Comments on: IQ and the SAT http://kingofforest.com/archives/118 Rants, Reactions, Ruminations, and Remedies from a thoughtful citizen Sun, 20 May 2012 08:43:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.1 By: Jan van der Roud http://kingofforest.com/archives/118#comment-37 Jan van der Roud Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:34:02 +0000 http://kingofforest.com/archives/118#comment-37 I am surprised that the Boston Globe would print such a report claiming that a 1600 on the SAT correlates to a mere 121 IQ when the reality is that a 1600 is in the 99.9999997th percentile of the population (I would assume an IQ in the range of 160++). This would more likely correlate to a much higher IQ. It is really a shame how statistics are being misrepresented in such a widely-read periodical. Thank you very much Mr. Powell for your good will and your desire for journalistic integrity. The sad thing is, this happens probably everyday and is the reason for rumours, myths, and downright falsehoods. I respect the person for trying to shed light on a intense and worthwhile discussion, but when something is so ostentatiously laid-out, appearing to be professional work, it comes off as so pretentious, ironically enough, my tone is rather pretentious in and of itself. I dislike being nasty. I am surprised that the Boston Globe would print such a report claiming that a 1600 on the SAT correlates to a mere 121 IQ when the reality is that a 1600 is in the 99.9999997th percentile of the population (I would assume an IQ in the range of 160++). This would more likely correlate to a much higher IQ. It is really a shame how statistics are being misrepresented in such a widely-read periodical. Thank you very much Mr. Powell for your good will and your desire for journalistic integrity. The sad thing is, this happens probably everyday and is the reason for rumours, myths, and downright falsehoods. I respect the person for trying to shed light on a intense and worthwhile discussion, but when something is so ostentatiously laid-out, appearing to be professional work, it comes off as so pretentious, ironically enough, my tone is rather pretentious in and of itself. I dislike being nasty.

]]> By: anonymouse http://kingofforest.com/archives/118#comment-12168 anonymouse Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:24:29 +0000 http://kingofforest.com/archives/118#comment-12168 Your facts and conclusion are each, even taken separately, wrong. A score of 1600 on the SAT has doubtfully ever been that rare (indeed, at that rate we would expect only one perfect score every two centuries.) Today, a 1600 on the rescaled SAT corresponds only to a percentile of 99.93. Let us not take this as an opportunity to wax poetic about the halcyon days of old, when men were real men and took real unscaled standardized tests. Finally, of course, to argue for the correlation of SAT and IQ by comparing the extreme measurements of each is to assume what you are "proving" (circular reasoning), that the high-scorers in each are actually the same people. I will leave it as an exercise for you to further convince yourself of this. Your facts and conclusion are each, even taken separately, wrong.

A score of 1600 on the SAT has doubtfully ever been that rare (indeed, at that rate we would expect only one perfect score every two centuries.)

Today, a 1600 on the rescaled SAT corresponds only to a percentile of 99.93. Let us not take this as an opportunity to wax poetic about the halcyon days of old, when men were real men and took real unscaled standardized tests.

Finally, of course, to argue for the correlation of SAT and IQ by comparing the extreme measurements of each is to assume what you are “proving” (circular reasoning), that the high-scorers in each are actually the same people. I will leave it as an exercise for you to further convince yourself of this.

]]>