<p>I disagree with the idea that the SAT I measures intelligence. While it is true that it does a good job of approximating a student’s potential, many other factors must be taken into consideration. </p>
<p>Also, it is absurd to compare the SAT I to the IQ test and suggest that it primarily measures reasoning ability. People with IQs of 140+ can do poorly on the SAT due to testing problems. While the IQ test does actually measure the reasoning ability of the person, the SAT measures their knowledge of grammar, geometry, and algebra among other things. </p>
<p>Gukki5 suggested that the SAT IIs can be studied for more while, the SAT cannot. This is also false. People spend a ridiculous amount of time and money to prepare for the SAT and it clearly does make a difference. There are people who after tutoring and additional studying raise their score 200-300 points. I do admit that there a very intelligent people who can score highly without any studying. One of my good friends got a 2330 without any preparation. On the other hand, this can also be done with SAT IIs. I got an 800 on the WH without studying.</p>
<p>Lastly, in response to what chicagoboy said, I would like to point out that while it is true that a person at a below average school may be at a disadvantage when it comes to the subject tests, the same thing can be said for the SAT I. For instance, my school has an excellent chemistry teacher but an atrocious english department. Because of this, the chem SAT II was far easier for me than the reading and writing parts of the SAT.</p>
<p>Personally, I think that both the SAT I and the subject tests have their merits. Both should have important roles in the admissions process. However, I feel that it is somewhat absurd to view the SAT as an accurate measure of intelligence and the SAT IIs as measures of how much one studies.</p>