Standardized tests or GPA as a measure of intelligence?
Personally, I think standardized tests like SAT,GMAT, GRE ( even lsat for non-law school candidates actually) should be valued more rather than GPA. Or is it only my opinion to rationalize my rubbish GPA (3.3 for engineering from target /3.2 for MFE from top tier)?
Some of my classmates from MFE have very bad GRE like 160 but they have near perfect GPA. Some who took GMAT have below 700. Even my roommate who is always making fun of MBA students for being dumb has 620 on GMAT(which is very low even considering she is not native English speaker, since GMAT also has quantitative section that she can make up her loss from verbal section)
Was actually shocked to hear their scores because I thought, as obvious in college, high score is required for this kind of competitive program... (Don't think any of my classmates from undergrad has SAT of lower than 2200...)
While I scored 170 on GRE and 800 on GMAT, I never did very well on school exams. Not that I did not studied as hard as people with good grades..I probably spent the same amount of time as they did at a library. So I started to doubt myself being smart because I never managed to get good grades regardless of my effort. Because I think spending 6+ hours at a library every weekend and 3+ almost every day are quite a lot. Or maybe, I have been in a wrong major for all these years?!
My standardized tests score tell me that I am within 1%, but my GPA doesn't exactly say the same...
So which measure do you believe tells more about one's intelligence?
(not about one's persistence or an effort because for that question GPA is the obvious answer.)
I believe it's very difficult to trick standardized testing, but I've met many many college students that have cheated their way to 3.5+ GPAs. It's not too difficult these days. I knew of frat houses with file rooms of all homework assignments and old tests, they would make courses incredibly easy. I think a high GPA is a great indicator of someone who is going to do what it takes (no lazy bums or quitters) but I think standardized testing is a good way to separate the people with falsely high GPAs.
I must confess I am a low GPA guy, so I'm partial, but I think the statement is fair from anyone.
I know a kid who cheated the SAT's... Just got someone to take it with a fake ID.
My best friend in high school was this ridiculously smart Russian guy. He got something like 1480 on his SATs (without studying at all or trying at all--could have done 1600 with prep). I was stuck around 1350, which was too good for your regular state university but not good enough for the elite institutions. He was willing to take the SAT for me with a fake ID. Would have been super easy to cheat. I almost did it, but thought that the risk of getting caught simply wasn't worth it. That risk/reward wasn't worth it.
Test scores are more about raw brainpower (but even these can be 'tricked' if you bust your ass prepping).
GPA depends a lot more on work ethic, I think.
kinda agree with above, with the exception that test scores aren't necessarily raw brainpower rather a specific type of brainpower. There are plenty of brilliant people that aren't the best standardized test takers. Also, test prep is a huge factor. However, I'd agree that GPA speaks more to a sustained well rounded work ethic and a test speaks to potential capabilities.
Just wondering since your sentence structure seems weird, where are you from anyways?
800 GMAT, I wouldn't worry about it. Very few people get that score.
But, yes, I agree with you.
I didn't read anything in this thread, but both test and IQ scores are terrible measures of intelligence.
Intelligence isn't even officially defined in modern science, but you want to quantify it with a single number?
This is a fair point. My guess is the OP is simply engaging in a "what if" game/scenario/mental masturbation.
Just an opinion. But standardized tests are probably more an indicator of raw potential (but you can definitely game it with enough test prep--it's certainly not foolproof). However, GPA is more indicative of a well-rounded student. I also believe that GPA is a more useful metric for employers vs. standardized tests for the most part, but it depends on the job I'm hiring for. If I need solid, reliable work done daily, I'd rather hire the low standardized test score/high GPA individual. If I need some brilliant code cracker and feel like taking a chance, I'd rather hire the high test scores/low GPA person.
Why just use either when you have both?
My understanding of standardized tests is that while they are not perfect indicators of intelligence, they are pretty close, so many people tend to use standardized scores as proxies for general intelligence. Yes, you can definitely improve your scores with prep. However, your maximum score is still constrained by your intelligence. Otherwise, every prep school kid would have a 2300+ on the SATs because their parents could afford the prep, which obviously isn't the case. You can "game" standardized tests only up to a certain extent. GPA is a mix of intelligence and work ethic and is easier to game because the mix of classes you take can vary. Standardized tests IMO are a better proxy for intelligence but you can't be at opposite spectrums for GPA and test scores (i.e. low GPA and high scores or vice-versa). You need to be balanced.
What is Dali lived today and got a 20 on his ACT? Would he be unintelligent? People can be pretty different.
I took a psychology gen ed and there are like five different ways of classifying intelligence over which psychologists and neuroscientists are still arguing. One claims that intelligence lies on a single spectrum. Another claims that it lies on like seven different spectrums, which is why savants exist; another claims the same but with five or nine or whatever. Another dude proposed some crazy ass 3D spectrum.
tl;dr: We don't know enough about intelligence to be so certain in quantifying it. While what we have is better than nothing, it's still not much.
You're right. Honestly I have no clue what kind of intelligence the SAT measures -- maybe just general intelligence? Ether way, SAT/GMAT/whatever is a pretty incomplete measure of intellect. I'd say to treat high test scores as positive outliers but not as a direct affirmation of intelligence, since obviously these tests don't measure everything. Though you can't deny that the ones who are able to get perfect standardized test scores are probably way above your average Joe. shrugs
Dali is a genius for sure, but a different kind of genius -- the artistic/creative kind. There are plenty of people like that and they tend to slip through the cracks because their test scores and GPA don't affirm that they're geniuses. That's not to say that they aren't, but their genius lies elsewhere.
800? Hoo, boy.
I've heard that some schools like to shut 800-ers out, just to proudly exclaim that they don't care about the GMAT.
Qui alias qui distinctio perferendis eos tenetur. Fuga qui odit consequatur expedita animi facere. Facere delectus repellendus quis quod alias assumenda.
Nihil mollitia qui voluptas quis quo. Amet quos a fugiat quis. Quo necessitatibus ex quia praesentium non ut omnis.
Ex quis vel et debitis. Quaerat officia voluptatem similique modi ut. Excepturi laboriosam quos temporibus totam maxime repellat.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...