<p>“Harvard admissions favors the competitive type A personality with high (125-135) IQ”</p>
<p>But interesting thing is they probably don’t favor the competitive type A personality with higher IQ and doing extremely well in Math and Science.</p>
<p>My beautiful, IQ 156, high-achieving D is in Cornell Engineering.</p>
<p>IQ doesn’t really show anything. A person with low IQ but with high EQ can live well their whole life.
On the other hand, if a person has a high IQ but low EQ, this person is what we called “nerds” that can “work mathematically/engineeringly/etc” but not do well in their “social” life</p>
<p>IMPORTANT: Although this is NOT always the case, it’s rather generally correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>this. Richard Feynman’s IQ was only 125. Sounds like a great measure <em>eye roll</em></p>
<p>@EAHoward. It’s “smarter than” not then. Assuming that IQ is just one form of intelligence, and shouldn’t be used to define someone’s abilities, I’d say average around Harvard, or any Ivy, is probably 120. Granted, I’m sure there are some people there with, like, 180 or something.</p>
<p>I highly doubt that anyone on here has an IQ >150.</p>
<p>I highly doubt it, too. Although mine is 146. 
As I said, I’m sure there are some at Harvard with 170< Its.</p>
<p>Sent from my DROIDX using CC App</p>
<p>“Sakky:” This is the most abhorrently haughty and pretentious post I’ve seen on this forum. Why pass yourself off as a judge of “brilliance” when your prose is clunky, grammatically incorrect, and elementary? All I can really say about this is: be better. Don’t make the undergraduate population of Harvard look so bad.</p>
<p>@LemmaDr: I don’t know for sure, but there is at least one instance I suspect might negate your proposition.</p>
<p>"I highly doubt that anyone on here has an IQ >150. "</p>
<p>You are wrong.</p>
<p>Jimmykudo you said:
IQ doesn’t really show anything. A person with low IQ but with high EQ can live well their whole life.
On the other hand, if a person has a high IQ but low EQ, this person is what we called “nerds” that can “work mathematically/engineeringly/etc” but not do well in their “social” life</p>
<h2>IMPORTANT: Although this is NOT always the case, it’s rather generally correct.</h2>
<p>You are generally correct on your statements. However, those who got into top schools certainly need to give proof of their ability in leadership, thus there are not many nerds in top schools. (I dont mean none, though.)</p>
<p>I have no idea what these numbers represent-- which test are the posters discussing. The WISC has a top out at 15-16 in the subscores and therefore doesn’t differentiate at the high end. Was the test an individual test or done in a group such as Otis-Lemon? SB’s LM is the best for the highly and proudly gifted (not only does it remove the top end, it’s flexibility for the tester allows a tester to deal with creatively gifted students whose responses are correct but outside of the box as the testing cohort has provided (and therefore would be marked as wrong in other tests). Of course, SB no longer stands by the LM calling it outmoded and refers testers to the SB5–but testers of the gifted have many of the same complaints with it as other tests…</p>
<p>If one wants a better understanding of the tests and their limitations go to Hoagie’s Gifted portal-- there is more there than you could ever need/want. </p>
<p>As to how “smart” Harvard students are, why does it matter what number on any test? Indeed, given the desire on Harvard’s part to have a variety of students with a variety of talents/backgrounds, the question itself is nonsensical. Are there kids at H with high IQs-- yup. Wicked high-- go and ask kids in Math 55 or Physics 16 if they had testing and if so what was their scores-- it probably has a baseline of 165 and goes up from there (using the LM). But so what? There aren’t that many math or physics proto-professors–nor should there be. There are people in the humanities with equally high numbers, again–so what?
As to introvert high score versus extrovert midscore-- depends on the kid-- there are almost autistic kids in 55 and Harvard is delighted to have them and there are kids who run PBH or IOP who might not have the “highest” test scores and Harvard is delighted to have them.<br>
What Harvard IMHO wants, is that “wow” factor in reading a file-- it is difficult to pin down, but as Justice Stewart once said about pornography, you know it when you see it.</p>
<p>“why does it matter what number on any test?”</p>
<p>I’ll pose my theory. Some people who *don’t *attend Harvard (or YPSM) want to know if they compare – if they’re in the same league – at least on this standard.</p>
<p>The question is indeed a straw man. Are there some achievements that the standard HYPMS student has more than the avg person on the street. Certainly. But is the differential so vast as to place them on some super-human iconic level? To those who are students or alumni, I’m sure they’ll tell you that they get the flu or aches/pains, have arguments with the spouse or kids, have quirks, enjoy certain things and dislike others. In the essentials, we’re just like everyone else.</p>
<p>I think the need for some people to compare is absurd. I agree 100% with etondad.</p>
<p>I think it’s silly to even know what your IQ is. How can that possibly help you? It’s bad enough that you have to know what your SAT score is.</p>
<p>It depends, IQ, as in rational thinking abilities, is probably much higher at MIT or CalTech. Nonetheless, wouldn’t verbal skills, language skills also classify as IQ? What about leadership? A good leader has to be one step ahead of everyone else, isn’t that also intelligence? </p>
<p>If we include all these things, all elite colleges must have very similar averages. Most Harvard students would be admitted at Stanford and vice-versa, same thing for Princeton and what not.</p>
<p>The correlation between Science and IQ is a way for most science geeks to validate themselves as superior, I’m partly speaking against myself here, being a physics fanatic myself, although I’m going for philosophy, economics and political sciences in college.</p>
<p>People that solve the world’s biggest social, political and economical problems aren’t any less intelligent than the likes of Stephen Hawking…they just have different abilities.</p>
<p>[Rationality</a> versus Intelligence - Keith E Stanovich - Project Syndicate](<a href=“http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stanovich1/English]Rationality”>Rationality versus Intelligence by Keith E. Stanovich - Project Syndicate)</p>
<p>Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is up to 160. 159 is at 99.99%. For etondad’s comment on 165 and up, it must be a different scale.</p>
<p>I was referring to the SB-LM only. 2Daswell is right for the rest of the SB products. As I mentioned, SB does <em>not</em> want the LM used any longer BUT psychometricians that specialize in highly and profoundly gifted youth do use it anyway (they reject SB’s claim that the SB-5 is normed for this population-- here I agree with them, it is not). ONLY the LM doesn’t have an upward bound scoring range as it is a function of the subject’s psychological age divided by his/her chronological age --making it much less valid for either older students or the quite young. Again, all of this and sooooo much more is discussed at great length (and passion) at the Hoagiesgifted web portal.</p>
<p>Hi, etondad, I’ve actually had long conversations with the keeper of the Hoagies site and with developers of the current IQ tests in various circumstances at conferences or in direct telephone calls or email exchanges. This is something I frequently discuss in various online communities with parents whom I met through various summer mathematics programs and other programs for advanced learners. I am aware of what the Hoagies site says, and I am aware of what sources the site relies on for the point of view that you correctly relate, but I have good reason to think that that view is mistaken. My own view is that any IQ score number above 160 should be regarded as number without any validation evidence behind it, no matter what test produced the number. The Stanford-Binet Form L-M test (which I took as a child, on an occasion I still remember almost fifty years later) was already obsolete by the time I was applying for college. Numbers from that test are not comparable with numbers from more recent IQ tests–except that the betting person will bet successfully that the L-M numbers will almost always be much higher for the same test-taker. </p>
<p>An authoritative source for reviews of psychological tests is the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook, a standard reference book available in most university libraries and in better-stocked public libraries. The Stanford-Binet L-M was reviewed in Buros volume 7. A citation to the Buros review can be found in a compilation volume about mental tests (Keyser & Sweetland 1984). A complete reprint of that review can be found in the one-volume compilation by Buros (1975). David Freides (1970), then associate professor and now professor of psychology at Emory University, began his review by saying, “My comments in 1970 are not very different from those made by F. L. Wells 32 years ago in The 1938 Mental Measurements Yearbook. The Binet scales have been around for a long time and their faults are well known.” Professor Freides continued with a critique of the assumptions underlying the design of the test, and specifically mentioned clinical situations in which SB L-M scores should not be taken at face value. He concluded his review with the Latin phrase “Requiescat in pace,” indicating he thought the test was moribund in 1970. This review contrasts markedly with the laudatory statements about the Stanford-Binet L-M found on various Web sites. Raymond Holden’s review of the Stanford-Binet L-M in Keyser & Sweetland (1984) mentions the extremely poor norming sample used for the L-M, a problem discussed extensively in the primary research article in Waddell (1980). All of this information that has been publicly available in the open literature since before today’s children were born—since long before anyone was posting articles on the World Wide Web. The controversy has been resolved abundantly: all professionals well-informed in the research literature on IQ testing don’t use the Stanford-Binet form L-M test on current clients. Jerome Sattler wrote to me by email in 2004, “Only current tests should be used for any decision making purpose,” making clear that the L-M’s days are past. </p>
<p>REFERENCES: </p>
<p>Buros, Oscar (Ed.) (1975). Intelligence Tests and Reviews: A Monograph Consisting of the Intelligence Sections of the Seven Mental Measurements Yearbooks (1938-72) and Tests in Print II (1974). Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press.</p>
<p>Freides, David (1970). Review of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Third Revision. In Oscar Buros (Ed.). Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook. (pp. 772-773). </p>
<p>Keyser, Daniel & Sweetland, Richard (Eds.) (1984). Test Critiques Volume 1. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America. </p>
<p>Waddell, Deborah D. (1980). The Stanford-Binet: An Evaluation of the Technical Data Available since the 1972 Restandardization. Journal of School Psychology, vol. 18, no. 3, pages 203-209.</p>
<p>As I noted, the L-M is not authorized and the literature you cite is accurate. It does not however, address the need for discrimination at the right side of the curve. IQ testers have been very reluctant to spend the needed sums (I was part of the Hollingsworth Board discussions with SB when they were norming the 5 and we were told flat out that a) the numbers do not justify the expense and b) “profoundly gifted kids are not politically correct.”) I recall those conversations with the CEO of SB vividly. Therefore if the L-M is no longer valid for discrimination betwixt kids at the right tail --what is-- and the answer is-- NOTHING. SB will tell you that the 5 does-- but as I noted it has not been normed for these kids and its closed answer format does not comport with the response set that come from this population. In the end --no one cares about them–they are the mad uncles that are best left in the closets. So I refused to let my kids be given the WISC or the 5 as bad data is worse than no data. I let them take the SATs when they were 12 (for CTY) and left it at that.</p>
<p>As you well know, if you have been on Hoagies there are few areas that prompt controversy in the highly/profoundly gifted community than the lack of valid testing and I do NOT want to recreate it here. Suffice it to say that while the L-M data may no longer be held to be reliable none of the other instruments are reliable for this population either–therefore it should be just stated that they are “untestable.” It will remain so for the foreseeable future. As for “decision making” the authors are correct-- but not because the present tests are fine, but because the profoundly and highly gifted outside of PA have NO legal rights whatsoever for education which matches their needs/abilities. Therefore there is no “decisions” to “make” for them. The courts have consistently ruled against parents claiming that their children should get 504 advantages – the court opinions do not cite (oh, yeah, I also have a law degree) the testing as a reason why they should not get 504-- the cases are dismissed on summary judgement, so the government waives objections to the factual evidence, based upon the fact that the gifted are not a protected class and therefore not eligible. No court has ruled, to my knowledge on the validity of the 5 or the WISC as proof that the profoundly or highly gifted categories do not exist. They never have to reach that issue.</p>
<p>As both a cognitive neurologist and a psychoanalyst I am well aware of psychometric testing and its limitations-- I also know in my practice that some kids who come with 160s are wholly different kids to other kids with 160s. Completely different cognitively and psychologically. To suggest otherwise may be politically correct but does not comport with reality–again, a point that is well know among us who work extensively with this population. </p>
<p>If I were a wealthy man with millions I could burn I would spend it creating a test that adequately works with the right side of the curve. But I’m not and so these kids will continue to be treated like “tall poppies.” They will be told that like my eldest was that he “doesn’t exist.” Or that he must be trained like a circus act to be the way he is. The parents of such kids will continue to either seek special schools or home school until the political correct madness ends–which won’t be in my lifetime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every time I read this it makes me laugh. Hunt has a good way to put it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now I remember that my kid was tested at school years ago, but I have no idea what was used. “Whatever” was my answer when they asked me for permission for testing and later put in some program. I had complete faith in public schools or I had no clue at the time. I hope that kid turns out to be fine.</p>
<p>“Average IQ at Harvard?”</p>
<p>You mean if you have a high enough IQ you don’t need to go to Harvard or any college will do?</p>