Government Adviser: IQ Tests Best for University Selection

[Carlos Hernandez]

IQ tests should be used to select students for university, says government's adviser
By Richard Garner, Education Editor
10 December 2003


IQ-style tests are more reliable than A-levels in predicting how well a student will do at university, according to research published yesterday.

The tests are believed by academics to give working-class youngsters - whose A-level results may have suffered because of poor schooling - an even chance of entering university.

Complete text at http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=471813

 

[Vosh]

Since university is about making money and since IQ test admittance would drastically cut down the customer base I expect the advisor who made this report still has ringing in his ears from the laughter.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Vosh
Since university is about making money and since IQ test admittance would drastically cut down the customer base I expect the advisor who made this report still has ringing in his ears from the laughter.

I'd like to believe that if you consider your statement for thirty seconds you'll see why it's ludicrous. Are you not aware that universities have a surplus of applicants? They turn people down all the time in America based on low SATs and poor grades, because SAT scores and grades are excellent predictors of future performance in college.


--Mark

 

[adrenaline]

Actually, this might be of some benefit to the working class as the article suggested. Kids who are naturally smart but whose parents don't have the resources to send them to a private school where they can be "groomed" for college with college prep courses, or those who live in underperforming school districts or just underperformers in school because of boredom have a chance for elite college admissions.

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
I'd like to believe that if you consider your statement for thirty seconds you'll see why it's ludicrous. Are you not aware that universities have a surplus of applicants? They turn people down all the time in America based on low SATs and poor grades, because SAT scores and grades are excellent predictors of future performance in college.


--Mark

I'd like to believe that I've upset you in a way that will lead you away from your naivete.

"They turn people down all the time" doesn't mean "they" don't also function to maintain a maximum number of customers, even if some behave in a way that is more discriminating. The existence of community colleges means that there really isn't anyone who can't get a college education as long as they don't forfeit their student loans with a gpa that sinks below 2.0 (or about that). Ours just built a big student activity center. Hugely expensive but obviously an investment in order to entice future customers. At the end of the day it's a business. Requiring folks to pass an IQ test would diminish the customer base so severely that there would be no way in the world to make a profit. Those who live in the real world know this which is why I strongly suspect that the poor advisor who made this report heard mean hysterical laughter from the other side of the door as he was leaving the office and likely will never understand why. School is a jobs creation project and it must necessarily be run like a business. The stuff you site as evidence to the contrary are just incidentals...

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by adrenaline
Actually, this might be of some benefit to the working class as the article suggested. Kids who are naturally smart but whose parents don't have the resources to send them to a private school where they can be "groomed" for college with college prep courses, or those who live in underperforming school districts or just underperformers in school because of boredom have a chance for elite college admissions.

There are plenty of majors you can choose if you're not too brainy. Who will inhabit those if you only let the brainy into college? Where do you think a lot of the money comes from to fund things like the chemistry labs (sports equipment, executive salaries etc. etc.). If your talking only of elite college admissions; does this mean the rest of us should just accept abject squalor because we couldn't get a certificate from an elite institution that allows us to secure that super job?

Homeschoolers are admitted to elite colleges. How do they do it? College admissions officers want students who won't drop out and who are renowned for "teaching themselves". They aren't such unthinking cogs in a machine that they can't consider homeschoolers because there isn't the usual grade transcript to look at.

The problem isn't that smart ppl. can't get into schools with high standards; the problem is that you can't live a humane life style without a super job secured with a certificate from one of those institutions. Either you're in a super job or you live like a peasant without health care or, for all intents and purposes, representation in a court of law, etc. Worrying about the gifted being able to get into Harvard is majoring in the minors. Whether you have this or that certificate shouldn't matter.

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by Vosh
There are plenty of majors you can choose if you're not too brainy. Who will inhabit those if you only let the brainy into college? Where do you think a lot of the money comes from to fund things like the chemistry labs (sports equipment, executive salaries etc. etc.). If your talking only of elite college admissions; does this mean the rest of us should just accept abject squalor because we couldn't get a certificate from an elite institution that allows us to secure that super job?

Homeschoolers are admitted to elite colleges. How do they do it? College admissions officers want students who won't drop out and who are renowned for "teaching themselves". They aren't such unthinking cogs in a machine that they can't consider homeschoolers because there isn't the usual grade transcript to look at.

The problem isn't that smart ppl. can't get into schools with high standards; the problem is that you can't live a humane life style without a super job secured with a certificate from one of those institutions. Either you're in a super job or you live like a peasant without health care or, for all intents and purposes, representation in a court of law, etc. Worrying about the gifted being able to get into Harvard is majoring in the minors. Whether you have this or that certificate shouldn't matter.

I don't know what your point is but considering most of my friends with far less education , many without college degrees, and less "elite" education are much more financially well off than I am with 12 years in "the iveys", I don't see this as a automatic job security...just a chance for those who did not have the social or educational status of the priveledged class to attend an elite university for their own enjoyment and edification.

My twin sister is a college dropout and is a CEO making more in 1 month than I could in 10 years while my brother and I who went to years of top 3 Iveys are still paying off student loans and with much more humble salaries in academia...but we do enjoy our jobs My husband, a high school dropout started a custom made jeep bumper fabrication business and was making three times my salary (www.jeeperman.com) until he became a stay at home dad for our child and sold off the business but still has a small shareholder role.

All I'm saying, is that these kids get to enjoy the benefit of a good teacher to student ratio, an academic environment that is much more conducive to research and inquiry that is the specialty (but not the sole perview of) an elite institution,, even though it doesn't gaurantee that they will live up to their fullest potential or even secure them the best jobs.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hey! Identical twins? Fraternal? Could I interest you in a little IQ test?

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Hey! Identical twins? Fraternal? Could I interest you in a little IQ test?

we are fraternal. She is way smarter than me but I have no idea what her or my IQ run! I'm almost afraid to find out what mine is! I'll be glad to subject myself for the sake of science. As for her, I'll see if she will deign herself for such a task.

 

[Nachtwolf]

I'd like to believe that I've upset you in a way that will lead you away from your naivete.

Actually you've amused me, but I was trying to find the most polite way of saying that and I see that the meaning got lost in translation.

Not every college is a junior college. No one is suggesting the use of IQ tests to restrict applicants to junior colleges. But any college which is already using some sort of selection measure to trim down its applicants should use the best measures available in order to do so. To suggest that someone who finds a better way of doing what is done already would be laughed at is itself laughable.

--Mark

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Actually you've amused me, but I was trying to find the most polite way of saying that and I see that the meaning got lost in translation.

Not every college is a junior college. No one is suggesting the use of IQ tests to restrict applicants to junior colleges. But any college which is already using some sort of selection measure to trim down its applicants should use the best measures available in order to do so. To suggest that someone who finds a better way of doing what is done already would be laughed at is itself laughable.

--Mark

I don't recall mentioning "junior college". The selection measures are there for the sake of credibility. You don't look credible if you just let anyone on campus (although that's what Thomas Jefferson imagined) to do whatever they want. The idea of a selection process that would drastically cut the customer base would be met with a polite and unnecessarily friendly, "thank you, we'll look this over" to your face and a absent minded tossing into the circular file cabinet once you've left the room. Now, in a different kind of economy where the business, err, school could still be competitive and profitable with a customer base of those proportions things could work, but you'd have to change and adjust the whole entire world to do that. Look at it this way; imagine you wanted commercials to appeal only to the mentally sophisticated on the grounds that they make the wisest purchasing decisions. No one would want to be the first to institute such a thing because revenues would make that noise a straw makes when sucking the last bit of malted shake. It seems to me that requiring folks to pass an IQ test (assuming the minimum score has to be over, say, 105) would slice into all the colleges that admit the general public, which is most of them. Their revenues would shrink down to the budget of a lemonade stand; at least from their point of view.

 

[Nachtwolf]

I don't recall mentioning "junior college".

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt; Junior colleges don't worry too much about who applies. Universities do. Let me make it clear that I understand your position, but and I don't think you're getting it. Your comments about how they would be losing their customer base, and your analogies about commercials appealing to the elite, are completely irrelevant. Just because IQ is a good predictor doesn't mean they would be losing too many potential students by using it - they can set the cutoff as low as they like.


--Mark

 

[Vosh]

Seems to me an IQ test where the cut off is the same as it is now ends up achieving the same thing.


No worries about any misunderstandings. It comes with communication! We can always work them out given time. I don't believe in "debates" because I'm not about "winning" the debate; I'm about getting to the bottom of things. An exchange may even get heated, or seem that way, but I never take or mean anything personally.

 

[albrock06]

Sure debating is great. I find people who are in a debate to win it are extreamly immature. Like you, I'm just in it to find the facts.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but I think that IQ tests are alright for some universities--not-so-good for others. Hey, what happens to those college-going people on the lower end of the IQ tower?
Everyone deserves an education; high IQ or no.

But, if you're one of those fancy-shmancy schools that want the ego rights, go on and take your high-IQ students. But most universities are just in it for the money. So what's a little intellegence number going to do for their profits?
Absolutly nothing.

Alright. I will admit that I don't know much about colleges quite yet. I'm 5 semesters away from college myself. So don't take my words to mind too quickly.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Everyone deserves an education; high IQ or no.

Do they?

Many often blithely insist that people "deserve" this or "deserve" that. To my mind, people deserve what they earn, and nothing more.


--Mark

 

[albrock06]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
To my mind, people deserve what they earn, and nothing more.

Are you suggesting that people with low IQ numbers can't earn an education?

I mean, sure, I agree with what you're saying. You're absolutly right. But if someone 'earns' an education, they should receive one. Yes?

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Do they?

Many often blithely insist that people "deserve" this or "deserve" that. To my mind, people deserve what they earn, and nothing more.


--Mark

Uh, oh my god.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Are you suggesting that people with low IQ numbers can't earn an education?

Well at least according to Arthur Jensen's Straight Talk About Menal Tests, intelligence has a threshold effect - below 50 IQ and you really can't make it through grade school, below 75 and you won't get through high school, below 100 and you can't pass college.

I imagine that other factors come into play, but everything I know about the subject tells me that a 90 IQ individual with a Masters degree is incredibly rare.

I mean, sure, I agree with what you're saying. You're absolutly right. But if someone 'earns' an education, they should receive one. Yes?

People deserve what they earn, yes.

Uh, oh my god.

Have I offended you in some way? Or do you simply enjoy invoking divinities? How was my statement anything other than obvious?


--Mark

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Well at least according to Arthur Jensen's Straight Talk About Menal Tests, intelligence has a threshold effect - below 50 IQ and you really can't make it through grade school, below 75 and you won't get through high school, below 100 and you can't pass college.

I imagine that other factors come into play, but everything I know about the subject tells me that a 90 IQ individual with a Masters degree is incredibly rare.



People deserve what they earn, yes.



Have I offended you in some way? Or do you simply enjoy invoking divinities? How was my statement anything other than obvious?


--Mark

Inalienable rights are earned by being born. It seemed that the implication was that a person doesn't deserve inalienable rights until they've earned them (by, perhaps, accumulating a certain amount of money) since a person only deserves what they earn and "nothing more". Or maybe this wasn't the implication. The dilemma was deciding whether or not you were a retarded fascist. If so, I wouldn't bother engaging in a serious discussion; the same way, in RL, I just smile and walk away when someone declares that the moon landings were filmed in a studio in Burbank. There are times when one realizes that talking to someone just isn't going to be worth it. I was getting that feeling here... not always easy to be sure through the internet, ofcourse...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Inalienable rights in the US do not include any specified level of education, or of work or income. I know that the French and UN rights of man have a different take on this, derived from Rousseau (the US rights were derived from Montesquieu), but acceptance of UN does not obligate the US to change its basic philosophy.

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Inalienable rights in the US do not include any specified level of education, or of work or income. I know that the French and UN rights of man have a different take on this, derived from Rousseau (the US rights were derived from Montesquieu), but acceptance of UN does not obligate the US to change its basic philosophy.

There aren't "inalienable rights of the US"; there are only inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are proclaimed in the US constitution, but the laws of the land do not encompass them and the people or this era, for the most part, do not practice and/or know how to differentiate between rights and privileges. Housing is a right, but no one in the US has this right. They can only do whatever it takes to get an income so that they can make regular life long payments to a bank or state (if you want to imagine a difference) and *pretend* they have a right to housing. As soon as you stop payments, the bank or landlord calls the army (the cops or in the case of a general strike of some kind, the national guard) to have you and yours evicted. Health care seems to be one of those rights most democracies do automatically, but for some reason the US is hanging on to being the exception. As far as I can see, this seems to be more about being stuck in their ways than anything else... Like voting for the same old same old, folks are scared (picture Homer Simpson scratching his head, "I don't know what to think...") to do anything that isn't so mainstream as to be a caricature of itself!

As it happens, the laws of the US, better than most other places even, do not obstruct anyone from getting as much education as they can. There are some neat ways around this, though, for those who couldn't profit as much in a land of educated people. Since the early 1900's we have been raised in school with the consequence that, ppl. believe, increasingly with each generation, that the only way to get "an education" is to pay mountains of cash and only through certain institutions, schools. So the natural inclination to get an education (learning is as natural as breathing; it can't be stopped, only perverted) is preempted when we are 5 and our noses are kept to the grind stone until we are 18, so it's no wonder, no mystery at all, that we grow up lacking a sense of education other than the artificial idea of going to school and going through those motions accordingly. A great fear of being doomed to a life of hand to mouth wage slavery if one doesn't have a school certificate etc. etc. adds up to a citizenry that lives in a free state yet most of them live their lives from beginning to end as if they lived in a dictatorship; all the while waving flags and screamin' "land of the free you liberal (or whatever label) motherfletchers!"

And you wonder why aliens don't make contact.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Vosh
rights

It's this kind of thinking which turns the social sciences (and religion) into a depressing morass. Imagine if physicists made bold declarative statements without offering support for them!

Why are unalienable rights earned at birth? What are these unalianable rights, and how do you know what they are? Do unalienable rights even exist? Before blithely claiming that they exist, and implying that the "right to education" or the "right to housing" are examples of such rights, you must provide support. It is unacceptible to hold beliefs without having any reasons for them.


--Mark

 

[albrock06]

Originally posted by Vosh
Inalienable rights are earned by being born.

Rock on. Amen. Thank you for having an open mind.

Not to mention common sense. Others can learn from that.

And I didn't mean for that to sound like a hint, but hey. :shrugs:

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
It's this kind of thinking which turns the social sciences (and religion) into a depressing morass. Imagine if physicists made bold declarative statements without offering support for them!

Why are unalienable rights earned at birth? What are these unalianable rights, and how do you know what they are? Do unalienable rights even exist? Before blithely claiming that they exist, and implying that the "right to education" or the "right to housing" are examples of such rights, you must provide support. It is unacceptible to hold beliefs without having any reasons for them.


--Mark

If I did not recognize your inalienable rights at birth what would have been wrong with me taking you as a baby and throwing you live to some ravenous dogs? After all, you haven't somehow earned the right to live. A right isn't something you earn. That's the definition of a right. See? Rights are things we recognize as being inherent because, if we are not sociopaths, we have a sense of ethics in our regard for other beings (not to mention our self respect).

Are you really not able to figure that much out for yourself? It's like you're not even trying! Where is the puzzle in this? Why are you so confused?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sorry, this is not a valid argument. There is no connection between "we don't do cruel things to babies" and "we don't waste social resources teaching people things they can't learn."

Don't I have a right to play the violin like Itzhak Perlman? Is it unfair of society that I am not subsidized in that effort? How many people dream of playing basketball or baseball like the stars? Isn't a denial of their rights that they aren't subsidized for a lifetime effort to do that? Get real!

Now I believe that the great majority can learn reading writing and arithmetic. The reason I believe that is that when I was a child the great majority of school children did learn that. People used to read newspapers and weekly maggazines for entertainment and information. Well, TV killed that, but the capabilities are still there. But that everybody has a right to college, that just results in the dumbing-down of what is taught in college.

 

[Nachtwolf]

If I did not recognize your inalienable rights at birth what would have been wrong with me taking you as a baby and throwing you live to some ravenous dogs?

This is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Consequences. The unpleasant consequences of you accepting or rejecting the proposition that rights exist is unrelated to the existence or nonexistance of rights. (Frankly, however, it isn't even a big deal if you don't recognize others' rights - I think rights are human inventions, but I don't commit crimes. A well regulated criminal justice system is sufficient to ensure law abiding behavior.)

if we are not sociopaths, we have a sense of ethics in our regard for other beings

This is a clever version of the logical fallacy known as Ad Hominem. Insulting those who do not share your position by calling them sociopaths does not support your position.

Why are you so confused?

And here we have what is known as a Loaded Question (or Complex Question). I'm not confused - instead, as I have demonstrated throughout this post, I simply have superior reasoning skills, and I suggest that it is you who are confused for believing in things without having any good reason to do so.


--Mark

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
This is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Consequences. The unpleasant consequences of you accepting or rejecting the proposition that rights exist is unrelated to the existence or nonexistance of rights. (Frankly, however, it isn't even a big deal if you don't recognize others' rights - I think rights are human inventions, but I don't commit crimes. A well regulated criminal justice system is sufficient to ensure law abiding behavior.)

Where is the argument for existence or nonexistence of rights?

This is a clever version of the logical fallacy known as Ad Hominem. Insulting those who do not share your position by calling them sociopaths does not support your position.

What about calling them humour impaired?

And here we have what is known as a Loaded Question (or Complex Question). I'm not confused - instead, as I have demonstrated throughout this post, I simply have superior reasoning skills,

Just because I'm laughing doesn't mean I hate you or want to bring you down or crush you in some way. I hope you work all this out... but really, I had to burst out laughing. Come on! Some day you'll laugh too!

and I suggest that it is you who are confused for believing in things without having any good reason to do so.

I looked up, "rights" at dictionary.com. Seems to indicate that they are things which are not earned. Look at it this way; there is this concept out there and this concept involves the recognition of things that are inherent, not earned. The word we use for this concept is, "right". No, it isn't a concrete thing in nature. It's like numbers; abstract, the product of our minds, like ethics. Look it up for yourself. Hope this helps!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen a "good reason" stated for thinking that rights need to be earned.

Try to relax.

 

[Vosh]

I wish I didn't so often regret wondering over to social sciences type forums.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Let me make this simple for you, Vosh:

I'm smarter than you are. As such, your arguments are neither a threat to my self esteem, nor sufficient to convince me of your viewpoint, nor indeed able to stir anything in my breast other than mild annoyance. You present no support for your belief in the existence of rights, let alone the existence of education or housing as rights, and leave a trail of logical fallacies in your wake. I do not disagree with you because your ideas are a threat to me or offensive in any way; I disagree because your posts are inept and your position unsubstantiated. If you find the social science forum depressing, I encourage you to leave, as you have thus far offered nothing useful or interesting to these discussions.


--Mark

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Let me make this simple for you, Vosh:

I'm smarter than you are.

And more mature, too.

As such, your arguments are neither a threat to my self esteem,

Is there some reason you're telling me this?

nor sufficient to convince me of your viewpoint,

Because you're smarther than someone, they can't tell you anything?

nor indeed able to stir anything in my breast other than mild annoyance.

Are you aware that you sound like Grand Moff Tarkin interrogating Princess Leia (sp?) when you're mildly annoyed?

You present no support for your belief in the existence of rights,

Look again.

and leave a trail of logical fallacies in your wake.

Look aga... Did you happen to read my response?

I do not disagree with you because your ideas are a threat to me or offensive in any way;

Being consistently defensive and not addressing what I actually said sort of gives you away, I'm afraid.

I disagree because your posts are inept and your position unsubstantiated.

I don't know, someone who makes declarations and doesn't provide good reasons for believing them... tsk tsk tsk... Adhominen attacks, cluck cluck...

If you find the social science forum depressing, I encourage you to leave, as you have thus far offered nothing useful or interesting to these discussions.

I was going to be one of those ppl. who sees someone like you and just doesn't bother with it, but for some reason at the last second I thought, what the hay, I've a few days off, let's see what happens if I try to dialogue with this person. When encountering a Frank Burns type personality, I prefer to crack jokes, like Hawkeye, than just get annoyed and stressed out, like Trapper John. Well, that dates me!

 

[albrock06]

Hold up. Who's to say you're smarter than anybody? Who's to say that I'm smarter than anybody?

Nobody! That was very rude of you to say. It doesn't matter if you know more than everyone in this forum or not. Why are we getting so off subject in here?

No, don't say you're smarter than anybody. For all you know, you could be telling a lie. I'll tell you right now that obviously some of us are smarter than you, since we're not rude enough to claim that we're better.

You shouldn't put yourself down like that.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Yes, many have told me that I'm a rude individual; I understand that many find this distressing. But IQ test scores and a background in psychology together provide the basis for my judgment on who is smarter than whom.

Consider this analogy - laymen might be tempted to say that we can't state whether the Sun or the moon is farther away from the Earth because we can't tell by just looking. But men of science have known for thousands of years, and the question can be rather easily resolved with the application of simple physics. Admittedly I can't be sure about this, but this uncertainty is largely a pedantic detail, since we can't be sure of anything and must always rely on the best information available in making judgments. So I'm sorry if you can't tell when one person is smarter than another, but I can.

If you think this discussion has veered off topic, and if that bothers you, why don't you address the original subject?


--Mark

 

[albrock06]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Consider this analogy - laymen might be tempted to say that we can't state whether the Sun or the moon is farther away from the Earth because we can't tell by just looking. ... So I'm sorry if you can't tell when one person is smarter than another, but I can.

So you're saying that you can tell one person is smarter than another just by looking at them? talking to them? But how do you know unless you ask their IQ and take the same test as they do?

The point of the matter is everyone deserves what they earn. That's already been said. And I do agree that if someone is positively unable to ensure themselves a decent education, then one should not be offered. It's a waste. I think that's what we both agree on.