<p>Yes, occasionally, not every year. Check the collegeboard website under their research studies.</p>
<p>hahahha. my IQ is definitely not 140+ and i was admitted. no offense, but what a pointless thread. go do something fun! that's what's going to get you admitted into great colleges, not sitting around thinking about IQ scores.</p>
<p>hahahaha. some of my friends go to ivies and they're not smart. they're not any smarter than me but a bit more knowledgable in general culture and english since i moved to the states in 1997. i scored 141 on WAIS-scale a month after getting hit by a car with a concussion for insurance claims. </p>
<p>from my experience ive found that kids that work really hard score higher due to their prep. nowadays sat doesnt really mean squat since since all old sat's are recycled and sold to sat prep companies. </p>
<p>if u're still in hs and seek to better ur scores, i reccommend anything college board + princeton review</p>
<p>where do u get iq tests?</p>
<p>My iq is 295. I'm so getting into Harvard!!!</p>
<p>In any case, the premise of this thread is completely flawed. There is most likely little correlation between iq and admission to Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is most likely little correlation between iq and admission to Harvard.
[/quote]
Probably the most flawed statement in this thread. The correlation between Harvard and IQ is pretty impressive. Considering the average IQ at Harvard is a minimum of 1.5 standard deviations away from the mean.</p>
<p>Fact: IQ correlates with the SAT/ACT/GRE/LSAT/GMAT/MCATS.
Fact: IQ correlates with academic performance.
Fact: IQ correlates with professions.
Fact: IQ correlates very slightly with success within a career (ie: once you are a engineer, having an IQ advantage doesn't necessarily correlate to success).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Considering the average IQ at Harvard is a minimum of 1.5 standard deviations away from the mean.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Evidence, please?</p>
<p>Average SAT score alone is good enough to be evidence for that.The average IQ at Havard is certainly higher than 122.5...Hell, that IQ is probably exceeded at many schools.</p>
<p>It's hard to find any IQ-correlated measures that are knowable for the Harvard (Princeton, etc) student pool that are NOT in the top few percent, or the top few slivers of a percent, when compared to the general population. SAT, GPA, class rank, results (or even presence) of AP tests and math competitions. The list is endless. </p>
<p>This makes the 1.5 standard deviations quite a safe assumption, and puts the burden on skeptics to identify even one available measurement that might challenge that notion.</p>
<p>Are any of the studies of correlations between IQ and other test scores you are aware of published with bivariate plots (scattergrams)? That would be an interesting way to look at the data.</p>
<p>How would one test the accuracy of the prediction in post #1 (the OP's post)?</p>
<p>IQ doesn't seem to correlate THAT strongly with success (obviously to a degree, but it's no sure thing). HYPS take the "future leaders" of the world, many of whom are more people-smart or street-smart than book-smart. IQ really only measures book smarts, so people who excel in other, equally important areas are ignored. It's a flawed measure of intelligence and success. We should really just stop trying to quantify things as abstract as intelligence. Even the SAT is a little shady...</p>
<p>"Probably the most flawed statement in this thread. The correlation between Harvard and IQ is pretty impressive. Considering the average IQ at Harvard is a minimum of 1.5 standard deviations away from the mean.</p>
<p>Fact: IQ correlates with the SAT/ACT/GRE/LSAT/GMAT/MCATS.
Fact: IQ correlates with academic performance.
Fact: IQ correlates with professions.
Fact: IQ correlates very slightly with success within a career (ie: once you are a engineer, having an IQ advantage doesn't necessarily correlate to success). "</p>
<p>Allow me to rephrase that statement: having an iq equal to or above the average iq of students at Harvard does not guarantee admission into Harvard. The original poster, by the nature of his/her question, seemed to think so.</p>
<p>I've also noticed there's a correlation between a poster's believing whether or not the SAT measures anything and the poster's SAT scores. The trend seems to be that higher scorers believe the SAT is useful in college admissions. To all who say SAT is meaningless: If the test wasn't correlated with any data worth noting, why would colleges form a collabortive effort to use them in admissions? Because they're stupid and want to waste tens of thousands of dollars each year to obtain meaningless name lists? I might as well draw this analogy into this argument: How far you can throw a football and how much you can bench press. Although these activites aren't the same, just like taking multiple choice questions about African American culture isn't the same as writing a term paper analyzing Ulysses, a large population's performance on a scattergram will show an obvious correlation between the two activities. This method is quick, efficient, and inexpensive for colleges. Just imagine if a football coach had thousands of quaterbacks lining up at his door to get a shot at recruitment. The coach would love to be able to put all their 40 times etc in a spreadsheet and choose from the best rather than waste his time dealing with everyone on an individual basis. Even if he passes up on a few stars who had a "bad combine day" (i mean to use bad testing day as a parody), he'll still come out winning by saving himself hundreds of hours of time and still getting the best players by sheer probability. That's what the SAT is in a nutshell, and I will wager my life's earnings on the fact that a test resembling the current one will still be in use for the next 200 years.</p>
<p>the average IQ at harvard is prob. heavily skewed by the admission of recruited athletes, legacies, dev. cases etc. I would say MIT's would be higher only b/c they don't recruit athletes or give legacy preference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are any of the studies of correlations between IQ and other test scores you are aware of published with bivariate plots (scattergrams)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Head-to-head comparisons of IQ with any one of {SAT, GRE, GPA, etc} are totally superfluous for this question. The claim was not that any individual metric has a 40 or 70 or 10 percent correlation with IQ, but that all known measurements that plausibly relate with IQ simultaneously place the typical Harvard student far enough at the top of the scale to comfortably exceed "1.5 standard deviations" (i.e. the top 15 or 10 or 5 percent of the population).</p>
<p>Banker88, have you read [url=<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Moneyball-Art-Winning-Unfair-Game/dp/0393324818/%5DMoneyball%5B/url">http://www.amazon.com/Moneyball-Art-Winning-Unfair-Game/dp/0393324818/]Moneyball[/url</a>]? It was recommended to me by an MIT-educated investment banker.</p>
<p>Again, it is superfluous to challenge fine details of IQ (is it normally distributed, is the scale properly taken to be additive, does "g" exist, was the test developed or applied by racists, etc), because a claim of only 1.5 standard deviations is very rough, like saying "in the top 10 percent" of the measurement, and we know that for the Harvard population this claim is incredibly robust: NOT ONE plausible measurement discredits it and all support it. </p>
<p>If you think that webpage contains any serious challenges to the 1.5 claim, what are they?</p>
<p>re: Moneyball, when Michael Lewis likes his protagonists he worships them in the pages of the book. But yes, it is a good book. His newer one, The Blind Side, is of interest to CC because it shows in detail, in the case of one extremely highly recruited NCAA athlete, how little academics mattered for admission.</p>
<p>I was asking Mr. Payne for his evidence, and I think the past few posts leave open the implication (which would be correct) that I was asking an informational question about where he got his ideas rather than disputing his rather conservative claim (which I quoted). But, returning to the OP's prediction from months ago, how would one go about proving that rather more specific and rather less conservative statement? Do most of us, perhaps, disagree with the OP while agreeing with Mr. Payne? On what grounds?</p>