to believe that it can be easier to get the A- at Princeton than at Iowa State, but it can be.

[/ QUOTE ]
pzhon: Even if it is easier to get an A- at an Ivy League school than a typical state school, I would still bet that an A- at an Ivy League school represents more understanding on average than an A- at Iowa State.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you accuse me of misrepresenting you with that statement. I don't see that I did anything of the sort. You made a misleading statement. I pointed out that the statement you made did not have the consequence that would be relevant to this discussion.

An easy class, where you just show up and participate in relevant discussions of deep ideas and then write a paper about one of those deep ideas, may teach you much more (and may be expected to teach you much more) than a pain-in-the-ass class where you have to complete a dozen tedious assignments about trivialities. So what if it is easy to get a good education at an elite school? That's part of what people pay for, in money or blood/sweat/tears to get in.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is what I'm claiming, and this is the last word I'm going to say on the subject. If a student at Iowa State gets an A- in a class, let's say "Social Psychology," and a student from Harvard gets an A- in "Social Psychology," that does not by itself mean that the A- from Harvard was a harder grade to earn, or that the student from Harvard necessarily had a higher level of academic achievement in that particular class than the Iowa State student.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, all you are claiming that is correct is that there are occasional exceptions to the idea that high grades at elite schools generally represent more understanding than equally high grades at mediocre schools? Great. If anyone thought there were no exceptions in the messy subject of education, they stand corrected.

In general, getting an A- in an undergraduate mathematics or science class at Caltech indicates a far greater grasp of the relevant material than an A- at Columbia, which in turn represents a far greater grasp of the relevant material than an A- at Florida State University. While the average grades may be lower at FSU than at Caltech, this does not adequately describe the difference between typical graduates of FSU and typical graduates of Caltech. Grade inflation may be present more at some schools than others, but in my experience, it's not enough for GPAs to be comparable across schools. Hiring someone with a 3.7 from a mediocre school over someone with a 3.5 from an elite school based on the GPA alone would be a mistake.

Some people would say this is not necessarily true outside of the sciences. However, I think the reasons for the differences between elite schools and mediocre schools still apply.

[Max Raker]

I haven't read the whole thread, but there is a decent chance the SAT has impacted my life more then maybe everybody in this thread. I went to a pretty horrible high school and I was not a great student. Pretty much half As and half Bs. I figured I was pretty decent at math though as I was better then all the teachers. I assumed kids in good colleges where much better than me as I never knew anybody who went to school out of state. I took the SAT my freshman year at the request of the principal since she thought that I may "have potential". I think I got a 1560 or so (nobody in the past had broken 1400) and they decided that I should be bussed to a school 40 miles away, that should tell you how bad my school was.

The new school was much better and i met quite a few kids (maybe 6 or so) with 1500 or 1600 scores. I think the scores were pretty much meaningless in comparing people in this group though. Only one of the kids at my new school was a genius in any real sense of the word and it was pretty obvious to everybody that he was on a different level but there was no way an SAT could show it. He only got about a 1300 though and was horrible at verbal. Just didn't know what the words meant. There were exams that could tell him apart though, we got our hands on a Putnam and he got maybe 6 or 7 (though the teacher that graded them was not really qualified and was way nicer than the real graders) and I was second best with a 2 (would have certainly been a 1 with the real grading).

I think the SAT is pretty good at picking out people who are smart. I think everybody I know who got a 1500 is smart, but it is pretty bad at picking out the ordinary smart kids from the truly special. I guess nobody really expects it to though.

[thesnowman22]

Wow. when we stay away from religion, we have some pretty good discussions on here. I think we should have a "Religion" forum and outlaw religion topics here.

Now...

SAT criteria for Mensa: pre-1974- 1300, 1974-Jan 1994-1250 , after 1994- NA

I do believe there is a pretty high correlation in SAT and intelligence, although i do think what tamedeuces says has some truth, that intelligence has many factors. To soley base intelligence on IQ tests or SAT is wrong.

I also think that just because you have a 1560 on your SAT and Joe has a 1400, Joe COULD be smarter. The DEGREE to which people's intelligence varies is not measured completely by standardized tests.

Also, along the lines of what tame said, the ability to APPLY your knowledge in the real world, TO ME, is a part of intelligence. The ability to control your anger or get along in the world are facets of it. that doesnt mean, someone suggested, that a docile idiot is a genius. the 170 IQ whos a frickin nutcase is smarter than him, but maybe not smarter than the 155 with better social and emotional skills.

i finsihed 56 of 128 in HS. I made a D in advanced Math, and she gave me that. I didnt try, i slept in class, I never studied, I didnt do my homework, I was the classic underacheiver. All i wanted to do was play ball and hang out.

But I made a 690 on the math SAT in 1986 BECAUSE ITS CORRELATED WITH IQ.

Another thing- there are people who CHOOSE to go to pennstate instead of harvard. And how hard a class is or how deep the curriculum is varies not just from school to school, but from prof to prof. There mite be a guy at Louisville teaching a class deeper than at harvard. Unless youve been at both u dont know.

Bottom line- everything and everyone needs to be evaluated individually. Generalizations do just that- generalize.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
"Included in mathematical aptitude I would probably include the ability to work hard with studies, which will always be incredibly helpful in mathematics/physics."

Both clauses are just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it helps you do your field better it should be included. That some slackers can get top grades is pretty uninteresting - a person with the same aptitude as them plus the ability to work hard is still the best bet for who ends up to be best.

[Jon1000]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Included in mathematical aptitude I would probably include the ability to work hard with studies, which will always be incredibly helpful in mathematics/physics."

Both clauses are just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it helps you do your field better it should be included. That some slackers can get top grades is pretty uninteresting - a person with the same aptitude as them plus the ability to work hard is still the best bet for who ends up to be best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two people with the same innate mathematical ability, but one works harder and will thus do better. I get that.

Anything that helps you in the field should be included in mathematical aptitude? wtf?