[quote]
The evidence for Intelligence and leadership is so vast that I do not have the time and energy to pull it together.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
A smart person will be smart enough to know what works and what doesn't which makes for leadership. A smart person will be smart enough to know that helping others and not engaging in fraud is actually more advantageous in the long run.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ramaswami then wrote:
[quote]
Intelligence can be overrated, remember halberstam's best and brightest who lead us to the Viet Nam debacle.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If none of my sources are up to par with the "vast" literature you apparently know everything about, perhaps the books "Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists Respond to The Bell Curve By Bernie Devlin" or "The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America By Steven Fraser" would shed a light. </p>
<p>They both massively contradict your arguments, which are as if plucked straight out of the popular-scientific book "the bell curve" - which, as I recall and apparently was correct in assuming, was torn to shreds by the overwhelming majority of actual experts in the field.</p>
<p>"Suppose one started a study and it lead to these conclusions should one then not publish it?" </p>
<p>This is not the same argument, since you introduced a claim before introducing a corresponding study. And you still haven't presented any corresponding studies for ANY of your recent claims. Yet you shoot others down.</p>
<p>The myth of intelligence. Henry D. Schlinger.
The Psychological Record 53.1 (Wntr 2003): p15(18). From InfoTrac OneFile. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Many psychologists may contest the assertion that intelligence is still reified in modern psychology and that it is only a label for behaviors in certain contexts. Their argument is that intelligence (or any other similar construct) is at the very least a hypothesis to be tested. If no evidence can be found for intelligence other than behaviors in certain contexts, then its value as a scientific concept is diminished. So what other evidence for intelligence is there? Intelligence theorists assert that general intelligence as measured on a variety of standardized tests correlates with a number of other educational, occupational, economic, and social variables (Jensen, 1994), as well as various CNS measures such as brain size, speed of nerve conduction, and EEG pattern (Jensen & Sinha, 1993). In assessing the potential explanatory power of the concept of intelligence, Howe (1 988b) looked at 10 potential conditions, any one of which, if confirmed, could warrant using the term "intelligence" in an explanatory fa shion. These conditions included the relationship between measured intelligence to observable physiological correlates, variability in basic mental processing mechanisms such as reaction time, the ability to learn and remember, and the complexity of a person's cognitive functioning, among others. Howe concluded that any observed correlations were either insupportable scientifically or there were alternative and more parsimonious explanations. Howe (1988b) explained: </p>
<p>Although the possibility that an indication of a person's measured intelligence can be explanatory or informative ... cannot be ruled out absolutely, there are no strong grounds for believing that identification of someone's measured intelligence justifies any meaningful statement about the individual's qualities, achievements, attributes, or even detailed predictions except in narrowly circumscribed circumstances.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Herrnstein and Murray, Inc. (race and intelligence)(The Bell Curve: Laying Bare the Resurgence of Scientific Racism). Leonard Lieberman.
American Behavioral Scientist v39.n1 (Sept-Oct 1995): pp25(10). From InfoTrac OneFile. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The basic claims of The Bell Curve are contradicted. Studies are reviewed indicating that consensus does not exist that IQ tests measure intelligence. When sociocultural environment was held constant, differences in measured intelligence between groups were not present. Claims of 60% within group heritability are based on twin studies where a significant number of separated twins were reared in similar environments. Degree of African or European ancestry does not correlate with test scores.
<p>As has been pointed out, grades are a better predictor of college academic success than SAT scores. SAT scores are used primarily because they help colleges put grades into context, given the differences between the country's millions of high schools. They are not meant as IQ tests and, as the University of California has shown and repeatedly argued, are very tied to socioeconomic status. </p>
<p>To go back to the young woman whose Harvard acceptance kicked off this thread, she was first in her class and so obviously had the grades. She is first generation in her family to go to college and from a rural area, therefore her socioeconomic status might be a factor in her scores. We have no information on how many times she took the test, whether she spent thousands of dollars on prep courses or individual tutoring, whether she was told in the context of her school and area that her scores were good and that therefore she shouldn't keep taking it in order to boost 30 points here or 100 there. For that matter, for all we know she scored close to 800 on one portion and bombed the rest. We don't know if she intends to major in something unusual, or whether she came across in essays and letters of recommendations as someone with a genuine love of learning. What we do know is that she is someone who took advantage of the opportunities existed for her in her area -- including driving to another school to take a class not offered at her own. Harvard is betting that, like the young man in the article about Amherst, she is someone who will also take good advantage of the opportunities at Harvard.</p>
<p>In my mind, the crime Harvard commits with its admissions is when it ignores that last factor -- who will take good advantage of Harvard's amazing educational opportunities -- as it does to build sports teams and keep alumni endowing buildings. That's not social engineering. That's financial engineering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A dissenting opinion: the bell curve is a solidly researched book. It has been attacked for certain conclusions by the left.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, the conspiratorial left. It must have been them that posed such a detailed, step-by-step inquiry into the complete bias of the sources the Bell Curve authors chose (and, in several cases, disregarded the criticism of, even when the caution came from the researchers themselves!), and conversely, utterly ignored even though they were more solid and numerous than those supporting their cause.</p>
<p>I think the introduction to Fraser's book said it all: the Bell Curve was a poorly researched book counting on the less-critical eye to trust its self-asserted voice and be fooled by repeated mentioning of sources. As someone that supposedly works in academia should know, an impressive-looking laundry list of carefully selected studies supporting the authors highly racist viewpoints does NOT = what rama calls a "solidly researched book".</p>
<p>frrph, good, these are better sources. First, I agree there is controversy over intelligence. I weigh in on the side of heritability and of explanatory heuristic. I have looked at some studies on nerve impulse conduction , etc and I interpret the data differently. That does not mean one cannot differ. There are any no of twin studies where the twins were raised in differing environments. These arguments will go on and on. But I need your help with one thing. I am not computer facile , so tell me how you access or cut and paste these journal articles. It may help me in gaining access, I have been frustrated since I go the tedious route of interlibrary loan thru my public library and hence the requests are limited and I usually get hard copies. So, your help will be appreciated if you can explain how to do this online the way you do it. Thanks.</p>
<p>Anyone affiliated with a college or university has access to InfoTrac databases. As a professor with 30+ years of experience behind you -- I am surprised and a little bit sceptical of the fact you don't have any access to either online journal excerpts in your field, or actual journals lying around at your home. I get a number of scholarly journal publications in my mailbox simply because my professors subscribed me -- getting access to these same sources should definitely NOT be a problem for you as a serious professor dedicated to following current research (ahem).</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, I agree there is controversy over intelligence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, I do. The data is out there but we don't want to offend blacks, hispanics, etc etc. If tomorrow there is a definitive study that shows beyond doubt that some races are inferior in intelligence will this country accept it and modify its policies?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The evidence for Intelligence and leadership is so vast that I do not have the time and energy to pull it together.
<p>The idea of a study so definitive that a whole country should immediately adopt it as canon is laughable. I don't know how it's done in India, but we don't do it like that in America. And yest, this nonsense about there being so much evidence out there is nonsense and insubstantial. Present some evidence and stop hiding behind pretenses.</p>
<p>frrph, I am a practising clinical psychologist not an academic. I got my Ph.D. in 1984, so 23 years dealing with psychiatric patients. I get journals on psychiatric medications, cognitive behavioral therapy, crisis intervention, annals of psychiatry in my mailbox. I don't have computer access to psych journals, don't need it like a researcher would. Whenever something interests me I request hard copies thru library (local library).</p>
<p>To derrick: I never cited some definitive study. Nothing of that kind exists in the academic world, each study builds a little on some other study. Reasonable people can differ on the same data. There are any no of measurement psychologists who believe in innate differences in IQ. I also misspoke when I emphasized SATs. I should have said SATs + SAT 2s +grades+ teacher recs are more valuable than Ecs.</p>
<p>The story about Mr. Jack at Amherst is a good one. But he is a sample size of 1. I want to run a thought experiment. let us throw out the SAT. It is correlated with income, etc. What would all of you suggest we substitute?</p>
<p>"I never cited some definitive study. Nothing of that kind exists in the academic world, each study builds a little on some other study."</p>
<p>Exactly, and with that in mind, why would you ask even the hypothetical question: [paraphrased] "If there was a definitive study correlating intelligence and leadership, would your country reform its policies?"</p>
<p>"I should have said SATs + SAT 2s +grades+ teacher recs are more valuable than Ecs."
And even more valuable are SATs +SAT 2s + grades +teacher recs +ECs +Essays, hence holistic admissions.</p>
<p>"What would all of you suggest we substitute?"</p>
<p>I do not suggest that we throw out the SATs completely, it is not reliable by itself, but when taken in context with other aspects of an application, it still has its own value. All the people here are saying is that it should not increase in importance, because it is not reliable enough as a singular indicator.</p>
<p>Why intelligence specific comments? Now we go back to square one, and the question of whether an overall image is more important than strictly intelligence. As soon as you force teachers to evaluate their student's intelligence, you posit that intelligence should be the most important factor in college admissions. College is not a series of intelligence tests, and intelligence doesn't correlate (as far as I know) much better with academic success than SAT scores do. However, academic rigor and success within a curriculum is indicative of academic success. And I think we give enough weight to academic grades already.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And even more valuable are SATs +SAT 2s + grades +teacher recs +ECs +Essays, hence holistic admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Admissions based on "SATs +SAT 2s + grades +teacher recs +ECs +Essays" alone are not purely holistic. Why do we see students who are exceptional in each of categories rejected from several schools [to be thorough, let us say the interview went very well as well]? This occurs when officers tries to gain an even better picture of what the student's personality [which of course is done in good intention] based upon the student's academic credentials and whatnot.</p>
<p>Discrepancies only arise when the admissions officer tries to assume what the person's character is like based upon the aforementioned categories - something that simply cannot always be thoroughly and accurately done in such a large process. Only so much can be learned about a person in 30 minutes. Even teachers who are with the students for months can only learn so much about them because the setting is a controlled academic environment. Students can be much different in the classroom than they are in real life. </p>
<p>Another problem with trying to judge a person's character, which in some cases is so ambiguously defined, is that there is no absolute - there is always a factor of indeterminism involved. Such indeterminism arises from the presence of several uncontrollable factors, such as the personal opinions and beliefs of the admissions officer [for example, if the officer has been inclined towards the humanities for his or her whole life and comes upon an application in which the student is heavily focused towards mathematics - the officer's opinion of the student will obviously differ from that of a Ph.D. in mathematics]. </p>
<p>Then again, if you look at this process as a whole, some of it just comes down to probability and luck. Is there anything absolute at all in this process? Is there anything that is completely controlled by the student in which there are no external factors involved? </p>
<p>Anyway, I feel that I have gone off on quite a tangent. :D</p>
<hr>
<p>Please excuse me if I come off as incoherent or if there is flaws in my logic - I am quite tired, and I'm a N00B at debating. :D I find this topic interesting. I will enjoy debating with you.</p>
<p>Sorry, I probably wasn't too clear. When I mean holistic, I mean including factors I forgot or failed to mention (like the interview, background, etc.). As far as the indeterminism and subjectivity that varies from person to person, this is a problem, but it is smaller than you may think. This is where the democratic nature of admissions comes into play. Remember, in admissions, a person is advocated by one, but voted on by many. Thus a humanities person may interpret a person's character one way, but you can almost guarantee that there will be a mathematician on the committee who will see it another way. The subjectivity affects to some extent who gets there foot in the door, but the intangibles like character are usually decided on by committee, not by individuals. The individual admissions officer's job is to separate the academically unqualified (horrendous GPA's, all lowest level courses when others are easily available from the academically qualified (solid GPA, rigor of coursework.) Indeed, academics are weighed the most, since the whittle down the pool the most.
You're not a n00b at debating, I thought your points were reasonable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The subjectivity affects to some extent who gets there foot in the door, but the intangibles like character are usually decided on by committee, not by individuals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And yet what are the chances that even a whole committee will be able to truly identify a person's true character? It makes take years for the person himself to figure out who he really is. </p>
<p>Consider this scenario: You are asked to write an essay about a topic that you feel very passionate. You present this essay, as well as a resume that briefly outlines your academic credentials, to a committee of strangers that will judge your personal characteristics in 20 minutes. How accurate do you think they will be?</p>
<p>Of course a whole committee can't always identify a person's true character. A thousand committees couldn't identify a person's true character. But that's why it's the applicant's duty to take the most meaningful and effectual steps toward making sure that their character comes through.
Committees are not perfect, but it's better to have 20 strangers with different viewpoints synthesize a viewpoint than to have 1 person with 1 viewpoint try to do the same.
A Committee's job is not to do an in depth case study of one's life, it's to do the best they can with what they are given. Reciprocally, it is an applicant's duty to facilitate the process with well written essays, well crafted applications, etc.
After all, admissions is a competitive game, not a charitable one.</p>