EVERYONE College-Bound?:SAT,IQ,Education, etc.

College Confidential Community
1

<p>Should everyone go to college? Does SAT measure innate intelligence or is it simply good test taking ability? Is the current system of encouraging everyone to follow the college prep track (as opposed to tracking less able students to blue collar apprenticeships) acceptable? Does intelligence actually exist or are all people about the same ability?</p>

<p>The following thread (now closed b/c it got off the original topic) explored these issues (debate heats up on page 3, especially between cindysphinx, dontno, and ee33ee):</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/548046-what-college-can-i-get-into-these-grades-3.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/548046-what-college-can-i-get-into-these-grades-3.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>Bumping this thread.</p>

3

<p>1) Pretty much - at least in regards to the American middle class (which comprises the majority of America’s population).
2) Both (as well as other factors such as economic status).
3) The premise of the American educational dream is that every young, ambitious man or woman of reasonable intelligence should have the ability to go to college. And how do you propose to deign which students are “less able”? Would you prefer that we tested everyone at the age of 14 and then seperated them into educational tracks which the students could not change and which would ultimately determine their educational and economic fates?
4) Of course it exists, but you don’t have to be of above average intelligence to make your way through most colleges in the United States (hence the existence of so many colleges to accomodate so many students).</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>No, only those who want to go should go. Only those who are motivated toward a career that needs a degree should go.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I believe it measures student aptitude and test taking skills.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Around here the college prep and skilled trades tracks receive equal encouragement. Students have a choice. I believe it’s acceptable and working. And, btw, the trades are not just for “less able” students.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I believe there are degrees of intelligence. Just like there are degrees of athletic ability and artistic talent (provided by nature). However, maximizing ones intelligence/athletics/arts abitlities can only happen under the right circumstances (nurture).</p>

5

<p>1) Yes, its better for the country economically if more people go to college. But of course, its the individuals’ choice. </p>

<p>2)No. But the SATs are highly correlated to IQ. If someone gets a high score with no prep whatsoever and went to a very mediocre HS, we can reasonably assume that said person is intelligent. But, with significant preparation, people can get high scores. After all, according to a university of Michigan study, through training, people can increase some aspects of IQ. [Plastic</a> Brain Outsmarts Experts: Training Can Increase Fluid Intelligence, Once Thought To Be Fixed At Birth](<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080605163804.htm]Plastic”>Plastic Brain Outsmarts Experts: Training Can Increase Fluid Intelligence, Once Thought To Be Fixed At Birth | ScienceDaily)
Since IQ is correlated to SAT, people can increase SAT scores. </p>

<p>3) Yes it is acceptable because as I’ve said earlier, its better for the economy if we have more people educated than not. Also, if that study is correct, most people could have the potential to go to college. Some are born dumber than others. But, that just means they’ll have to work harder. </p>

<p>4)Some people are born smarter than others, there’s no denying that. But people can work harder to overcome that. Or they can, possibly, train to increase their IQ.</p>

6

<p>My kids go to a high school which is obsessed with being on the Newsweek Top 100 list and pushes AP classes like crazy. The kids who aren’t college bound don’t get a minute of the GC’s time (which I guess is okay because I don’t think they really know about the other options anyway.) There’s a young man on my block who always won art and photography contests, but was not very academically inclined. In the spring he said he was going to community college, I think just to have something to say. </p>

<p>His mom told me over the weekend that he is going to hair dressing (cosmetology?) school. She said that photography and hair have always been his passions. I’m thrilled for him, that he is following his passions instead of taking up a desk at the CC, not wanting to be there.</p>

7

<p>I think it is mainly a case of nature vs. nurture, and in all other arguments involving this theme, I have believed nurture plays a bigger role. I agree with dontno in that one may actually add on “artificial” points to their score, but everyone gets different scores initially. I hear cases of students who get 1750s and study, get a tutor, etc. and bump that score to 2300. They however have the opportunity to get those scores by the materials they are exposed to. There could be the student in an underrepresented part of the country, with no resources to add “artificial” points to his/her score and could have naturally scored a 2080. This initial score of a 2080 is higher than the intial score of a 1750. However, say colleges accept the student with a 2300 over the student with the 2080. Most probably the student with the 2300 will find resources like private tutors, etc. that they can use in order to succeed in a school of higher education. However, that student who may innately be more intelligent, could not go to a top top school but go to a second tier school and get a great education (not elite). They not be a go-getter to get whatever resources they may need. The most successful people I think are those who work hard to get what they want. Not those who cruise through school, relying on intelligence, and not seeking opportunity.</p>

8

<p>Well I guess I’m the only dissenting opinion.</p>

<p>Anyone else agree with the plethora of arguments I put forth in the original thread? I’d respond directly to the ideas presented in this thread, but I’ve already spent so much articulating them in the original one.</p>

9

<p>Yeah I read the original thread. I do agree with you in that intelligence is innate but I think so to a much lesser degree. It really is the environment in which you grow. Everyone can be educated; I’m not saying the most elite education, but educated. </p>

<p>I guess you kind of are on your own…:)</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>Really? I’d say definitely not. Here’s a thought experiment. For all the situations I’ll present, who would you rather have comprising the workers union: 1) kids who got 980 on the SAT, went to Podunk State College, majored in communications with a minor in psychology, and got a 2.8 or 2) kids who were always below average in grade school, then went to a vo-tech high school where they received extensive classroom and apprenticeship instruction.</p>

<p>Who would assemble cars better, be more proficient plumbers, hook up electrical circuits in airplanes, homes, satellites, defense systems, create complex special effects make-up, create complicated graphic design, hook up and fix air conditioning systems in a skyscraper, etc.? Seriously, so a “less able” student (one who lacks the intellectual gifts to understand academic material) is better served by continuing on the college prep track? Is the economics of this country better served by having less skilled workers b/c you wanted him to write essays on The Great Gatbsy and solve algebraic equations instead of getting his hands dirty?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is extremely rare but it speaks to the idea of artificially raising one’s score, thereby (in some persons’ opinions) invalidating the SAT as an intelligence exam. But in fact, raising one’s score 200 points doesn’t really go against the notion of SAT and innate intelligence (or IQ) having a strong correlation. It must be understood that SAT scores are scaled against the rest of the test taking public (i.e. One of my friends got 2 wrong on math and still got an 800, while almost always 2 wrong is around a 760). Thus, ETS (not sure but assume) probably forces the scores into a normal distribution, which mirrors the normal distribution of intelligence. </p>

<p>So the people who will be able to gain 200 points from test prep are usually at the very top end of the spectrum. Let’s say this kid gets around a 1300 and after studying a Kaplan book, gets a low 1500. Wow, 200 points is huge! But really at that high of a score to begin with, it’s not. What that represents is really only around a 10% increase in score. This increase is not outside the bounds of the correlation between SAT and IQ, which is about 0.7. From one’s SAT score, you can APPROXIMATE a range of IQ scores. So through studying, he simply took himself to the very top edge of his IQ range. Now, this would be invalidated if kids in the middle (around 1000 or so) were raising their scores more than about 70 points with test prep. But I highly doubt the average test prep increase for kids in this range isn’t within a 10% percentile increase. <a href=“Note:%20%20Scores%20out%20of%201600,%20not%202400.”>B</a>**</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There’s much evidence to the contrary! I’ll give it to you in a few hours if I have time. But of course, I’m not a 100% nature supporter. Environment does matter somewhat, but not nearly to the extent liberal elite universities and their scientists would like us to believe.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, has anyone ran an experiment that took a person born with an average IQ and prepped him his whole life to take the SAT; forcing him to study countless hours? No. That would be unethical. But comeon, if someone were to put say 60hrs a week prepping for the SATs for 10+ yrs, it isn’t hard to believe that he’ll score well. Sure, my example is extreme; but if true, it would disprove nature determining destiny.</p>

12

<p>@ chinny:</p>

<p>Here’s great evidence from a research project called: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart: The heritability of g and other mental ability factors. </p>

<p>Search for the study’s name in the link below: [Gene</a> Expression](<a href=“http://www.gnxp.com/blog/labels/IQ.php]Gene”>Gene Expression)</p>

<p>The study found a correlation of 0.75 between the twins, thus giving pretty strong evidence that environment is only responsible for 25% of an individual’s intelligence. Similarity in environment was controlled for.</p>

<p>Also, this could be a response to CoffeeBreak ^^^</p>

13

<p>Also to CoffeeBreak: I doubt they’d ace it. The SAT is not a smattering of questions you’ve seen before. It requires reasoning employing tools (i.e. vocab, geometrical rules) to answer questions. Are questions similiar to test prep? Yes, but the actual SAT exam gives questions with new wrinkles. Only highly intelligent people can identify the proper (in an efficient manner) and carry it out for the correct solution.</p>

14

<p>Ok here’s more, this time from a Harvard educated author named Charles Murray. He wrote a very controversial book called The Bell Curve in which he and a Harvard colleague engage in dense statistical analysis of IQ and other stuff.</p>

<p>So in it he studied siblings who differ significantly in IQ score. So each pair of siblings grew up in the same household. Thus environment is the same. </p>

<p>Here’s the link: Look for the phrase, “Each pair consists of one sibling” for the good stuff.</p>

<p>[IQ</a> Will Put You In Your Place](<a href=“http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html]IQ”>http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html)</p>

15

<p>^all you have shown was a statistical anaylsis. Correlation does not imply causation. Consider athletes on wheelchairs. Compare the ratio of these athletes to non athletic wheelchaired individuals to the ratio of normal atheles to normal non wheelchaired people. You’ll find the former to be much smaller. And yet, merely the fact that there are athletes on wheelchairs implies that its possible. But why the low ratio? It’s because its much harder to succeed as an athlete while disabled. The same can be said of people with lower IQs. Look, from my experience, most people are patheticly lazy and uncourageous. They’re not willing to put in the much needed effort and sacrifice to succeed on a level comparable to that of a high IQ person.</p>

16

<p>I definitely think that college should be reserved for those who want to go there. We’re already sending everybody to high school. Just spruce up the high school system, and it will be a much cheaper fix. Personally, I’d want to be in a learning environment with other people who want to learn. In my high school, in any given class, I’m usually one of about three that actually want to be there. A situation like that quickly degrades the quality of education. I don’t want colleges to turn in to high school for drinking-age students.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>Agreed. The worth of the college degree is decreasing because we dilute by demanding that everyone attend college. The high school degree underwent a similiar dilution process back in the 50’s and now it starting at ever advanced levels of education. Tommorow’s master’s degree will be today’s bachelor’s.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve seen this knee jerk reaction to any controversial connection. Yes, what you said is true, but besides a rambling and opaque analogy, you haven’t given a substantial answer. The statistical analyses I presented controlled for environment, etc. and thus a causation conclusion is made on a sound basis. You don’t win an argument by putting on your ear muffs and saying, nah uh!!!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re getting off the subject here. We’re discussing the effect of environment, not an individual’s work ethic. So basically by making this statement, you’re conceding that environment does not have a significant effect on an individual’s intellectuality. Now you blame it on work ethic. But for that to be true, you’re assuming smart people have a stronger work ethic than non-smart people (by saying this, you then make another assumption that “smart” people actually exist and it’s not a result of work ethic).So you’re going in circles here trying to prove your point. You make so many assumptions to get around the obvious.</p>

18

<p>I hate it when people say “good test taking ability”. </p>

<p>It has nothing to do with that. SAT does not measure IQ, but it doesn’t measure “test taking ability” either, because there’s no such thing. </p>

<p>there is NO ONE that is a bad test taker. Only people who have learning disabilities, and that’s because they have trouble learning the material in the first place. Don’t use bad test taking as an excuse, it’s just sad.</p>

<p>As for should everyone go to college, well no. but only because some people don’t want to. As long as you want to, then you should.</p>

19

<p>It’s more a matter of motivation than it is of intelligence. I don’t think that one’s school performance can be an accurate measurement of intelligence. There are plenty of people, who, while just as capable as book-smart students (rampant on CC, btw), do not do as well simply because they don’t like school, aren’t motivated, etc. Most of the time, it’s not as if an underachieving student is less intelligent. I’ve rarely met a person, who probably couldn’t, with personal effort, be on par with top students. It’s just a matter of who desires it and has the work ethic.</p>

<p>Trust me, your “intellectual gifts” probably aren’t as rare as you think–you’ve just been able to utilize them.</p>

20

<p>As I’ve said before, college wouldn’t be so necessary if employers could trust that a potential employee could put together a sentence and do basic math without a degree. </p>

<p>The source of the problem: high school. Solution: fix it.</p>