Average IQ at Harvard?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
101

<p><a href="%5Bb%5Dtokenadult%5B/b%5D%20wrote%20:">quote</a> Who has the higher IQ where (the thrust of the original post in this thread) is still an empirical question.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a rather naive interpretation of what is empirical. The fatal dosage of Chicken McNuggets is also an empirical question in your sense, but a direct experiment isn't available. Nevertheless an abundance of other information exists and can support a discussion. So it is with IQ.</p>

<p>An important piece of empirical data here is years of personal experience with hundreds of undergrads, grad students and faculty at Harvard (and from MIT, IIT, Caltech, Yale, etc). Demanding published numbers and studies is not a substitute for this basic grasp of the reality. This is not to say that opinions of that reality are uniform among its perceivers.</p>

102

<p>Just as a reality check here, how many of the posters have taken an IQ test? (I've taken two child IQ tests and one adult IQ test, all full-scale IQ tests in the English language administered by professional psychologists, two of them with Ph.D. degrees. My oldest son has taken child IQ tests of various kinds in Mandarin Chinese and English.)</p>

103

<p>I'm generally agreeable to the idea that winning a Nobel Prize (at least in one of the hard science disciplines) is a sign of being smart, and it's interesting that Stanford-Binet IQ tests have a proven false-negative problem in passing over future Nobel Prize winners. A fascinating reexamination of the Terman longitudinal study was conducted by Joel Shurkin, a science writer for Stanford University who was the first independent researcher to have access to the Terman study files. Amazingly, Terman’s study catchment area in California included two future Nobel Prize winners, but both were rejected from inclusion in the study because their IQ scores were too low. </p>

<p>Shurkin, Joel N. (1992). Terman's</a> Kids: The Groundbreaking Study of How the Gifted Grow Up. Boston: Little, Brown.</p>

104

<p><a href="%5Bb%5Dsakky:%20%5B/b%5D">quote</a> The VAST MAJORITY of Harvard doctoral students are admitted despite not having any published papers (at least, not yet). Nor do many of them have stellar grades.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Whether or not incoming PhD students usually have publication-level research under their belts, their credentials tend to represent (both in their own right and more so than undergrads' admission credentials) passing some cognitive filters that would place them above, let's say, the 40th percentile at Harvard. That's enough to shift the population upward compared to the undergrads whether you discuss IQ or some correlate thereof. This is very different from the question of whether grad students are specifically selected for brilliance.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Let me give you an example. Molliebatmit is currently a Harvard bio PhD student. She doesn't (yet) have any publications. And she had only a 3.4/4 GPA. I wouldn't call that 'stellar'. Yet Harvard admitted her anyway. So did every other PhD program she applied to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On the contrary, Mollie's posted data place her EASILY in the upper 50 percent of Harvard undergrads. She earned a GPA that would be at or above median at Harvard, at a harder school (MIT) with less grade inflation and no plus-minus grading to finesse (i.e. lower GPAs for the most part), in a science major with an additional double major (higher courseload) that is also more analytical. Being an MIT graduate, she had to not only get in past a certain level of quantitatively skilled competition for admission, but to pass at least 18.02 (math) and 8.02 (physics) rather than the mickey-mouse Harvard or AP versions of same. Molly is a prolific online writer, so probably her GRE verbal scores are reasonable or high, and the MIT background makes it likely the quantitative and analytical scores are good as well ---- it is a good bet that she beats most Harvard graduates in the GRE.</p>

105

<p>
[quote]
it's interesting that Stanford-Binet IQ tests have a proven false-negative problem in passing over future Nobel Prize winners.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is no "proven false-negative" except perhaps to note that IQ measurements at age 10-11 (the age of the Nobelists you refer to) may not represent the adult measurements. </p>

<p>Terman's group was cut off at IQ 135. As I recall, Feynman tested at 138, so including or excluding a given Nobelist could be a matter of the cutoff being too high, natural variation in scores, or the test too crude in the early 20's. One of the two missing Nobelists was William Shockley, who became an absolute fanatic of IQ testing, went to MIT, used psychometric tests to (extremely successfully) select all his employees who went on to found Silicon Valley, and by all accounts was unusually brilliant in the types of cognition measured in IQ tests. Shockley was, and considered himself, a poster child for high IQ, and if he took IQ tests as an adult it is likely he scored very highly.</p>

<p>Alvarez was the other Nobelist and I don't know if there were confounding factors such as Spanish rather than English used at home (I think he spoke English all his life, but don't know for certain), or if he simply just missed the cutoff when tested at the age of about 10.</p>

106

<p>I have taken an IQ test. It was a full-scale test child test, administered when I was, in fact, a child.</p>

<p>It's something of a pity, since the score was quite high, but I don't believe in IQ.</p>

<p>At any rate, my 3.4 GPA is not likely to represent the upper 50% of biology undergraduates at MIT; the median overall GPA at MIT is a 3.2, and the GPAs of biology majors are likely to be considerably higher. Ergo, according to my GPA, I am apparently bringing down the average intelligence of the GSAS relative to the undergrads. ;)</p>

107

<p>Above-average GPA in a double major at MIT trumps the 50 percentile at MIT and therefore much more so at Harvard.</p>

<p>I also tested very high (IQ) as a teenager but believe it to be misleadingly high. Which is not to say that population-level comparisons of IQs or SATs, GREs etc are meaningless --- I think they account nicely for the Caltech > MIT > Harvard ordering of the undergraduate populations, for example.</p>

108

<p>Child IQ tests (ie: mental age) are notoriously inaccurate. I would agree that the median student at MIT is more intelligent than Harvard though, simply due to sports/AA/self selection issues.</p>

109

<p><a href="tokenadult%20claims:">quote</a> Harvard Undergrad IQs range from 97 to 148
From the original published research paper by the author mentioned in the news article cited in post #30, I have finally found a figure for the range of IQ scores among Harvard undergraduates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A grasp of Harvard and of the paper would have been helpful here.
-- this was not a study of IQ
-- they did not administer any IQ test.
-- the choice of test, of test-takers, and of "IQ" calculation procedure are dubious to defective as measures of Harvard undergrad IQ. For the actual purposes of the study they are not serious issues, as they were looking at something different.</p>

<p>In particular, they likely truncated the top extremes of the IQ range, should probably have added 1-2 points rather than subtracted 3, and oversampled psychology and sociology majors (and women), as anyone familiar with WJH studies should know.</p>

110

<p>They claim to have administered an IQ test. I agree that the sample was lousy, but the range found was interesting.</p>

111

<p>They DO NOT claim to have administered an IQ test. They use the letters IQ for a pseudo-IQ score computed from something else, as it doesn't matter for their purposes. For their study they just need something linearly well-correlated with IQ. Their choice of measure is 2 out of about 12 items of the Wechsler adult IQ battery. Their procedure likely shifts the range of scores down by 3-5 points <em>per score</em> and is expected to severely truncate the top scores, for a variety of reasons having to do with IQ tests, statistics, and the particulars of the subpopulation they used at Harvard.</p>

112

<p>
[quote]
...and in the process u have successfully dispelled notions of brilliance of undergrads by supporting this line of argument (which I still find a "no point")

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I doubt that I have. How so? </p>

<p>If you find no point in my posts, then why do you keep responding? </p>

<p>
[quote]
The IIT yield data is not available on the net. So I can't direct you to a website. The reason it is not there is simply because IITs have no rivals in India and the yield is nearly 100%. So there is no point in keeping track of this record. If you want I can send you a number of IITians contacts who will support this. </p>

<p>Unlike the West where you have each and every data available on website, the same does not hold true for India. The statement regarding IITs was true to the best of my knowledge. The following quote will perhaps make you believe.</p>

<p>"Murthy?s own son, who wanted to do computer science at IIT, couldn?t get in. He went to Cornell, instead. Imagine a kid from India using an Ivy League university as a safety school."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in559476.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in559476.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If not then the best way is really to conatct Indians (in India not in US).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you admit that you have no formal proof that IIT beats harvard in cross-yields? That's my precise point.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I dont understand your logic of equating richness with brilliance. Getting rich is totally different matter than being a top notch businessman (it depends on such matters as family legacy, etc).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I was not the one who brought up other subjects. YOU were the one who talked about quality of life. What does that have to do with 'brilliance'?</p>

<p>If quality of life has nothing to do with brilliance, then similarly, I should be allowed to bring up other factors. </p>

<p>
[quote]
dont care about what you heard or read from somewhere. I stick by my claim that life at IITs is great fun and here are some quotes from IITians:</p>

<p>1) "Life at IIT Kgp was probaly the best part of my life till date. I spent five best years of my life there... and given an oppurtunity I would love to go back to have the fun that I had then."</p>

<p><a href="http://people.cs.vt.edu/%7Ebramesh/personal/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://people.cs.vt.edu/~bramesh/personal/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>2) "The four years I spent at IIT Kharagpur were the best years of my life. I learnt a lot, enjoyed life to the maximum and had a lot of fun in general."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cdsp.neu.edu/info/student...t/personal.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cdsp.neu.edu/info/student...t/personal.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>3) "Any fond memories of IIT? NN: I spent the best years of my life here. I was in H-8, and it was great.So I attribute a lot of importance and respect for the time I spent here.I was G.Sec Cult and organised MOOD-I. Such activities helped a lot to improve my organisational skills."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.iitbombay.org/info/ypoint/sp99int.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.iitbombay.org/info/ypoint/sp99int.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Ask any IITian (even those who have been in US for more than 20 years) and you will hear the same thing. IIT life was the most fun-filled period of my life. I learned a lot, enjoyed a lot and grew a lot as a person.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? So you don't care what you saw or read from other people, then you go around quoting other people? So which is it? </p>

<p>
[quote]
God! I had said standard of living is not considered by people in India when considering matters like education and brilliance. YOU brought in richness as a criterion (and continue doing so for god knows what reason). It is unfair since
India is much poorer than US and you cant compare intellectual quality of academic institutions by the wealth of alumni.</p>

<p>In any case, your points are doubly hollow since the richest americans didnt goto the top undergraduate institutions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, the richest Americans don't go to the top undergrad institutions because often times, they don't get in. </p>

<p>Secondly, quality of life - isn't that basically the same thing as richness? After all, what really is the difference? With wealth, you can BUY the quality of life that you want. </p>

<p>
[quote]
...and again and again u bring up wealth.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because you constantly bring up the nebulous concept of 'quality of life'. Tit for tat. </p>

<p>
[quote]
really trust you. I have no doubt they come nowhere being called brilliant after seeing your arguments in favoring the average undergrad over the average grad. How the hell did HBS come in? We have been sticking to GSAS and the college all through I thought. HLS, HMS, Divinity nothing came under scrutiny why should HBS come in? If the word business confused you, I was referring to the GSAS program "Business Economics" which is distinct from "Economics".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What do you mean 'how the hell did HBS come in'? YOU brought up the notion of business. That's right - YOU. Shall I present to you your own quote where YOU asserted that Harvard business graduate students were brilliant? Where else would that be the case, except at HBS? This was YOUR doing, not mine. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If the word business confused you, I was referring to the GSAS program "Business Economics" which is distinct from "Economics".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, check your facts. Business Economics is a joint program run by Harvard GSAS and HBS. So you ask why I brought up HBS, and there it is. </p>

<p>Let me clue you in. I know a LOT of Harvard business economics students (don't ask me how) and most of them have conceded that they don't think they're really that brilliant in the least. In fact, one of them actually pulled out their textbook and noted all of the things that they didn't understand, and probably never would and how scared they were to talk to 'real' economics students. Does that sound 'brilliant' to you? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You again got confused. Why bring in MIT? I was restricting the comparison to Harvard undergrads and grads.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because MIT is a BETTER engineering and science school! Like I said, a lot of Harvard science and (especially) engineering grad students are there because they didnt' get into MIT. THAT is why I brought up MIT. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Oh now you have come down to bashing Harvard's credentials even in well-respected programs huh? I thought you would know that differentiating between ranks 1,2,3 according to USNEWS rannkings doesn't make any sense. USNEWS itself admits that it is not useful to differentiate between universities which are at the top. Of course you know this, you are just arguing for argument's sake.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? If there is no difference, then why even have a ranking in the first place? Don't you think that your 'brilliant' Indians would themselves note that MIT (or other schools) are more highly ranked than Harvard in the various categories you mentioned, and then decide that they'd rather go to that other school?</p>

<p>The point is this. I don't know exactly where you have been getting your information, but I really think you need to deromanticize your notion of how brilliant Harvard graduate students really are. They are just graduate students. Yes, they are above-average. Yes, they are highly knowledgable about how to conduct experiments or build models or write papers (in many cases, all 3). Yes, they are well-read. But brilliant? I think that's a stretch. Granted, some of them are indeed brilliant, just like some undergrads are. But it is long stretch to contend that they are ALL brilliant.</p>

<p>But if you don't believe me, fair enough. Why don't you come on over here and talk to them yourself and decide for yourself whether you really think they're "brilliant"? Or better ,yet, look at some of their research and ascertain whether you still believe these people are really 'brilliant'. Molliebatmit has stated that she feels rather dismayed at the intellectual quality of the Harvard graduate students she interacts with. Frankly, so do I. Maybe you just have a minority opinion about the matter.</p>

113

<p>sakky, your postings are too long to read in detail much less answer point by point. Your and Mollie's personal disappointment in some Harvard grad subpopulations doesn't really address either the corresponding weaknesses in the undergrad population or the overall population-level differences. Disappointments, anecdotes and tales of underwhelming competence abound for the undergrads, too. That does not detract from the strength of the undergrads compared to the general population or the grad students compared to the undergrad population.</p>

114

<p>After a thread that has gone on for months, with plenty of groundless speculation and diversion into side issues, it still appears that the original poster should not worry about his IQ score, especially if it is a child IQ score, and should not worry about the IQ scores of current Harvard undergraduate students. He should simply apply to Harvard if he is really interested in studying there. Most applicants are not admitted, but some are.</p>

115

<p>
[quote]
I doubt that I have. How so?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You were using the fact that some grads admit they dont know why Harvard admitted them since they dont consider themselves brilliant as a proof of lower average brilliance of grads. Similarly, if this "point" had been a valid one, I could use the fact that several undergrads feel the same way to prove that undergrads are less brilliant. This is why it is a void point to argue with.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you find no point in my posts, then why do you keep responding?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I said I found no point in THIS particular point. Also I keep posting because you are writing in a public forum and you may easily mislead others. Trust me I wont respond if this were a private email.</p>

<p>
[quote]
YOU were the one who talked about quality of life. What does that have to do with 'brilliance'?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Read my post. I had said quality of life is not a parameter that brilliance gets judged by in India. It has nothing to do with brilliance, that was my point. You somehow took it as a license to bring in richness in discussion.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Huh? So you don't care what you saw or read from other people, then you go around quoting other people? So which is it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I dont care about one particular quote which you conveniently picked to argue. That is why I responded with similar several quotes which nullify your points. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If there is no difference, then why even have a ranking in the first place?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The purpose of rankings is to differentiate between which are top-quality programs and which are not. As I said, it is not prudent to differentiate between ranks 1,2,3 as they are all top-notch which is something all acedemics agree about.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I really think you need to deromanticize your notion of how brilliant Harvard graduate students really are. They are just graduate students. Yes, they are above-average.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You always distort my statements. I never had any romantic ideas about Harvard grads. All I have been claiming throughout is an average grad is far better than an average undergrad in intellectual terms at harvard. Read my posts please before you write such lines like "you need to deromanticize your notion of how brilliant Harvard graduate students really are". </p>

<p>
[quote]
Why don't you come on over here and talk to them yourself and decide for yourself whether you really think they're "brilliant"? Or better ,yet, look at some of their research and ascertain whether you still believe these people are really 'brilliant' ...Maybe you just have a minority opinion about the matter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I did both and seems like you had been on the minority all through. Your wily harping on using "brilliant" as an absolute term without comparing to undergrads is sure to mislead people. From my first post my focus has been on comparisons, while yours has been why grads are not brilliant. If you cant follow the precise foundations of the argument, YOU should stop posting.</p>

116

<p>
[quote]
sakky, your postings are too long to read in detail much less answer point by point. Your and Mollie's personal disappointment in some Harvard grad subpopulations doesn't really address either the corresponding weaknesses in the undergrad population or the overall population-level differences. Disappointments, anecdotes and tales of underwhelming competence abound for the undergrads, too. That does not detract from the strength of the undergrads compared to the general population or the grad students compared to the undergrad population.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. It is the opinion of mine and mollieatmit's, that the undergrad students at MIT are generally better than the grad students at MIT. In fact, I think that is the consensus view of the entire MIT community. {Similarly, my brother and probably also Ben Golub strong suspect that Caltech undergrads are better than Caltech grad students, on average}. Hence, the same thing is likely to hold at Harvard - in fact, it is generally understood that Harvard undergrad is just as hard, and arguably harder to get into than MIT or Caltech undergrad. </p>

<p>In fact, I would say that it holds more so. After all, let's be honest. Harvard has a lot of departments in which you don't really need to be 'brilliant' (however you define the word), and yet can still get a PhD. In particular, I would point to the humanities and the social sciences as areas where you don't really need to be truly brilliant yet still complete a Phd. You have to know how to write well, how to do archival research, and have a lot of stamina but I wouldn't go so far as to say that you have to truly brilliant. On the other hand, engineering is a field in which brilliance does matter. Yet Harvard's graduate engineering program is tiny. In contrast, the graduate School of Engineering is the largest of the 6 schools at MIT. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You were using the fact that some grads admit they dont know why Harvard admitted them since they dont consider themselves brilliant as a proof of lower average brilliance of grads. Similarly, if this "point" had been a valid one, I could use the fact that several undergrads feel the same way to prove that undergrads are less brilliant. This is why it is a void point to argue with.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See below.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I said I found no point in THIS particular point. Also I keep posting because you are writing in a public forum and you may easily mislead others. Trust me I wont respond if this were a private email.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, if you really think there is no point to a particular discussion, then don't participate. The mere fact that you choose to respond obviously means that you think there is a point. </p>

<p>
[quote]
dont care about one particular quote which you conveniently picked to argue. That is why I responded with similar several quotes which nullify your points.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I hardly see how you have nullified anything. But in any case, see below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
ead my post. I had said quality of life is not a parameter that brilliance gets judged by in India. It has nothing to do with brilliance, that was my point. You somehow took it as a license to bring in richness in discussion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You got it. If you have license to bring in other factors, then so do I. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The purpose of rankings is to differentiate between which are top-quality programs and which are not. As I said, it is not prudent to differentiate between ranks 1,2,3 as they are all top-notch which is something all acedemics agree about.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So let's explore that. Harvard is ranked #4 in graduate physics, behind MIT, Stanford, and Caltech. So when you're talking about the best physics graduate students in the world, there is no a-priori reason for one to prefer Harvard, right? In fact, I would argue that in a cross-admit battle for the best grad physics candidates in the world, Harvard is going to win, at best, 50% of the battles with MIT, Caltech, or Stanford, probably less. </p>

<p>However, the same is NOT true of undergrad. Harvard wins the cross-admt battles with * every * school out there, including MIT, Caltech, and Stanford. Harvard has by far the highest undergrad yield of any school in the country, with around 80% yield. MIT and Stanford only yield about 65% of their admitees, and Caltech admits something like 40%. </p>

<p>The bottom line is this. Head-to-head, at the undergraduate level, if somebody is admitted to both Harvard and MIT, he will probably pick Harvard. Yet, if we're talking about PhD physics students, head-to-head, Harvard has no edge over MIT, and in fact, is arguably at a disadvantage. Same holds for Caltech and Stanford. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You always distort my statements. I never had any romantic ideas about Harvard grads. All I have been claiming throughout is an average grad is far better than an average undergrad in intellectual terms at harvard. Read my posts please before you write such lines like "you need to deromanticize your notion of how brilliant Harvard graduate students really are".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I did both and seems like you had been on the minority all through. Your wily harping on using "brilliant" as an absolute term without comparing to undergrads is sure to mislead people. From my first post my focus has been on comparisons, while yours has been why grads are not brilliant. If you cant follow the precise foundations of the argument, YOU should stop posting.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, don't tell me to stop posting, unless you want to have a talk with a moderator. I have the right to free speech and can say whatever I want to say.</p>

<p>Second off, see above. Let's talk about comparisons. Let's follow the logic. I'm going to use MIT as my base case. First, the general consensus at MIT is that the grad students at MIT are not as good as the undergrads. Secondly, Harvard is, if anything, even more difficult to get into at the undergrad level, and is also more preferred from a cross-admit basis. Thirdly, the same is not true at the grad level, because (a) there are a lot of non-technical departments at Harvard filled with graduate students that don't need to be brilliant and (b) Harvard's technical departments are not as large as MIT's technical departments.</p>

<p>Hence, I think the logic is quite straightforward. MIT's undergrads are already, by general consensus within the community, better than MIT's grad students. Yet Harvard's undergrads are arguably * the same as or even better * than MIT's undergrads, yet Harvard's grad students are arguably * worse *. Hence, the outcome is that Harvard's grad students are worse than Harvard's undergrad students. If X > Y, and A >= X, and B <= Y, then A > B. QED.</p>

117

<p>
[quote]
Your and Mollie's personal disappointment in some Harvard grad subpopulations

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I can't speak for mollie, I am certainly not 'disappointed' with what I found, simply because I never had high expectations to begin with. In fact, I found exactly what I expected to find - which is some graduate students who probably can be classified as brilliant, but the majority simply being enterprising students with good research skills, but aren't otherwise 'brilliant' by any reasonable definition of the word. I would be the first to acknowledge that I'm not brilliant, and that, frankly, the MIT undergrads tend to perform better than me (and therefore, by extension, the Harvard undergrads also perform better than me). So I'm not brilliant. But Harvard grad students by and large aren't brilliant either. And that's exactly what I expected. </p>

<p>I'll give you a specific situation. I know numerous former MIT eng grad students - probably over 100. And they freely admit that we are not as good as the undergrads. Yet I also know many former Harvard engineering grad students, and they all clearly acknowledge that they are not as good as the MIT engineering grad students. So if they are't as good as the MIT eng grad students, who in turn aren't as good as the MIT undergrads (which are basically the same or perhaps slightly worse than the Harvard undergrads), I think that proves the basic point. </p>

<p>The same holds (although less strongly) with other Harvard departments that have been named here, such as the sciences. In not a single one of these grad programs is Harvard ranked #1. Here, we should look at the situation from a department-to-department basis. I know a number of MIT grad science students who think that the MIT science undergrads are better, just like what happens in engineering. </p>

<p>But the point is, I'm not 'disappointed by what I found'. I found precisely what I thought I'd find. They're not brilliant, but I wasn't expecting brilliance.</p>

118

<p><a href="sakky%20wrote:">quote</a> undergrad students at MIT are generally better than the grad students at MIT. [......] Hence, the same thing is likely to hold at Harvard - in fact, it is generally understood that Harvard undergrad is just as hard, and arguably harder to get into than MIT or Caltech undergrad.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's your mistake. MIT undergrads are considerably smarter <em>on average</em> than the undergrads at Harvard, for the same reason that Caltech > MIT > Harvard, and for most of the same reasons that Harvard grad students are (on average for the whole populations) smarter than the undergrads. The "average level of smart" is basically what one would expect from SAT/GRE or similar cutoffs that kill off the bottom of the pool, and the ability to trade noncognitive factors such as athletics, leadership, or social service in place of cognitive selectors. If you know anyone who has taught an IQ-loaded subject at Harvard in classes where MIT students cross-register, ask them about the relative performance. </p>

<p>The difficulty of getting into Harvard as compared to MIT comes from its greater fame and popularity, and from the large number of applicants who also can generate the noncognitive, or less-cognitive, credentials that MIT students may not have. The non-well-rounded, insufficiently athletic or communitarian or minority, applicants who went to MIT, Caltech, Berkeley and UCLA make a comeback to Harvard for the PhD program, where it now helps to be Top Geek.</p>

119

<p>
[quote]
MIT undergrads are considerably smarter <em>on average</em> than the undergrads at Harvard, for the same reason that Caltech > MIT > Harvard, and for most of the same reasons that Harvard grad students are (on average for the whole populations) smarter than the undergrads.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>exactly so. i completely agree.</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
There's your mistake. MIT undergrads are considerably smarter <em>on average</em> than the undergrads at Harvard, for the same reason that Caltech > MIT > Harvard, and for most of the same reasons that Harvard grad students are (on average for the whole populations) smarter than the undergrads. The "average level of smart" is basically what one would expect from SAT/GRE or similar cutoffs that kill off the bottom of the pool, and the ability to trade noncognitive factors such as athletics, leadership, or social service in place of cognitive selectors. If you know anyone who has taught an IQ-loaded subject at Harvard in classes where MIT students cross-register, ask them about the relative performance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, how's that? First off, seems to me that there is essentially no difference in the SAT scores of the undergraduate students pools at Harvard and MIT, particularly at the 'lower pool'. The 25th/75th percentile of the SAT scores at MIT is 1410/1560. At Harvard, it's 1400/1580. Hence, it's the same. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/misc/miscellaneous/waitlisted_1.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/misc/miscellaneous/waitlisted_1.shtml&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.admissionsconsultants.com/college/harvard.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissionsconsultants.com/college/harvard.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>After all, let's be honest. MIT admissions are not exactly 'pure' either. MIT also admits plenty of students due to leadership attributes or other attributes that have little to do with pure intelligence. In fact, it is widely acknowledged within the MIT forum that it is practically impossible to get admitted to undergrad MIT (as at Harvard) without strong extracurricular activities. </p>

<p>Furthermore, in regards to your notion of cross-regging, I have known PLENTY of students who have cross-regged and nobody has detected any difference in the apparent intelligence of Harvard and MIT undergrads. What you may be referring to is the difference in difficulty of technical vs. nontechnical courses. But that's an entirely different issue. After all, MIT has plenty of nontechnical courses that aren't exactly the hardest courses in the world (i.e. Sloan management classes). Furthermore, the notion of the difficulty of technical vs. nontechnical departments is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Like I said, there are plenty of Harvard non-technical PhD's (i.e. the humanities) that are not exactly the most brilliant people in the world. Good researchers, well-read, but not exactly super-geniuses. </p>

<p>But anyway, I see no compelling reason to believe that Harvard undergrads are in any way inferior to MIT undergrads when it comes to intelligence. If anything (as shown by standardized test scores), it is, at worst, the same. On the other hand, like I said, MIT undergrads generally believe (and I agree) that they are better than MIT grad students. And I see no reason to believe that MIT grad students are any worse than Harvard grad students. If anything, they are probably better. </p>

<p>Like I said, MIT is actually ranked slightly higher when it comes to technical graduate programs than is Harvard. MIT is clearly a better engineering school. MIT is at least as good at graduate science than is Harvard, and arguably slightly better. MIT is at least as good as Harvard in economics. But fine, to be conservative, let's say that MIT is the same as Harvard in sciences and economics. Obviously Harvard is better than MIT in humanities and other social sciences other than economics, but that's precisely what I'm getting at - you don't really need to be that brilliant to get into and survive one of these programs. Hence, it seems to me that MIT PhD students are, on average, better than Harvard PhD students. </p>

<p>Hence, my analysis holds. Let's be conservative in all respects. Harvard undergrads, conservatively, are equivalent to MIT undergrads. Yet MIT undergrads are widely understood to be better than MIT graduate students, who in turn, are, conservatively estimated, are equal to Harvard graduate students (and probably are better than they are). Hence, it holds that Harvard undergrads are better than Harvard graduate students. QED.</p>