Schools Can average intelligence thrive in college?

[Choppy]

The last thing I would want to do is discourage people from studying something they find interesting because or their results on an arbitrary test.

 

[chiro]

The last thing I would want to do is discourage people from studying something they find interesting because or their results on an arbitrary test.

Unfortunately this happens more often than you might think.

 

[Geezer]

IQ matters.

I wish I could remember which book it was I read this tidbit in...

When researchers look at those most successful in academia, what they find is that, to be capable of success, you only have to be smart enough. Once you're sufficiently smart (say, about 120 IQ), no additional IQ points will improve your chances of success. Once that minimum IQ level has been attained, what makes one more successful is work ethic, persistence, creativity, etc. A physicist with an IQ of 180 isn't necessarily going to be any better a researcher than his colleague down the hall with an IQ of 130.

 

[Frion]

If it's any sort of credible claim it must have been based on Terman's study of high IQ individuals. Some commentators claim it was a failure. Indeed, Terman thought he was studying future "geniuses" but it turned out he was just studying children who would, as a group, become incredibly successful. If you evaluate just on performance, his group did better than an equally large group of randomly selected 115-130 IQ individuals.

I was mostly replying to those claiming "IQ doesn't matter at all". It's unfortunate that psychometrics gets such a bad rap because a lot of idiots out there misuse IQ. It's just one more piece of information that can help people make better decisions about themselves in absence of better information. We make decisions based on our subjective appraisal of our own intelligence anyway, so why not add something that has some hard data behind it?

 

[FishmanGeertz]

I wish I could remember which book it was I read this tidbit in...

When researchers look at those most successful in academia, what they find is that, to be capable of success, you only have to be smart enough. Once you're sufficiently smart (say, about 120 IQ), no additional IQ points will improve your chances of success. Once that minimum IQ level has been attained, what makes one more successful is work ethic, persistence, creativity, etc. A physicist with an IQ of 180 isn't necessarily going to be any better a researcher than his colleague down the hall with an IQ of 130.

What about people the "average" standard deviation IQ's of ~100? Do you think someone with an IQ of around 110 earn a masters degree or PhD in physics?

 

[TylerH]

According to http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_106.asp, there are roughly 2.8M graduates in a year. Let's say 3M to keep the numbers nice. If 2% of them have IQs above 140, we are talking about 60,000 people. If we take a look at http://collegeapps.about.com/od/choosingacollege/tp/ivy-league-schools.htm, we find that the ivy league schools have a total undergraduate enrollment of about 66K, of which roughly one quarter would be freshmen, or about 17,000. This list leaves off non-ivy league schools such as Stanford, Cal Tech, MIT, etc, so let's say that there are roughly 25,000 openings in the most prestigious schools.

Therefore, we conclude that most geniuses do *not* go to prestigious schools.

I believe you're assuming there is an even distribution of IQs at prestigious schools. My guess would be that it is the opposite, with a very strong bias towards higher IQs.

 

[Klockan3]

I believe you're assuming there is an even distribution of IQs at prestigious schools. My guess would be that it is the opposite, with a very strong bias towards higher IQs.

No he did not, he did a very generous estimate that 100% of the people at the prestigious schools had over 140 IQ and he also assumed that college students aren't smarter than average people.

 

[FishmanGeertz]

No he did not, he did a very generous estimate that 100% of the people at the prestigious schools had over 140 IQ and he also assumed that college students aren't smarter than average people.

Top-tier colleges like Yale, MIT, Stanford, and Harvard, require SAT scores of over 2200 and GPA's of almost 4.0

I would imagine most of the pupils there have staggeringly high intellects.

 

[TylerH]

No he did not, he did a very generous estimate that 100% of the people at the prestigious schools had over 140 IQ and he also assumed that college students aren't smarter than average people.

Oh! I see, now. I misread.

Top-tier colleges like Yale, MIT, Stanford, and Harvard, require SAT scores of over 2200 and GPA's of almost 4.0

I would imagine most of the pupils there have staggeringly high intellects.

That may be true, but the point of what most people are saying here is that it's not impossible for someone with an IQ of 100 to get in. Even the usefulness of IQ is questioned by some. By the theory of multiple intelligences(which I believe), it's possible you are a complete idiot in some fields, but a genius in others. Go with a field you're a genius in.

I'm a good example of this. Try to talk math with me and you can come to no other conclusion but that I'm a bumbling fool. Allow me the time to express my thoughts in writing and it's much more likely you'll see I'm not a fool, IMNSHO. This in analogous in how it shows that in communication skills, I have an "IQ" of ~80 but a math "IQ" of >100. I use the term "IQ" informally.

This is a reason I hate the SAT. I want to go to a math school, so, if I can take (and excel in) calculus of a single, of many, and diff eq, all while in high school, why should they care I can't write a great essay about [insert stupid prompt I can't talk about here] in 20min? My answer: They shouldn't.

 

[Choppy]

I wish I could remember which book it was I read this tidbit in...

When researchers look at those most successful in academia, what they find is that, to be capable of success, you only have to be smart enough. Once you're sufficiently smart (say, about 120 IQ), no additional IQ points will improve your chances of success. Once that minimum IQ level has been attained, what makes one more successful is work ethic, persistence, creativity, etc. A physicist with an IQ of 180 isn't necessarily going to be any better a researcher than his colleague down the hall with an IQ of 130.

It's been kicked around in a number of popular books lately. One that comes to mind is Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers.

 

[Geezer]

Top-tier colleges like Yale, MIT, Stanford, and Harvard, require SAT scores of over 2200 and GPA's of almost 4.0

I would imagine most of the pupils there have staggeringly high intellects.

Or they were legacies, or had tutors in high school, or used medication (e.g. Adderall) to make it through busy high school schedules with large numbers of AP courses, or they cheated/plagiarized, or they simply worked their butts off.

I think too many people put too much focus on IQ or "intellect." A kid with an average or above average IQ but with a strong work ethic can accomplish a lot.

 

[Geezer]

Just to add: My landlord's son was admitted to MIT (to begin his studies this fall); he plans on studying physics (something that's being pushed on him by his father/my landlord whose lifelong dream was to be a physicist). Anyway, this kid is definitely NOT a genius. Perhaps somewhat above average, but no genius, that's for sure.

What I do know about this kid that MIT doesn't is that his father did a lot of his homework for him in high school. The dad would take some drug (available in Canada, not in the US) that's a treatment for narcolepsy (he told me the name of the drug, but I've since forgotten) and would stay up all night either doing his son's homework for him or "double-checking it," (his words). On at least two occasions the dad would ask me for homework help when he (the dad) couldn't figure it out for himself...

Now that kid's going to go to MIT. I'm sure his dad is already trying to find "tutors" for his son so he can be competitive there...

 

[Geezer]

I'm a good example of this. Try to talk math with me and you can come to no other conclusion but that I'm a bumbling fool. Allow me the time to express my thoughts in writing and it's much more likely you'll see I'm not a fool, IMNSHO. This in analogous in how it shows that in communication skills, I have an "IQ" of ~80 but a math "IQ" of >100. I use the term "IQ" informally.

Me, too. My classic, and completely true, example is that it took me a full THREE YEARS to learn to drive. It was so not natural for me. I thought if you turned the steering wheel 90 degrees that the car would turn 90 degrees...whoops. I had four car accidents before getting my license.

It took reading a book on how cars work--like, it described all the components in an engine, transmission, etc. and their functions--before I could finally "get" how to drive. The key to steering? Gear ratios!

As a nice little consequence of reading that book, I'm now great at trouble-shooting any issues with my car, and I often do repairs myself...just because I can.

So, if you had to evaluate my IQ while witnessing me learning to drive, you would have thought I was functionally retarded...

 

[Geezer]

This in analogous in how it shows that in communication skills, I have an "IQ" of ~80 but a math "IQ" of >100. I use the term "IQ" informally.

This is a reason I hate the SAT. I want to go to a math school, so, if I can take (and excel in) calculus of a single, of many, and diff eq, all while in high school, why should they care I can't write a great essay about [insert stupid prompt I can't talk about here] in 20min?.

I got a perfect 800 on the Verbal section of the General GRE (something around 3 standard deviations above the norm). However, if you had to have a face-to-face conversation with me, I'd totally come off as a moron. I fumble for words, I mess up idiomatic expressions. I'm not succinct or articulate when I have to speak.

However, I have a great vocabulary--what the GRE actually tests--but having a strong vocabulary says nothing about how good a communicator one is.

 

[FishmanGeertz]

I got a perfect 800 on the Verbal section of the General GRE (something around 3 standard deviations above the norm). However, if you had to have a face-to-face conversation with me, I'd totally come off as a moron. I fumble for words, I mess up idiomatic expressions. I'm not succinct or articulate when I have to speak.

However, I have a great vocabulary--what the GRE actually tests--but having a strong vocabulary says nothing about how good a communicator one is.

Do you have to take the SAT as well as the ACT? Or one or the other depending on state requirements?

 

[TylerH]

Do you have to take the SAT as well as the ACT? Or one or the other depending on state requirements?

The GRE he's talking about is an entrance test for graduate programs. You won't need to take it until after your first 4 years in college, if you need it at all.

I don't think any [public] high schools actually require you to take either the SAT or ACT. That said, just because it isn't required to graduate, doesn't mean it's colleges will even consider you without one or both of them. I'm only taking the SAT, but some colleges want the ACT or both.

 

[FishmanGeertz]

The GRE he's talking about is an entrance test for graduate programs. You won't need to take it until after your first 4 years in college, if you need it at all.

I don't think any [public] high schools actually require you to take either the SAT or ACT. That said, just because it isn't required to graduate, doesn't mean it's colleges will even consider you without one or both of them. I'm only taking the SAT, but some colleges want the ACT or both.

Do you get to choose? Which test is easier?

 

[TylerH]

Do you get to choose? Which test is easier?

You could call it "choosing," but your hand is forced, IMO. Most colleges require the SAT to even consider you. Some prefer the ACT. It really depends on where you want to go.

 

[Leveret]

Bear in mind that, even if one could objectively say which is easier, it wouldn't matter: colleges don't care how you did on the SAT/ACT as much as how you did compared to the other applicants. Therefore, in general, an easier test will cause all the scores to rise, but won't have a direct effect on how admissions play out. (Note: I've grossly simplified things in order to better illustrate my point. Yes, there are certainly other factors, and there are probably more subtle effects that I've neglected here.)

 

[FishmanGeertz]

You could call it "choosing," but your hand is forced, IMO. Most colleges require the SAT to even consider you. Some prefer the ACT. It really depends on where you want to go.

Just a question, but what are the GPA/SAT requirements of schools like Harvard, Yale, MIT, and Columbia?

 

[QuarkCharmer]

Just a question, but what are the GPA/SAT requirements of schools like Harvard, Yale, MIT, and Columbia?

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/harvard_profile.htm

 

[elfboy]

Or they were legacies, or had tutors in high school, or used medication (e.g. Adderall) to make it through busy high school schedules with large numbers of AP courses, or they cheated/plagiarized, or they simply worked their butts off.

I think too many people put too much focus on IQ or "intellect." A kid with an average or above average IQ but with a strong work ethic can accomplish a lot.

All else being equal a higher IQ person will accomplish more

 

[TMFKAN64]

All else being equal a higher IQ person will accomplish more

But of course all else is never equal.

 

[FishmanGeertz]

People with IQ's below 100 might struggle throughout their K1-K12 career, and especially in college.

College-level coursework is significantly more advanced than anything given to people in high school. How do high-schoolers prepare for such a rigorously advanced curriculum?

 

[Leptos]

I think of it like I would a step function...
The probability of achieving goals goes rises as iq increases up until around 120 where the probability of achieving goals remains the same for iq increasing to infinity.

 

[Geezer]

I think of it like I would a step function...
The probability of achieving goals goes rises as iq increases up until around 120 where the probability of achieving goals remains the same for iq increasing to infinity.

Ditto.