<p>What percentage of students at Stanford do you think would qualify to be in MENSA?</p>
<p>75% maybe.</p>
<p>1370 - 1550 is the 25th and 75th percentile there for SAT's from last year's freshman class. Average SAT is about 530. 1 SD is then 630, 2 would be 730. 2 730's would be 1460 which just happens to be Standford's average SAT. About 2% score above 2 standard deviations which is the Mensa cutoff, I believe.</p>
<p>But 2 730's are harder to get then one. And not everybody takes the SAT's such that I'd guess 75% instead of 50%.</p>
<p>beprepn</p>
<p>interesting response beprepn. I like how you used the sd of SATs and paralleled it to IQ scores (which are both similar as the are standardized tests) I did not expect that. I thought I would get more anecdotal evidence but this is even better. I always assumed for such a school as S, the figure would be that high though...</p>
<p>Does anyone have any more thoughts on the matter?</p>
<p>SATs are a horrible indicator of IQ. I qualify for MENSA and I scored 82nd%ile on the SAT.</p>
<p>Then again, I got 99th%ile I think on ACT.</p>
<p>bump any more thouhts</p>
<p>sat is not comparable to IQ.</p>
<p>guess wise, i would say 30-40% maybe, but thats a complete guess</p>
<p>
[quote]
SATs are a horrible indicator of IQ.
[/quote]
The correlation coefficient is certainly less than 1, but it's not a horrible indicator of IQ.</p>
<p>when stats show that sat scores are directly correlated to parents income bracket...you tend to think that its less natural intelligence and more the aid of tutors and extrinsic factors.</p>
<p>No, because natural intelligence (IQ) also correlates with income. I hate how people assume that just because you're middle class or higher, you took a $1000 SAT prep course. It doesn't work that way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
SATs are a horrible indicator of IQ.
[/quote]
The correlation coefficient is certainly less than 1, but it's not a horrible indicator of IQ.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hello?? Did you read the rest of my post? I QUALIFY, and SAT was wrong by more than 15%. I know I am not the only case. And I studied for the damn thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, because natural intelligence (IQ) also correlates with income. I hate how people assume that just because you're middle class or higher, you took a $1000 SAT prep course. It doesn't work that way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I also am low-income. So however you think intelligence matches with income, you are wrong.</p>
<p>God, just the statement "natural intelligence (IQ) also correlates with income" is so flawed. I don't even know where to begin.</p>
<p>intelligence in the first generation may match with income, but in terms of child intelligence? thats different.</p>
<p>Yeah Im_blue, re-read your statement.
Proof that not all stanford kids qualify for MENSA.</p>
<p>No more than 25%.</p>
<p>Most Stanford students are very smart, but they aren't "brilliant."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hello?? Did you read the rest of my post? I QUALIFY, and SAT was wrong by more than 15%. I know I am not the only case. And I studied for the damn thing.
[/quote]
Do you understand what a correlation coefficient is? Your individual case says nothing about it. SAT and IQ scores are certainly not independent, and they're not completely dependent. In other words, the correlation coefficient is between 0 and 1.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also am low-income. So however you think intelligence matches with income, you are wrong.
[/quote]
Again, this has to do with correlation and says nothing about you as an individual. Income and IQ scores are correlated. Go search Google for studies yourself, or I can provide links for you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
God, just the statement "natural intelligence (IQ) also correlates with income" is so flawed. I don't even know where to begin.
[/quote]
You can begin by looking up the definition of correlation. Believe it or not, there exists a correlation between left-handedness and homosexuality. Does that mean if you're left-handed that I'm calling you gay? Of course not!</p>
<p>bump any more thoughts</p>