1980 SAT got into Harvard. How awesome is this?

Applying to College
101

<p>Regarding the second-to-last paragraph in post 100,</p>

<p>One of the problems with Jimmy Carter as President, revealed by those who worked closely with him, was his aloofness from those around him. He appeared to others to be happy with a kind of self-sufficiency about how to get things done, preferring to use his intelligence in a more private, less social manner. (That was also perceived sometimes as an attitude of superiority, even if it was not experienced that way by him.) So in that case, his intelligence was not useful as a predictor of leadership, because the role or venue was less appropriate to his interests & abilities than the current diplomatic & less structured leadership he currently practices.</p>

102

<p>i know a 1930 who got in yale this year haha</p>

<p>and no it wasn't me</p>

103

<p>I agree with frrrph. The silent kids in the back who get all the right answers are only benefiting themselves, not the entire class. The talkative students who may not always be right but are not afraid to ask questions or engage the class benefit the entire class, not just themselves.</p>

<p>The quiet hardworker type is falling out of fashion, and for good reason, too. Nobody wants to be around the guy who thinks he's too smart for other people or who doesn't share his or her knowledge with others. I had a friend who was super-intelligent and in class, he would never speak. He would get perfect grades on his test. But I never learned anything from him and can't say he really contributed to the class in any significant way. And as such, he wasn't a leader, just a passive participant in the class.</p>

<p>Intelligence isn't everything. Saying that we have dumbed down our institutions and have made intelligence less important is an over-generalization. Some of you trust the SAT too much. It's made by CollegeBoard and doesn't begin to show the intricacies of an individual. The SAT is a standard measure, but a standard measure of what? If the colleges are looking for character, let them look for character. Ramaswami and others who believe the SAT actually means something need to prove this with evidence. So far, I haven't seen any.</p>

104

<p>Re Post 103,
Actually it does seem that colleges value both: the silent or quiet introvert by birth or choice + the outspoken contributor. A preponderance of either extreme messes up group dynamics, big time, & does not contribute to the most fruitful academic discussions -- which is where, in college, an enormous amount of serious learning takes place. An entire group of 2400 test takers do not, by virtue of their scores, promise such vital exchanges.</p>

<p>And because an occasional 1930 or 1890 obtains admission to an Elite, does not mean that the majority of admits are in that range. All one has to do is look at the most recent published cds to determine the ranges & means. However, still with the cds in mind, a score tells about one-ninth of the "very important admissions factors." For example, I know of an LD student who may have just graduated from Princeton: challenged with the SAT format, as most LD'ers are, but brilliant. Princeton recognized this, admitted him, & he has prospered there. (He may be in engineering; I forget the field actually; it was not humanities, that I know.) It's an example of compensating factors overtaking the importance, in that case, of a test score.</p>

105

<p>collegealum-
Actually, there are some brilliant politicians. Remember, we have 535 Congress men and women, many of them very bright. I'd suggest you look up Ron Paul for instance. A truly perceptive guy. </p>

<p>DSC-
The politicians we have are not the highest percentile of intelligence, but in the grand scheme of things, it matters very little. Our most successful presidents and politicians are not necessarily the most intelligent ones (Carter and Madison probably had the highest IQ's, not to speak of other brilliant presidents like Wilson, LBJ, Lincoln, etc.), but more often the ones that are the most socially competent and the best at political maneuvering. But that's a very interesting topic for another day. </p>

<p>But back to the matter at hand.
Ramaswami-
I understand you think of yourself as an extremely bright guy. But please, if you want to criticize people for "low" intelligence, College Confidential is not where you want to start. You can rant and moan, talk about the vapid American system of social maneuvering and competency, but it doesn't change the facts.</p>

<p>You yourself said that you would rather had greater hearts than greater minds, yet you turn around, not even a day gone by, to sneer and spit contemptuously on the American system. Our system has it's flaws, but the very fact that social engineering is so pressing in every aspect of life is clear testament to the fact that this nation was founded on ideals, not ideas.</p>

<p>And for this, we have prospered. </p>

<p>So you may continue to post your criticisms. This is an open, public board founded on the ideals of the First U.S. Constitutional Amendment after all- free speech. But please, before you move so quickly to convict us of being lesser mortals, examine what your brand of elitist intelligence has done in the past, examine what leaders like Gandhi from your on country had that distinguished them from a "run of the mill" overachieving high IQ. Examine the failings of brilliant figures like James Madison (probably a certifiable genius, could utilize three languages simultaneously) and take special note of the origin of their failings. A perceptive mind such as yours will easily be able to spot the theme.</p>

<p>Forgive me for my slightly overzealous patriotism- I was, after all, a tad offended by the claimed superiority of solicitors of countries whose GNP in their country is nothing more than a defense budget in ours. But it bothers me when one is intelligent enough to realize that intelligence is not to be worshipped, and does so anyway. But it makes my blood pressure inch up ever so much when that same person makes the SAT the equivalent of the Stanford-Binet in terms of predictive validity. Obviously you are not a stupid man, and you are well versed in your psychological canon. Therefore I am highly surprised that someone so well educated would use intelligence, which is not even hinted to correlate significantly with success, academic or otherwise, by psychologists far more accomplished than yourself. </p>

<p>No, you are intelligent, but I think you are blinded by your own hubris and a touch of elitism.</p>

<p>But feel free to ignore this, for I am naught but an idealistic high school student.</p>

106

<p>From post #91 "But we still think the system is flawed." The system isn't flawed, it's the system. It works exactly the way the Ivy's want it to work. It gives them exactly the student body they are looking for. If the Ivy's were to change their admission policies to be stats only oriented, they would not be the institutions they are now. It's like saying a rock is flawed because it isn't a tree. There are universities that have admission policies that are to your liking. There are universities that judge soley on stats. It's a free market, chose them.</p>

107

<p>^^ and further, it's so flawed, but ramaswami's son got in. Was that acceptance flawed, too? How are we to reconcile a radically flawed system with the admission to <em>5</em> Ivies of ramaswami's son? How do we know which acceptances to Elites are flawed & which are not? Who will make those judgments, outside of admissions committees and/or the professors who will teach the new admits?</p>

108

<p>DerrickA: Excellent posts, though I really think it might be useful to your arguments to back away from defending the United States at every turn. No one here is saying the country is bad, but statements like "crafted the most perfect legal document and cornerstone in the world" are both arguable and unhelpful.</p>

<p>ramaswami: If you're not willing to at least link to abstracts of the studies you continue to reference regarding standardized testing, for all practical purposes you are simply making things up.</p>

<p>After reading through your posts, it seems like you're writing here with a strong bias in favor of standardized measures of performance for use in admissions to university. Unfortunately, these measures don't always work - and frankly, I don't think they're the best either, when compared to holistic evaluation.</p>

<p>As many have said, it's easy to find lots of 2400 scorers with lots of accomplishments to their names - but that doesn't mean that every "low" scorer was admitted at the cost of someone who scored higher and was as qualified. Is it so difficult to believe that someone who scored 1950 could be better equipped to succeed than someone who scored 2400? From personal experience, I can tell you I know several people who scored around 2000 who are far more qualified than people I know who scored things like 2350.</p>

<p>The last thing to note is an objection with your repeated references to Caltech as some kind of ideal meritocracy. Let me tell you, there are side effects to the reliance on scores that Caltech has - though their especially keen delving into a potential student's scientific interests is also good. The result is that Caltech is largely homogeneous, composed largely of white and Asian males, and the student body is boring. That's just the way it is; despite your repeated assurance, just taking all the high scoring candidates of reasonably good character doesn't actually result in a great student body. (Not to say here that Caltech is bad; I had a hard time turning it down, but my boring comment is completely true.)</p>

109

<p>I am thankful to all of you for your various criticisms. At the outset, I am taking some extreme positions to invite vigorous discussion. I am not making things up. I have not saved them but there are many journal articles on how IQ tests (not SAT) are better predictors of leadership. And a few about the correl between SAT and IQ tests incl the Stanford Binet. I do not defer to intelligence. Nor am I saying that only things that can be measured exist or they are the only one that ought to be taken into account. I am also not saying that a 1980 may not have some value that I do not know about. I am merely protesting the social engineering that seems to go on at the Ivies where legacies, athletes, those who have overcome adversity etc tend to eclipse the weight given to academic factors. There seems to be a wholesale rejection of high scoring kids. Of course this contradicts my S's choices. As someone adeptly pointed out, the system is not flawed because the Ivies do not think it is flawed, it is yielding precisely the result they want. I am not sure I understand what the perfect legal document is. The US Constitution, if that's what the reference is about, is not all that perfect and legally and constitutionally other countries, like India have done better, untouchable as President, woman as prime minister, women in colleges in the 1920s, right to vote given at birth of nation, etc etc. The US as a superpower? Yes, but now its days as sole superpower are ended; the American empire lasted from Suez crisis when Harold McMillan sent the famous telegram ("over to you") to Ike, to the fall of Saigon. But that's not the issue, this is a wonderful, grand country. Please be abstract, when I used "clean your clock", the poster thinks it applies to him/her, it is a collective you, again American shibboleth does not mean you as an American but a reference to cliches as used in America. You are all so quick to detect my racism and sneering precisely because you have grown up in a culture that has been sensitized to race and gender. In 30 years or so we will have answers. Let's see what happens to UMichigan and UCBerkeley grads where they admit by numbers. My argument is the same as b4nnd20's: high scorers does not mean no well roundedness , there may be as many leaders and social activists among high scorers, so let's go with them since at least we are sure of the score aspect. Let's keep subjectivity to a minimum. Is that so bad?</p>

<p>Of course, intelligence can take leadership in a bad direction, example Chairman Mao. But so can the personality variables. That is, it is not the factor of personality or smarts that corrupt leadership but the fact of being a leader as in power corrupts and when this happens the smart ones may be in a better position to realize their corruption. Of course, a low score in algebra may not mean low IQ because content may not have been taught. That is why 5 tests are used. I do not want 5 SATs and GPA and teacher recs to be eclipsed by essays and ECs. That is the sum of my argument. Please take this previous sentence and tell me if I am wrong. I say eclipsed. I do not say that they should be sole criterion.</p>

110

<p>I thought I was going to leave this thread, but then I saw this. This is outrageous:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The quiet hardworker type is falling out of fashion, and for good reason, too. Nobody wants to be around the guy who thinks he's too smart for other people or who doesn't share his or her knowledge with others.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Good god.</p>

111

<p>QUOTE:
"The US Constitution, if that's what the reference is about, is not all that perfect and legally and constitutionally other countries, like India have done better, untouchable as President, woman as prime minister, women in colleges in the 1920s, right to vote given at birth of nation, etc etc. The US as a superpower? Yes, but now its days as sole superpower are ended; the American empire lasted from Suez crisis when Harold McMillan sent the famous telegram ("over to you") to Ike, to the fall of Saigon. But that's not the issue, this is a wonderful, grand country."</p>

<p>As much as I like Indians, & as abundant as they are in my State, your opinion about the superiority of India is perhaps more subjective than anything of which you accuse the Elite U.S. Universiites. What makes you think that our Universities should become more like India, just because of your viewpoint as an Indian? </p>

<p>And just to place your brain back in reality, decisions about U.S. college admissions are not subject to global review, based on supposed shifts of international power. Who cares what position of global power the U.S. currently does or does not have? Should little Switzerland or Belgium also do things the Indian way? or the Chinese way? I previously actually (unlike other posters) did not view you as arrogant, but now I do.</p>

<p>You also greatly misunderstand what drives policies at American institutions of higher learning. Unlike India, China, Japan, Korea, the U.S. from its birth has been a democratically driven country. Concepts of equal opportunity & maximum ethnic, racial inclusion pervade our institutions. That would include economic opportunity as well as political. (Is that why Indians come here by the millions -- because the <em>economic</em> opportunity in India is <em>also</em> oh-so-superior to that in the U.S.?) A key aspect of economic opportunity is access to higher education, include at the elites. THAT is why there was a shift, beginning in the '70's, toward attempts at including other classes & races than just the privileged, excuse me, caste.</p>

<p>The U.S. is enough of a model of opportunity that not only do even non-Asian internationals seek out our colleges & Universities, but so does the U.S. inspire European countries to reform their own standards of access. A big push of the Blair administration was to make higher education more available to a wider spread of the middle class in Britain, correcting existing class barriers. So even western models & long standing forms of representative democracies seek often to emulate American educational goals. </p>

<p>The above is intended to correct for your very mistaken belief that policies such as holistic admissions (which is a different issue, btw, than URM policies) are the result of recently acquired (political or social) sensitivities. No. It's just that the Elites, previously slow to recognize their participation in maintaining the economic status quo, have opened up access somewhat, within the parameters of high academic standards of qualification. In order to do both, they've had to examine how better to determine across all economic & racial lines the indicators of academic potential.</p>

<p>The irony of this shift is that in both range & absolute numbers, the Elites are now more economically diverse than U.C. Berkeley, for example. Berkeley is overwhelmingly homogenous economically, with extremely few wealthy & extremely few impoverished students of any ethnicity. By contrast, at any Elite in this country you will find a huge range from <em>white</em> impoverished, URM impoverished; white/Asian/URM middle class; white/Asian wealthy; etc.</p>

<p>QUOTE:
"I am not sure I understand what the perfect legal document is."
(Again, with the perfection...) </p>

<p>QUOTE:
"I do not want 5 SATs and GPA and teacher recs to be eclipsed by essays and ECs."</p>

<p>They aren't !!! That's what you don't understand. They aren't eclipsed. As businesses, and competitive businesses at that, the Elites are not interested in sabotaging their educational mission in favor of "social engineering" by admitting students who cannot handle upper-level academics. E.C.'s are taken into account as <em>support</em> or verification of the academics. They are evidence, if the student is especially proficient in them, & has advanced in capability in that area, of tremendous personal drive, which the Elites have found correlates to academic & career success.</p>

<p>QUOTE:
"high scorers does not mean no well roundedness , there may be as many leaders and social activists among high scorers..."
And there often are. Which is why you will find many high scorers with fabulous e.c.'s at Elites. Who said there weren't?</p>

<p>There is not a pre-determined weight given to scores. A 2400 may trump a 2200 depending on the other aspects of the application; or vice-versa. That is what holistic admissions means. Scores are seen in context, that's all. You want scores to be an absolute, or on a scale of admissions preference. </p>

<p>And keep in mind that it is not only supposed "social engineering" that drives that engine. It's not presumed that every URM will have a lower score than every non-URM, & that can be verified. The poster Drosselmeier's daughter (URM) has better composite scores than my non-URM daughter, but they're both at Elites. Also better scores than some of the Asian posters on CC, who are desirous of Elite admissions & in some cases also currently there. Regardless of your love affair with statistical measures, the practical experience of the Elites has resulted in their re-assessment of what makes for a fine & contributing student. They have determined that scores should not predominate overwhelmingly when it comes to admission, because high scores have not equated, over four years of undergrad education, to superior performance.</p>

<p>And as to your last paragraph, you're still so much more focused on leadership than any of the Elites are. Evidence of or potential for leadership does not eclipse academic preparation when it comes to evaluation for admission.</p>

112

<p>uhh rural maine?
i doubt many qualified students apply from rural maine haha</p>

113

<p>epiphany, no need to write about my brain back to reality. I may be arrogant but I have not indulged in name calling. I do find some posters here very limited in their reading. They are good at pulling newsy accounts but not well schooled in literature reviews. That is why they keep asking me for evidence of correl between IQ and leadership. Go do a lit review. No, India is not superior, that is not the case I am making. In some respects the Indian constitution has been applied more quickly and more effectively, in other respects not. Indian universities are not superior, on the whole inferior. I do not want other countries to emulate India. To clarify your thinking, at its birth as a republic the US incorporated some enlightenment values as did India at its birth as a republic. The indigenous peoples on both continents did things differently. This is not an argument about superiority of nations. The economic model in this country has certainly worked but is now being threatened. I wish some posters here would have capacity for multiple points of view, to suspend conclusions and reason in the abstract. You are very concrete in your thinking, epiphany. Holistic admissions is nothing new in this country. I have read extensively about the history of American educational institutions and am aware of sociopolitical and historical considerations.</p>

<p>All I am saying is this: 2400 represents a kind, one kind of excellence. That's not the only kind that should be in a university. I am all for the 1950 SAT to get in if he/she has excellence, like Olympic athlete or Carnegie Hall musician. What is frustrating is the 2400 set aside for middling athletics, middling community service, middling essays (this I would not know about since essays are not in the public view). So-so extracurriculars should not trump excellence in academics nor should mediocre academics trump excellence in painting and music and athletics and journalism etc. By this definition, someone who has overcome extreme hardship, escaped a third world prison would also be eligible as representing another kind of excellence or someone who got 1950 despite a drug dealer father and prostituting mother. Hope this helps.</p>

114

<p>ramaswami,
I am not only quite capable of thinking in the abstract, I am also trained to do so. I further maintain that my posts on CC, including on this thread, demonstrate that. I do not see you, as evidenced by your posts on this thread, to have any edge in the Abstract Thinking department, over me. And certainly not in the <em>expression</em> of abstract reasoning. Many of your posts on this thread contradict previous posts on the same thread. Therefore, I'm not sure whether you are continuing to engage in rhetorical teases (making outlandish statements for effect, then backing out of them, claiming you only meant to stir debate -- such as your statements about India on the previous post), or whether your thinking is not as clear, as logical, as consistent as you believe it to be. Do not flatter yourself to assume you are brighter than me.</p>

<p>But college admissions is not about the abstract. It is in fact about the concrete. It is not that "my thinking is very concrete." It is that college admissions dwells in the land of the concrete. It is about what has been experienced there over time, leading to a combination of idealistic and practical policies, based on the mission of the University as an academy, combined with the economic realities of staying in business in a competitive educational market, combined with an ongoing analysis of what produces the best student body product, short-term & long term -- & how admissions policies feed into that. It's an inexact & fluctuating process -- imperfect, just like real life.</p>

<p>You do not know how "middling" other people's e.c.'s, essays, college resumes, and recommendations are. You have no clue, regardless of rumor, regardless of reports on CC, reports by your son, what you think you see. None of that can be verified <em>objectively</em>. (Since you're the one who prefers everything scientifically verified -- just one of the many ways you show how inconsistent you are.) Adolescents often exaggerate, although not all of them do. They also often simplify or reduce what they've heard. They report it as "fact" on CC, and surprisingly, many adults assume these reports to be factually accurate or complete. Because admissions files are confidential, colleges will never release to the general public the applications of particular students. They will only summarize & generalize on the common data sets, if they choose to participate in that. And when <em>self</em>-reporting, students also often understate their own accomplishments, and/or report them in shorthand. How do I know this? (1) By comparing pre-admissions CC reporting with post-admissions CC reporting from the same students -- the latter being usually comprehensive, the former often quite sketchy & misleading. (2) By comparing posted information by these students with privately transmitted data they send to me in PM's & emails, the former being usually far more modest (incomplete) than the latter.</p>

<p>Perhaps more importantly, or certainly as importantly, you have not seen the files, or read the statistics even, of all the ACCEPTED 2400's at the Elites. There are many, at every Elite. So when someone is rejected or waitlisted who has a 2400, he or she is clearly seen as lacking compensating factors OTHER THAN scores, additional to scores. Alternatively, one of those factors can be an aspect having nothing to do with perceived achievement, but may be geographical. The U may have plenty of 2400's with outstanding "other" aspects to their applications, all from Virginia. They may choose instead to select a candidate from Utah with a 2400 or 2300, with some superior accomplishment to ALL of the Virginia applicants, or accomplishments equal to the VA applicants. That's their prerogative. What you will not accept, & which comes up over & over on all the AA & holistic admissions debates on CC, is the problem of <em>equal</em> qualification and perceived equal potential. At that point, the institution chooses to select for other factors to produce a maximum, broad representation of the country & its diverse talents.</p>

115

<p>ramaswami, seeing as how you haven't gotten back to me on any concrete arguments I've made, I'm not holding much hope for a response on this, either:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Intelligence, as conceived of here, is not just intelligence in its conventional narrow sense-some kind of scientific factor (Jensen 1998; Spearman 1927) or as IQ (Wechsler 1939). If the conventional intelligence of a leader is significantly higher than that of the people he or she leads, the leader may not connect with those people and, therefore, become ineffective (Williams and Sternberg 1988). Accordingly, intelligence should be evaluated in terms of the theory of successful intelligence (Sternberg 1999c; 2002c). Successful intelligence is the ability to succeed in life, given one's own conception of success, within one's sociocultural environment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Educational Forum, The, Winter 2004 by Sternberg, Robert J</p>

116

<p>Sternberg, whilst fashionable now, is not in the mainstream of academic psychology when it comes to measurement of intelligence. He has been advancing his multiple intelligences model and heavily discounting a century's worth of data.</p>

<p>Going back to epiphany, all of what you wrote are evident to me. it is very basic, about how adolescents may be unreliable (daily I deal with patient files, of psychiatric files with their tales and issues of reliability and validity and I know this area in and out, ) etc etc. Of course, if a 2400 is rejected there may be a compelling factor we will never know about, and per contra if a 1950 is in there may be factors we won't know about. Or maybe that's what universities want us to believe. If they have integrity they can always release files with names and identifying data redacted. Even the CIA does it nowadays. After reading about the exclusion of Jews and Blacks and now of Asians I am sceptical about the holistic admissions. It is a cover for discrimination. We can disagree on that. Most Indian universities practise some form of holistic admissions because the issue of including lower castes, rural kids, women, etc is very hot there. But under cover of this lofty goals all manner of compromised individuals get in. An extreme example and not applicable to the US maybe: medical school admissions are highly coveted and there is a market in certificates that will certify X or Y to belong to a certain untouchable caste in order to gain an advantage. The IITs go strictly by test scores: yes they lose out on diversity and wholeness and they capture but one dimension but you can bet that everyone going in deserves to be in, though in a narrow sense. I am for holistic admissions but I do not trust the Ivy gatekeepers. I trust the gatekeepers of Loren Pope's colleges that change lives.</p>

117

<p>Well, rama, unlike you I did present a scholarly source to back my claims up. You still refuse to do such a thing, in addition to avoiding countering other arguments myself and others have posed. Over and over again waving your experience card does NOT equate to having a substantiated argument.</p>

<p>As it is right now your "argument" seems to remain built on lofty, unsubstantiated generalizations and your own personal grudge against Ivy admissions policies (which you yourself admit accepted your son, that apparently was far too arrogant to be able to have positive relations with professors he considered 'below' his intellectual level).</p>

<p>This is one of the few threads around here that leaves me feeling sad and disappointed in the fora everytime I read it. Apparently, you possess some sort of intelligence, yet you refuse to share it with us in any kind of meaningful way.</p>

118

<p>Lol that's what I think when I read epiphany and you and DerrickA.</p>

<p>The standardized test tangent, and the IQ-leadership correlation, were both interesting but didn’t answer the main question of this thread (which do we value more, intelligence or personality). Especially the IQ-leadership tangent. The conflict isn’t over whether IQ correlates to personality, and it isn’t over whether standardized tests and IQs indicate intelligence. I think we have established that intelligence (however we measure it) and personality are two very separate things (sorry Ramaswami I diverge from you on this one.)</p>

<p>In general though I don't this is a conflict which can be solved (which is more important, intelligence, or personality.) It's too basic. Can we all agree to disagree?</p>

119

<p>ramaswami, firstly note that I said "more perfect", not perfect. And I still firmly contend that the U.S Consitution is the most revolutionary and finely crafted legal document in the world. But patriotism aside...</p>

<p>You criticize us for being benighted illiterates, ignorant of the intricacies of "reviewed literature". You keep citing "case files" and "studies" and "literature" that you have read, but when asked to provide suitable evidence of a significant correlation between SAT and IQ, you engage in pussyfooting; dancing around the matter at hand. You sanctimoniously lay claims to the abilities of abstract thought, and explain to us lesser mortals that we are not capable of such tasks.</p>

<p>Your arrogance is noted, and it blinds your sight.</p>

<p>You balk on defending your earlier arguments, trying to usurp the position of God by claiming that such vapid statements were intended to "invigorate debate". You move further to renege on your earlier statements, claiming that you are for holistic admissions and in the same breath ridicule those who use holistic admissions in the most effective way they can, the effectiveness validated that the "Ivy gatekeepers" are still churning out some of the most brilliant minds in the world. </p>

<p>Now ramaswami, you've invigorated your debate, so present some truly valid claims. Instead of validating any of your statements, you remain in the realm of platitudes, claiming that time will tell, holding your head high and your intellect aloof from the mundane thoughts and opinions of us mortals. Now I ask you to engage in the usage of an American ideal that we call "straight-talk", a policy that frowns upon inconclusive statement and shaky evidence (called BS in American), and instead endeavors to cast aside erected veils that play on unclear labels such as "complex" and "abstract". Of course, there are infinitely complex and abstract higher truths in this world, but college admissions is not one of them. It has it's own complexities, but as it is a human creation, it employs human construct and sentiment.</p>

<p>So please, stop throwing sand on the issues, back up your facts with this hitherto unrevealed "reviewed literature", and cut the BS. You have not lent me to the impression that you are smarter than other posters on this board, so suspend your arrogance and cut the BS.</p>

<p>As for now b4nnd20, I appreciate your cool head in this little oven we have created, but we can never agree to disagree, after all, why concede when the issue being discussed isn't wasting anyone's time. There's plenty of other threads for different topics, and we can talk about different topics on other threads if necessary. It's not a conflict that can be solved, but one can only try their best.</p>

120

<p>IQ is necessary but not sufficient.(intelligence quotient and emotional intelligence).
The Business Owner 27.6 (Nov-Dec 2003): p20(1). From InfoTrac OneFile. </p>

<p>Leadership IQ study: why new hires fail.(FYI). Mark Murphy.
Public Management 88.2 (March 2006): p33(2). (497 words) From InfoTrac OneFile. </p>

<p>When IQ + experience [is not equal to] performance. Fred E. Fiedler.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal (March 2001): p132. From InfoTrac OneFile. </p>

<p>Chan, David W.
Roeper Review; Spring2007, Vol. 29 Issue 3</p>

<p>
[quote]
Another limitation of these early studies on the intelligence-leadership relationship was their narrow focus on traditional IQ-based academic intelligence. But these early researchers recognized this limitation and called for a broader conceptualization of intelligence in constructs that were believed to be associated with effective leadership. These constructs included, among others, social insight, social skills, social competence, emotional maturity, and tact (Bass, 1990). Interestingly, these constructs discussed by early leadership researchers are similar to the different types of intelligence that now capture the attention of researchers. For example, a parallel can readily be drawn between social competence, emotional maturity, and tact, and the respective constructs of social intelligence (Marlowe, 1986; Riggio, Messamer, & Throckmorton, 1991), emotional intelligence (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), and practical intelligence/abilities (Sternberg, 1985; Sternberg & Wagner, 1986; Wagner & Sternberg, 1985).

[/quote]
</p>