This has been a topic debated everywhere.

You've got kids who score in the 1500+ and have high IQ that correlates very strongly. But I've also seen students score "mediocre" or perhaps "poorly" relative to their high IQs. Many times these same students with the high IQs but pedestrian SATs seem to have processing speed deficits. Many of them appear to struggle with the snap-judgment of timed tests, and over analyze questions that are meant to be straight forward.

It's a shame the SATS have such weight in college admissions. I've seen very bright students flounder due to lower scores. They aspired to attend selective universities where they could fit in with other highly capable peers but instead internalized the inability to score highly on the standardized tests, rationalized their high IQ scores as 'flukes' and suffered great problems with self-esteem.

One size doesn't fit all of course. Such is the curse and joy of life.

I think that if more schools and more psychologists were cognizant of the fact that giftedness does not preclude having specific learning disabilities or processing deficits, these students would be able to get reasonable accommodations on the SAT (and in college) and achieve at a level more in line with their intellectual ability.

ETA: They would also be better able to understand why some things were so much harder for them than for others and not doubt their own intelligence so much.

Especially with the advent of study programs for tests like the SAT, I'm not even sure that we can conclude that high scores on these types of tests indicate high IQ.

Mensa agrees with you, but for reasons regarding the new test structure, not just the availability of study programs.

Actually, for a variety of mostly politically correct reasons, the SAT questions were changed so that they correlate much less to IQ today than they used to. Getting a 1600 (Verbal + Math only) used to be a really big deal and a virtual lock into any selective school including the Ivies and Stanford. Now there are thousands of students performing at this level (as opposed to a handful per test). One of the most famous changes made toward this end was the elimination of analogies (even after class biased words like "regatta" were eliminated) in the verbal section. Analogies simply tracked too closely to intelligence rather than achievement, so they were done away with.

I recall hearing that as well in a psych testing & assessment class I took a few years back. The GRE is the same deal. When I took it, there was an analytical section which correlated better with IQ. I guess that I should feel good that that was my highest scoring section -- lol! The newer GRE no longer has that section.

Current SAT max is 2400 not 1600. There are 3 parts now. Readin', writin', and 'rithmatic. Not sure when they made the changeover, been several years.

Research by Detterman et al. http://psychology.case.edu/faculty/detterman_doug.html has found large correlations between IQ and scores on the SAT and ACT . Some of the papers can be found online. The new SAT does have a lower ceiling than the older one (used in Detterman's study).

There are SAT-to-IQ conversion tables online for students in 11th-12th grade. I would like to see such a table for younger students. A math SAT score of 700 at 12 vs. 17 translates into different IQs.

I don't agree with the argument that the SAT must have a low correlation with IQ because people study for it. My 8yo boy is studying for the SAT, especially the math section, using books by Kaplan and the College Board. Before preparing he scored in the low 600s on an old SAT at home. Once he is exposed to all the SAT math he should score a bit higher. SAT preparation is over the head of most 8-year-olds and would raise their scores very little. A test can be g-loaded yet also be studied for. IQ will set a limit on how much score improvement studying can yield.

Talent searches and the Davidson Young Scholars program use the SAT and ACT to identify gifted students, so they must still think these tests are valid for that purpose.

Yes, but not in isolation and not at the age at which these tests are meant to be taken. DYS, for instance, wouldn't take a perfect SAT score from a high school junior for admission and, even from middle schoolers, requires the IQ piece as well.

I'd agree that most 8 y/os couldn't study their way into particularly high SAT or ACT scores b/c it would be over their heads. However, I do think that average to bright average high schoolers could study their way into significantly higher SAT/ACT scores than their intelligence would predict especially b/c, as I understand it, a lot of the studying isn't about the material itself but test taking strategies for how to get the most points out of the tests (when to guess, etc.).

I think that this is where the IQ correlations fall apart. The old charts show IQ correlations for SAT scores for high schoolers who are taking the test at the planned age/grade.

Since Davidson only accepts the SAT as a college placement test in place of an achievement test, I wouldn't say that their doing so really weighs in favor of a high IQ correlation. The correlation is whatever it is; we don't know it; and it's likely lowered in the newest version.

That is an interesting point and brings to mind the achievement/ability correlation question. Do we accept high achievement as proof of high IQ/intelligence in all instances? I'd argue not. I know plenty of kids/teens/probably even adults who achieve at a level that is higher than their IQ. I do think that hard work, motivation, exposure, and probably a number of other things play as heavily into achievement as does intelligence. I'm curious as to others' thoughts, though.

For standardized tests, I've found that if I do enough practice tests, I can generally get a nearly perfect score, generally completing them in under the time limit.

The only exception for me was when I was practicing on the LSAT. I was only ever able to get a practice score of about 176 (out of 180) because I simply wasn't fast enough. And if I did it faster, my accuracy suffered.

I only have that problem with verbal standardized tests, not with science or math tests.

The only IQ test that I have laying around my house says that my IQ is 139 (when I was seven years old?).

Now, if you take my SAT score of 1440 (740/700), it says that I'm supposed to be at the 99.8th percentile using that comparison thingy. I wasn't really practicing for that one.

My GMAT score (770) puts me above 99.9th. I did enough practice tests to get an 800.

So, in my case, my standardized test scores were ending up above my tested IQ score.

I'm one data point, so you can take it for what's it's worth.

My one data point is that my husband scored 790/790/790 on his GREs. He is very smart, don't get me wrong, but we both feel that's likely an overestimation. Key fact: he used to teach SAT prep classes.

I didn't know they'd eliminated the analogies. I guess I could see the argument that those are more of a pure intelligence test. Bummer for my DD, though--that was her highest score on her IQ test. She LOVES analogies.

Also, one of my best friends in high school got mediocre scores on the SATs and has always done poorly on standardized tests. Based her truly abysmal spelling, I assume she is dyslexic or has another LD. She is now extremely successful both as a programmer and in her side career as a book critic. I really think she's smarter than me, but I outscored her by a lot on the SAT.

My daughter's reading score on the ACT was poor. She has a tough time not being thorough. We are working on skimming - a needed skill for this part of the ACT.

I don't know that "skimming" is necessarily a skill needed to excel on the ACT reading - but fluency and speed are certainly helpful, as is rapidly retrieving details from the passage and drawing inferences from them. Have you done a diagnostic practice test to see which particular kinds of questions she is missing? Targeted practice on those types of questions (and lots and lots of practice tests, with an emphasis on her weak sections) can often help make the most of test prep time.

My son has more trouble with the "social inference" kind of reading questions than with anything else - not surprisingly. His strategy on tests like these is to go through and answer everything he can answer within 10 seconds of reading the question (marking down the number and giving his best quick guess on the others just to have a "place-holder" answer so he doesn't have to remember to fill in the next answer leaving a skipped space), and then going back to "actually" answer those he has to really think about if he has time at the end. This can often be helpful if time considerations are an issue - no point in running out of time and missing easy questions at the end because you felt compelled to answer all of the questions in order.

I don't see the current SAT and ACT as necessarily correlating at extraordinary levels with IQ. For the most part, they test skills that can be explicitly taught more than pure reasoning ability, and, due to the time constraints, reward good working memory and processing speed as much as they do straight reasoning power.

My take is that if you take the SAT (or PSAT, even) without prep, you can get a ballpark estimate of your IQ. Furthermore, the ACT still correlates with IQ, so if you took the SAT, just convert it to an ACT score to get your estimated IQ.

Depends on what you mean by correlated. There is certainly a positive R-squared, but it’s not that high. Current ACT and SAT are much more based on learned knowledge than inherent “intelligence”. The scores are also correlated with parent education level, income, and other factors.

IQ scores are also correlated with parent education level, income, and other factors.