Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Post it and also the date, or at least the version as it's changed drastically.

You might notice that I'm being hypocritical and not posting mine, but whatever.

Didn't the potential high scores change like 10 years ago? You may have to define those so that responses are comparing apples to apples. You say to post the date, but that doesn't help us know the differences.

The differences are on record.

1,000,000 Verbal

1,000,000 Math

2003/2004 - 34 on English ACT

i don't remember. all i know is i did pretty solid in math and screwed the pooch with the other half. to be fair, i never studied or gave a shit because i was kind of a slacker back then. but i did liked the maths.

i got 0 points

I took mine in 1998 and scored 1380.

DMD should've gotten a perfect on the vocab section with that fancy language he's throwing around

Anyway (I'm gonna be brutally honest here so feel free to judge)

SAT (600-2400 version pre 2016)

Took a prep class, took the test twice. First time I was in upper 1700's second time I was in the mid 1800's. Did exceptionally better in non-math sections. Unfortunately it is partially an aptitude/IQ test so I didn't bother trying to retake it. Mediocre score all-around.

ACT: 29

Took it one time. I gave myself the weekend before to prepare with some books from the library and somehow pulled off a (percentile speaking) better score than I did on the SAT with class prep and PSAT exposure. To me this doesn't make any f*cking sense as the math section on the ACT is harder than the SAT yet I scored a 30. Ironically enough, reading, which is what I performed best at on the SAT I performed the worst at on the ACT with a score of 26/27. I don't remember what I got on the other sections.

In the end it doesn't really matter though (to an extent).


Next up is the LSAT.

I am from Illinois, and we take the ACT. I got a 36.

In fact, the year I graduated, my friend Josh, the class valedictorian, and I all got perfect scores on the ACT.

My class rank is only in the 99th percentile though.

Even though I had a weighted 5.0 GPA, I began accumulating high school credit in middle school, so I did not have a full course schedule in my senior year.

Since my school factors credit hours into the ranking calculation, I got bumped along with some of the other AP students.

It did not hurt my admissions, grants, or scholarships though.

We never had the SATs where I live. We have an SAT equivalent (the NCEE). Where I scored in the top 99++ percentile (.01%). I was a HUGE slacker tho. Never studied, barely did homework and was more interested in AD&D, PC games and anime. -_-

My wife got a 1450 (or 1460, she can't exactly remember). Her math dragged her score down a bit (she always hated the maths). Mid 90's SAT.

In the UK we don't have SAT we have O-level (now GCSE) taken at 16 and A-levels, Exams where you mainly write essays based on two years of study beyond O-level in chosen subjects, they are narrow, focused exams but still harder than AP or IB in each subject. I took my maths O-level a year early and did further maths in the 5th year (now grade 11) I did 10 O-levels in total, and my lowest grade was a B in only one Exam, this is in the days before A star. I got three straight A's at A-level again this is in the days before A star. In those days O and A levels had no coursework element, unlike US high schools, no continuous assessment like GCSE or High School pass and were entirely on the exam.

Originally posted by Kurk
Unfortunately it is partially an aptitude/IQ test so I didn't bother trying to retake it.

The SAT/ACT is correlated with IQ but you can still increase your score by quite a bit.

My ACT score was 31. Scored 35/34/29 in English/Reading/Math, but did poorly in the Science portion. I didn't really study for it beyond taking one of those online PSAT's to get a feel for what I was getting into.

Took it in 1997 in the 8th grade - We were all forced to pay for and take the ACT in the 8th grade at my school as part of their "high school to college" prep strategy.

30/36

That's the only one I took and I didn't have to take them after that.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am from Illinois, and we take the ACT. I got a 36.

In fact, the year I graduated, my friend Josh, the class valedictorian, and I all got perfect scores on the ACT.

I remember a conversation we had about this from almost exactly 10 years ago and this is what you said:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Of my class of approximately 600 students, only one student scored higher than I on the ACT. He received a perfect score, I missed one question in Mathematics, and my friend, Josh, missed one question in English.


Edit - I also remember you telling me about the 5.0 thing but I don't remember when you told me that. hmm

300 point increases in the 2400 SAT from freshman -> senior year aren't that unheard of, and a 100 point jump with a few months of studying is pretty common. Even the LSAT can be gamed to an extent, though I agree it's more IQ-based than any of the college exams.

http://www.nova.edu/career/resources/law_school_10_lsat_facts_you_should_know.html

The LSAT is very strongly correlated with IQ; indeed, by some measures it's about as correlated with an IQ test as IQ tests are correlated with one another.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The LSAT is very strongly correlated with IQ; indeed, by some measures it's about as correlated with an IQ test as IQ tests are correlated with one another.



I would say it is weakly to moderately, but most certainly not "very strongly."


And because the LSAT can be studied for and test scores significantly improved (to the extreme), it does not make it quite an IQ analogue. With some people having genius IQs but getting average scores and some average people getting top scores, it can be seen why the LSAT cannot translate into an IQ analogue: it's not. An IQ test will not vary so much (but scores will improve, moderately, with frequent testing...but no where near what you can do with study and practice for an LSAT).

http://news.berkeley.edu/2012/08/22/intense-prep-for-law-school-admissions-test-alters-brain-structure/

I mean, you can actually study for and improve your score on an IQ test if you really wanted to (though it wouldn't actually make you smarter); that you can do so for the LSAT doesn't change the fact that it's fairly g-loaded and well correlated with IQ, though I'm too lazy to pull up the data right now.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I mean, you can actually study for and improve your score on an IQ test if you really wanted to (though it wouldn't actually make you smarter);

I addressed this already in my previous post.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
...that you can do so for the LSAT doesn't change the fact that it's fairly g-loaded and well correlated with IQ, though I'm too lazy to pull up the data right now.

Yes, yes it does. This is how IQ tests are supposed to work. Why do you think the S&B is on version 5?


You won't be able to "pull up the data" because no comprehensive research has been done on this.



It's also not hard to google this information.

Use google scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/



Here are the results:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C37&q=lsat+and+iq+correlation&btnG=

Originally posted by dadudemon
I addressed this already in my previous post.

Eh, I haven't seen reason to think that if there were an industry around gaming IQ tests like there is for gaming the LSAT, you wouldn't see people's scores improve. We know that you can raise someone's performance on an IQ test pretty non-trivially - it just won't actually make them smarter.



Lol, most of those articles are behind paywalls. In either case, IIRC it's been found that untrained LSAT scores are about as correlated with IQ tests as different IQ tests are to one another, which is part of the reason why societies like MENSA accept the LSAT. This isn't too surprising given the nature of the test (lots of abstract reasoning and logic puzzles, some of which you may literally find on IQ tests).

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Eh, I haven't seen reason to think that if there were an industry around gaming IQ tests like there is for gaming the LSAT, you wouldn't see people's scores improve. We know that you can raise someone's performance on an IQ test pretty non-trivially - it just won't actually make them smarter.

That's odd to say because crystallized intelligence really doesn't change much after adulthood even if you train for it. It's probably because you cannot improve your IQ very much compared to ...say...an LSAT score.

Training to complete a task is how you game the LSAT. This is why average IQ people can get top scores on the LSAT with enough study. You cannot magically make yourself a genius, however.


Originally posted by The Ellimist
Lol, most of those articles are behind paywalls. In either case, IIRC it's been found that untrained LSAT scores are about as correlated with IQ tests as different IQ tests are to one another, which is part of the reason why societies like MENSA accept the LSAT. This isn't too surprising given the nature of the test (lots of abstract reasoning and logic puzzles, some of which you may literally find on IQ tests).

Let me know when you find research. I already posted an article that stated no comprehensive research has been done on this.

Interestingly Crystalised Intelligence under some circumstances can change drastically. You might want to look at the metadata on "the knowledge", the effects of learning all the Roads in the City of London on Cognitive processes, not only does it seem to rewire the brain regarding remembering things, but it also appears to improve pattern solving and cause and effect linkage. Truly fascinating stuff.