/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4951307]

Why aren't IQ tests used to replace the SAT?

Haven't SAT test scores been shown to be inferior in predicting a students potential in every way?

[Anonymous No.4951326]

A low income child could too easily beat a rich child.

[Anonymous No.4951346]

>>4951326
/This.

It is also one of the reasons why we have been dumbing-down education. Not that there are several other bad reasons.

[Anonymous No.4951361]

>>4951307

Not to mention that fact that there is no ONE good IQ test. IQ tests don't test all parts of knowledge. Honestly, SAT tests do better than IQ tests when it comes to that.

[Anonymous No.4951366]

Poor but brilliant kids would suddenly get recognition.

Spoiled brats would be revealed for the idiots they are.

And the nepotistic faggots in charge of the Corporate states of Murrika can't have that, so instead we get a standardized testing system that only measures regurgitation ability.

[Anonymous No.4951373]

>>4951361
>Any excuse is a good excuse.

You are a racist, bigoted, Jew-killing Nazi.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951376]

Because making children compete against each other in an assessment of intellectual capacity isn't fair to the stupider children ... it makes them feel bad ... which is why we need to create watered down tests which dont accurately reflect the capacity for intellect. And because the stupid kids need to fit into society without being alerted to how stupid they are.

>>4951361
At the age their taken the SAT is much more appropriate and all round more effective. Agreed.

[Anonymous No.4951379]

>>4951361

But if that's the problem, why not just cut the general academic part of the SAT in half and have the other half of the test be logic and critical think based?

There are almost no questions in the SAT that measure your ability to use reason at all. It's a pretty shitty test.

[Anonymous No.4951381]

>>4951366
We have standardized testing because republicans are cowardly shit-stains.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951383]

>>4951379
>Teenagers.
>Applying intuitive reason.
>I shiggy diggy.

[Anonymous No.4951388]

>>4951379
We don't want critical thinking to be part of the test, because Americans are supposed to believe propaganda.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951391]

>>4951388
Americans aren't supposed to realize the implications of the politicians they vote for*

[Anonymous No.4951394]

>>4951391
Do you watch television, and feel informed?

Most Americans do.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951416]

>>4951394
And this fact has always left me feeling rather uneasy.

[Anonymous No.4951435]

>>4951416
Uneasy?

It's fucking nightmare-fuel.

I wish I could only feel uneasy.

[Anonymous No.4951458]

IQ tests are intended to show potential ability of the subject.

SAT is intended to show the student's aptitude and application of effort in learning -- not even remotely the same thing.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951462]

>>4951435
Humanity has always both inspired and disturbed me. I can't decide whether to be proud or ashamed.

But hey ... curiosity rover, amirite?

[Anonymous No.4951465]

>>4951379
>There are almost no questions in the SAT that measure your ability to use reason at all.

This is the biggest problem. The SAT is not THAT bad. It measures a basic academic ability which is fine since the SAT is really only used for colleges.

but not including ANY FUCKING REASONING QUESTIONS AT ALL really gets to me. College is not high school, lots of majors require you to do more than just "hard work". You also need to not be a dumbass.

The SAT could be improved so much if every section was reduced by about 10% and a new 30~40 question "Base logic" section was added which included various IQ questions deemed suitable for teenagers to answer.

At the very least it would give a good idea who the underachieving lazy fucks are and who the overachieving or rich kids with tutors are.

[Anonymous No.4951470]

>>4951458
That is why schools teach the test, not comprehension.

Nightmare-fuel.

[Anonymous No.4951495]

>>4951462
No. You are not right.

It is weak and lame, compared to our potential.

If we pushed, we could already have robots building bases on the moon and Mars.

We are doing badly in exploration because too many people see it is normal to be television-informed. All of those people are dangerous to the survival of our species. They demand respect for their beliefs, and their beliefs will not insure our survival.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951501]

>>4951470
Down the rabbit hole man ....

>>4951465
They can't test the ability to apply reason or logic because thats not something the demographic taking the test are psychologically capable of exerting.

[Anonymous No.4951503]

>>4951376

This actually does have a part in it. IQ tests are fine for the majority, but for those people it deems retarded it's basically like saying:

"Congratulations. You are an idiot. You always will be an idiot. You might as well give up and not even try to succeed because your idiocy will surely make you fail."

And while such a statement is unfortunately true for many of those people, the bleeding heart liberals and EVERY CHILD DESERVES A CHANCE BAWWWWWWWWWWW carebears just can't accept reality. The masses prefer kindhearted bullshit to harsh truths.

It is for this reason why IQ tests are not only not used in place of SAT's, but are completely optional and not really required for anything in the academic field.

[Anonymous No.4951506]

>having kids take an IQ test to determine if they can go to college
>said test is open to debate since the concept of IQ isn't fully accepted nor fully understood
>issue of kids potentially "cheating" the test itself in the end still won't be address

At this point why not require every kid to have at least one previous job for 5+ months or 1,000 hours of community service before even being considered for college?

At least that way we are aware that they are disciplined enough to when it comes to their ethics and duty not to waste time and resources of everyone.

[Anonymous No.4951508]

>>4951470
No, I'm not agreeing to 'nightmare-fuel'
I'm saying the test shows the quality of effort a student has put in; that is what they want to know about.
Not inherent intelligence, but it is generally expected that the intelligent students will also do well.

[Anonymous No.4951514]

>>4951501

You do realize that IQ tests are adjusted for age right?

Teenagers are obviously not fully developed in that region, but saying they can't do reason AT ALL is an objectively false statement.

What you are saying is akin to saying that a glass half full is in fact completely empty.

[Anonymous No.4951528]

>>4951508
Schools teach for the tests, not for comprehension of the subject. That is why I say it is nightmare fuel.

You need to fuck up at chemistry to see why you need to be careful.

Most students know "baking-soda" chemistry. That is like depending on students from another country for your research. You have no-one that knows what is going on.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951531]

>>4951514
>You do realize That IQ tests are adjusted for age right?
You do realize that IQ tests are flawed in this very respect? What you're saying is akin to saying that because someone isn't the average height of their age before puberty, they're always going to be short.

Which is of course retarded.

[Anonymous No.4951552]

>>4951531
sub-130 ape confirmed

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951556]

>>4951552
I wish.

[Anonymous No.4951559]

>>4951556
wish granted

[Anonymous No.4951560]

I'm not from the US. How exactly are the SATs skewed in the rich kids' favour?

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951564]

>>4951559

[Anonymous No.4951568]

>>4951361
>iq tests don't test all parts of knowledge
What about that one iq test that is floating around that tests all 12 areas of knowledge?

[Anonymous No.4951610]

>>4951560
Because public schools are forced to teach tests instead of comprehension to receive funding.

[Anonymous No.4951620]

>>4951610
I don't necessarily understand what you're saying. I get the premise, that they're teaching memorization rather than intuitive understanding, but how does that discriminate based on how rich you are?

[Anonymous No.4951626]

>>4951620

Because rich kids get private school which does give them the proper education.

It's all about keeping the majority of the populace dumb enough to run the machines. Can't have everyone smart.

[Anonymous No.4951634]

>>4951620
>I don't understand what you're saying

That is correct.

>they're teaching memorization rather than intuitive understanding

Private schools have no standards of income. They always get all their money. When you teach the test, you abandon the exceptional students. Private schools can focus on their rare exceptional students, who just end up expecting more than they deserve because the people they have to compete against are not as well educated as the people that come from other countries. ~Everyone~ in our country suffers, because the best and most common competition is crippled.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951638]

>>4951568
Its not an IQ test as much as it is a series of mini games that test your ability to play the minigames.

Theres no logicality need applied that you'd learn outside the games parameters and rules.

[Anonymous No.4951649]

>Why aren't IQ tests used to replace the SAT?

Political reasons.

>Haven't SAT test scores been shown to be inferior in predicting a students potential in every way?

As far as I know, yes. However, one can just do a factor analysis on the SAT test and get a decent IQ g measurement out of it.

Analysis shows that SAT scores do not predict stuff beyond their g-loadedness. Showing that it is the intelligence measuring part of them that is useful for predicting grades.

[IQ expert !otnRSDkuZA No.4951653]

>Not to mention that fact that there is no ONE good IQ test.

Wrong. Go read up on IQ testing.

>IQ tests don't test all parts of knowledge.

Obviously not. They are not made to test knowledge. They are made to test intelligence. That's why the output is called "intelligence quotient", not "knowledge quotient". Hurr durr. There are other tests to test general knowledge. They of course correlate with IQ.

>Honestly, SAT tests do better than IQ tests when it comes to that.

Measuring knowledge? I wouldn't be surprised.

[IQ expert !otnRSDkuZA No.4951657]

>>4951376
>Because making children compete against each other in an assessment of intellectual capacity isn't fair to the stupider children ... it makes them feel bad ... which is why we need to create watered down tests which dont accurately reflect the capacity for intellect. And because the stupid kids need to fit into society without being alerted to how stupid they are.

More likely it is a racial issue. But of course switching to any other g-loaded test, such as SAT or ACT, does not work either. No good test of intelligence will ever make whites and black equal. Or white and jews for that matter. The racial populations are not equal in AVERAGE intellectual ability.

[Anonymous No.4951658]

Coz aint no teaching a nigga white reality. Teach me the mutherfucken gang mentality.

[Anonymous No.4951660]

>>4951307
confirmed for butthurt "I'm really smart but don't try in school"
gg, faggot

[IQ expert !otnRSDkuZA No.4951662]

>>4951465
>The SAT could be improved so much if every section was reduced by about 10% and a new 30~40 question "Base logic" section was added which included various IQ questions deemed suitable for teenagers to answer.

Why not just use IQ tests? They are, after all, the best tests of intelligence. Not surprisingly, since that's their purpose.

As for logic and critical thinking. I'm all for it. The good thing about logic and critical thinking is that it is somewhat teachable. Although perhaps not as much as some people think. I say this as a logician.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951667]

>>4951657
Of course not, but thats simply a matter of genetics. When everyone is given an equal opportunity, and all individuals taken on said basis, race becomes an inconsequential factor unless you're referring to the actuarial average recorded IQ/SAT scores.

Its all contextual and circumstantial. But in the broadest perspective you are of course correct.

[IQ expert !otnRSDkuZA No.4951679]

>>4951667
>Of course not, but thats simply a matter of genetics. When everyone is given an equal opportunity, and all individuals taken on said basis, race becomes an inconsequential factor unless you're referring to the actuarial average recorded IQ/SAT scores.

When everyone is given 'equal opportunity' (whatever that actually includes), genes will be MORE not less important. Why? When doing so, one is removing non-hereditary variance, thus increasing hereditary explanatory power.

In Norway, they were confused when the data showed that their school reforms didn't make everybody equal as expected. The obvious reason is that things that are important for school, primarily intelligence and C (five factor model) are strongly hereditary.

[Anonymous No.4951684]

>>4951660
Agreed, ITT people who don't realize motivation, application, and communication are as important as ability to reason. There's a reason the autistic don't run the world.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951687]

>>4951679
Thats the point i was making, if you had actually paid attention to what i wrote.

[Anonymous No.4951688]

ITT: idiots who failed either their SAT test or their IQ test and attribution bias

[IQ expert !otnRSDkuZA No.4951692]

>>4951687
>Thats the point i was making, if you had actually paid attention to what i wrote.

I never stated anywhere that I disagreed with anything you wrote. Don't presume that every response to your posts disagree with something.

[None !h3/Ace/X4. No.4951710]

>>4951692
You stated something we both consider to be obvious and mutually understood information, i know it was relevant to your response and explanation but i still, by default, interpreted some opposition. I apologize, but do have to state i am justified in what i wrote.

[Anonymous No.4951715]

>>4951688
Really? You failed both? And you say it is because everyone did?

Ah, well.

Maybe you will do better in college.

[IQ expert !otnRSDkuZA No.4951719]

>>4951710
>You stated something we both consider to be obvious and mutually understood information, i know it was relevant to your response and explanation but i still, by default, interpreted some opposition. I apologize, but do have to state i am justified in what i wrote.

I don't know you, and I don't know what you know. Anyway, lots of people on /sci/ does not know it, and that was why I wrote it. Not for you in particular. :) Basically, I was repeating the point Razib Khan (Gene Expression blogger) makes so often.

[Anonymous No.4951776]

I got shit grades in high school but did very well on the SAT, which made up for a 2.65 GPA. The SAT was easy because it was mostly multiple choice. Multiple choice is all about eliminating the obviously wrong answers, then roll the dice if you can't figure it out.