That's not the only factor. I frequently defend the SAT, but the College Board, which produces it, is increasingly dishonest or at least willfully uninformed about why the SAT is predictive. The SAT used to stand for "Scholastic Aptitude Test", and "aptitude" sounds a lot like intelligence. But they dropped the term "aptitude", because retaining it raises the question of whether groups have different average scholastic aptitudes, since their SAT average scores differ. Since the College Board does *not* want to talk about that, it will *not* do any research correlating SAT scores with IQ. At the same time, if it eliminated the g loading of the SAT, its ability to predict college grades would decline substantially. So the College Board tries to make the SAT look like less of an IQ test (dropping analogies, and soon, "obscure words") while still being enough of one to retain value.
Well, yes, back in the days of yore, the SAT was developed on the model of aptitude tests developed by the military, both tests were somewhat loaded to favor particular groups, and as a result, both were forced to evolve. The ASVAB (successor to the original Alpha) is still basically an aptitude test because it still exists primarily to predict success for individuals in specific fields of study, and the SAT has evolved in a different direction, because it exists primarily to make money, and predictive power is a secondary goal.
Anyway, since you just admitted the SAT is evolving in ways that are increasingly meaningless to IQ, I guess we're done here.
