I think everyone agrees that intelligence is genetic to a certain extent. But not sure how anyone can argue that “intelligence” and “opportunity” are two different things.
My daughter (who was valedictorian by the way of her high school and turned down a Ivy (not Cornell) to go to another elite school) is at a top school in a very competitive program. There are quite a few kids in her classes that come from these neighborhoods that it sounds like you are implying rightfully have intelligent people living in them and that’s why they are affluent. Well, turns out that many of these kids that she says got in on “connections” are by far not the smartest kids at her school. In fact, sounds like a lot of these connected kids that come from the affluent neighborhoods with opportunity knocking on their doors are actually made fun of an referred to by some of the more “intelligent” students at her school as a bunch of “dumbies”.
So how do you explain that one? I realize that the kids she is exposed to are by no means a statistically valid sample, but I think you get my point.
And by the way, her Anthropology professor would disagree with you. I have been sharing some of the comments made on this thread about inheriting intelligence and she relayed something about comparing the genetics of humans to dragonflies and how humans from opposite ends of the planet with different make ups have more in common than two dragonflies that look identical and are from the same species, or something like that…
With that said, I know that there is a lot of science behind all of this and that there might be and probably is truth to the fact that intelligence can be and is inherited, but to say that the wealthier more affluent people deserve the spots at the top colleges, if that’s what you are implying, is just outright wrong. And, moreover, these affluent good neighborhood kids getting in are definitely often not the most intelligent.
@collegemomjam - I’m probably just not being clear enough if I gave the impression that the wealthier students deserve the top spots or anything like that. I think the smartest kids deserve the top spots. They will be a bit wealthier, of course, on average, but only a little bit. That’s because the correlation within race between wealth/income and intelligence is significant but fairly low (r = 0.15 to about 0.20 approx). There are many many smart but poor kids. Btw, this is the group that pays the price for holistic admissions, since it is much more difficult for that group to jump through all the phony hoops that are set up.
The mystery of your daughter’s affluent classmates is no mystery at all. Their intelligence probably is not that high, and holistic admissions allowed them to use their advantages to gain admissions. Very common at all top schools. Also very obvious to the students. It is much more difficult to game an IQ test or to fake real academic accomplishment.
About the anthropology professor, sure she would disagree. Fortunately, that field is being completely disrupted by evolutionary biology, genetics research and related fields, and I bet in 25 years no one will care at all what physical anthropologists think (not that anyone cares too much now, frankly).
Getting back to race and college admissions, the tough problem is that testing is going to reveal large group differences. This is not an easy problem to solve in a multiracial society. I favour quotas myself because they are more honest. Quotas would also make it more difficult for highly connected and advantaged students to game the system. However, I am very aware of the stigma that can accompany explicitly easier or harder criteria for different groups. I wish there was a way for students from a lower testing racial group to signal that they got in solely on “merit.” Frankly, I don’t know how to do it while preserving dignity for everyone. All I know is that the current system is fooling no one. And I say that as a degree holder from two of the HYPMS+ schools.
@SatchelSF I completely agree quotas would be more honest and could solve some problems. And your are right that the “holistic” approach leaves too many loop holes to admit the “wrong” students, meaning the ones that don’t necessarily deserve it but are connected, etc.
My daughter would wholeheartedly agree with your opinion on the future of Anthropology…ended up not being her favorite class. She also took Sociology and felt that was much more relevant and may minor in it. The Anthro department is looking for majors…not a lot of interest which is probably why she was able to get in the class last minute!
Ironically, the top school my daughter is at now deferred and then waitlisted ME when I was in high school (and never used their waitlist). I mention this because I was hookless (but today I would have had the first gen hook, they didn’t have it back then) but a boy from my school with egregiously lower grades and scores than me got in because he was a URM. (He’s a great person and did very well, as did I, definitely never any hard feelings…even back then I agreed with the need for affirmative action, even though he wasn’t necessarily disadvantaged, but the system isn’t perfect at all!).
So it was very cool bringing my daughter for accepted students weekend and then back for orientation knowing that she was going to go to my top choice, and that she got in with NO hook at all…and so far so good, she’s very happy there.
You are so right that the current system is fooling NO ONE.
@SatchelSF and @collegemomjam I agree with a lot of what you said. But I think that in a meritocratic society like ours the sooner we get over the fact that there will be disproportionate number of accomplished racial/ethnic groups in all kinds of professions the better. As far as using racial quota in college admission based on the theory of racial difference in intelligence it will be not only morally odious but practically impossible. As racially mixed as America is today I don’t know how you confer advantage to someone with 1/16 vs 1/2 makeup of certain race. The only way this can possibly work is to subject every high school kid to a genetic test and rank them based on group characteristics and genetic percentages. Besides its being a improbable task there will be insurmountable legal hurdles.
I think months ago on this thread a number of us were agreeing that maybe the best way to handle this is to throw out the racial/ethnic component and base it more on socioeconomic indicators…i.e., maybe give the “bump” to kids from lower socioeconomic areas, regardless of race or ethnicity. This might be the fairest way of all. So a kid that goes through the Newark, NJ public school system might get a bit of a boost over a kid that goes through the Scarsdale, NY public system. I’m sure there are huge differences in the educational opportunities in these two different towns.
@jzducol - Those are all excellent points and highlight just how thorny of an issue race preferences are. A quota system no doubt would get very complicated, very quickly. Like you, I wish that society could just get over the fact that there will be disproportionate representation of the races in certain schools and professions, just as we accept it when such disproportionate representation appears to inure to the benefit of certain groups who are perceived to be disadvantaged (e.g., many major sports, politically assigned government sector jobs, certain entertainment sectors, etc.). But I don’t see that happening either.
Today, of course, we have the worst of both worlds. There is quite obviously a quota system in place in college admissions right now. But in order to maintain the fiction that the preferences are not as large as they in fact have to be, the education system is twisting itself up in knots and making the identification and nurturing of academic talent all but impossible. For instance, standardized tests have been under constant assault for the better part of fifty years now, and it’s not clear what they are even measuring anymore. There have been so many tweaks and recenterings of the SAT, for instance, since the 1990s, all of which were undertaken to try to mask racial differences in scoring, that it has little ability to differentiate among the top students. (Consider, for instance, that anyone who scored above about a 1450-1500 prior to 1995 was effectively compressed to a perfect 1600 post 1995. The recent switch back yo the 1600 scale again increased scores across the board - just look at recent NMSF cutoffs for proof. Similar dynamics can be observed with grade inflation at all levels over the past fifty years, and for the same reasons.)
I like very much the idea of socio-economic preferences, because while intelligence might be somewhat democratically distributed (again with some relative advantages for the already wealthy), opportunity most certainly is not. There is no question that less wealthy and outright poor students face a much tougher time in distinguishing themselves. The holistic admissions mantra makes this task even tougher, as it presents kids with a succession of hoops which will prove to be no problem and hence a relative benefit for the already very privileged.
The problem again is that even with socio-economic preferences there will still be massively unequal representation of different races in college, because the underlying cause of the disparity is not economic and so cannot be addressed through socio-economic preferences. In fact, I suspect the disproportionate representation will grow even larger, as happened when NYC for instance tried to de facto provide preferences to poorer students by offering a massive and free program of test preparation for its specialized test in high schools. There are no easy answers here.
@GreenPoison very well said, I couldn’t agree more with you. I especially agree with your point that many kids might have the same potential, but some, like you, make choices to prioritize your studies and you should absolutely be rewarded for that work ethic and academic success with better educational opportunities. I know being a high achieving Asian these days makes things even more difficult for people like you to maybe get in to their top choice college.
My hope is that the students that end up in the, let’s call them, “second rung” schools (or not their top choices at least) will in no way be held back with their academic pursuits and in their post college lives. So all of the kids that had the stats for let’s just say Harvard that end up at Boston University will make BU that much better of an academic institution…and it already is a wonderful academic institution.
I wonder if the gap between the “elite” graduates and the next level will begin to shrink a bit and people will start to become less obsessed with the Ivies and the like and realize that it’s not the end of the world if they don’t get into a top school. That’s a topic for a different thread, but I think it is somewhat relevant…yes admissions isn’t completely fair and perhaps never will be, but at the end of the day there are so many great students and so many great colleges…there should be ample opportunity to still make your mark (as long as you can afford it which again is a different thread…).
So @Greenpoison if you don’t get into the school you want to go to, don’t let that hold you back. You are smart and hard working, a great combination, and I’m sure you will find a college that enables you to reach your full potential. Good luck to you.
Soft quotas are already being used by selective colleges that take race into account. These colleges have a pretty stable percentage of Asians that varies only a few percentage points a year and doesn’t exceed 30%. These colleges discriminate against Asians like colleges discriminated against Jews in the mid 20th century. They also compare Asians to other Asians, URMs to other URMs etc. While I disagree with AA in college admissions, they do have a right to select a class as they see fit.
Affirmative Action and Admissions have always been a disagreement waiting to happen within my family. I am a part of a family of high achieving African Americans who are a few generations removed from being sharecroppers in the Deep South, and I see both sides better than most because of the dichotomy with in my own family. On one side, I have family that has produced multiple students who have scores in the top 5% of all students on standardized tests and on the other side have only 2 out of 14 grandchildren even attempted to go to college. What I see is that nature is a part of the component, but the nurture part seems to be much larger. For the educated side, my family has pushed education, reading, and integration within society at every level while the other side of my family has not recovered from systemic societal issues of the past (they would say present) which keeps them frozen in time and passing that thought process down to the next generation. My own child (12th grade) hates AA because she doesn’t know if acceptance into a school would be on her own merits or because of her race (I told her she could not report her race on applications, but she is proud of who she is). My own thoughts are that AA still has a place currently, but we must get to a point as a society that it one day becomes a thing of the past (sooner rather than later). Affirmative Action will not completely overcome the state of mind/stigma that devalues education in part of the African American community but it gives those who are trying to overcome that stigma a chance.
@notigering@collegemomjam well said! I found some people have deep “faith” in IQ testing, when the testing itself only (at the best) reflects some parts of our human intelligence. I would say that I would be considered a total idiot if my surroundings required me to use all my senses, agility, memories, coordination to live a productive life (which all r manifestations of intelligence).
Even if we talk about IQ tests, there r wider variations within group than without. As for genetics and our “intelligence”, we have a long way to truly (if ever) understand the relationship.
The perceived (and actual) educational success of East Asians, Indians, and Jewish people in America has more to do with culture than with intelligence. For centuries, Chinese has the true meritocracy where anyone could succeed and make into society if they passed a set of very stringent and rigid exams, this tradition instills the belief that if you study hard, you will be successful. It is no coincidence that Chinese kids know the sayings that “gold palaces are derived from books”, or “if you learn math, physics and chemistry well, you can conquer the world”. Parents’ involvement in children’s learning, AND the luxury of having the ability (time, money and parents’ own education) to get involved, ie, the nurture part, play an ever more important role in today’s world.
There r no lesser intelligent groups of people, there are lesser intelligent people in each and every group. That is because of genetics, because of random gene mutation, because of epigenetics.
In the case of Chinese Americans and Indian Americans, it has a lot to do with immigration selection. Since many immigrants from China and India initially come as skilled workers and PhD students, their educational attainment tends to be high (50% and 70% respectively have bachelor’s degrees, compared to around 30% for non-immigrant adult Americans, and lower than that among the general populations of China and India). What you may be seeing as “culture” may be specific to the subset of highly educated people in those countries who provide a high percentage of the immigrants to the US, rather than being representative of the everyone in those countries.
@ucbalumnus totally agree. There is huge selection bias in the generations of Chinese- and Indian-Americans and it is not representative of their home-countries. However, the culture of putting education ahead of everything else, such as sports, is pretty significant in these countries (including Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan…), dare I bring out the PISA tests from these countries.
There is also people’s perception issues. If a group of people is successful presently, they r often perceived to be more intelligent. We often forgot that Germans used to be looked down by its neighboring folks as lazy and stupid, so were Chinese-coolies (opioid addicts). while we r eager to associate many Islamic countries with backwardedness, the pre-mongol-invasion Islamic world is the symbol of civilization.
Our genetics have not changed so fast, our environment has. And the consequences are there are winners and losers.
@makemesmart - ask the parents of rural Chinese kids who don’t live in Beijing or Shanghai how they like that “meritocracy” as it applies to the # of spaces allocated to rural kids at the most desirable unis.
“Our genetics have not changed so fast, our environment has. And the consequences are there are winners and losers.”
Don’t be so sure about that. For instance, Roman sources depicted Scots as often dark-skinned, which many had dismissed as bias. Recent genetic research has strongly suggested that the genes for light skin among Europeans (and many Caucasians throughout the Near East) are no older than 5,800 years old. That would be the beginning of the gene sweep. Ashkenazi Jews appear to have developed their high intelligence (we can quibble, but it’s clearly significantly above the Central European Caucasian mean) over no more than 700-800 years. Gene sweeps leading to lactose tolerance apparently occurred even faster.
In the animal world, we can see the effects of selective breeding of dogs, with most breeds being no more than 200-300 years old (although we should keep in mind the short generational cycle time for canines). A Russian researcher bred completely tame foxes within 40 generations.
With respect to human intelligence, there have been extreme environmental conditions in recorded history that have also had the effect of selecting for higher intelligence (for instance, many hold to the view that the Black Death left a more intelligent surviving cohort in the regions affected because - like all plagues and poor life outcomes generally - it disproportionately wiped out the less intelligent; ditto with respect to the Plague of Justinian).
Going back to the present, the argument of many doing the research is that selection pressures and gene mutations have never been higher than right now, partially due to the size of populations (since favorable alleles appear randomly, an increase in the population holds the promise of random, favorable alleles that can lead to “gene sweeps” - nearsightedness might perhaps be an example right now as there is a definitive correlation between nearsightedness and intelligence thought to originate in genes that control myelinization of nerve fibers). Therefore, genetic effects are increasing in many parts of the world from historic rates.
The book I mentioned above somewhere - The 10,000 Year Explosion by Cochran and Harpending - is fascinating on this subject. Wade’s journalistic book, A Troublesome Inheritance, is also worthwhile.
ucla is correct about the selection bias but this in no way changes how genetics impact intelligence. The study of human intelligence is a very established science with reams of peer reviewed studies that have withstood the test of time. High school students need to realize that their world view and knowledge base will expand greatly after 4-12 years of additional education and decades of life experience. I think most of the last dozen posts make excellent points and very clearly outline why race and intelligence are such a thorny issue in elite college admissions.
“dare I bring out the PISA tests from these countries”
There has been some work disaggregating US PISA statistics by race and you can see that all the group comparisons - including Caucasian Americans and Asian Americans versus various East Asian groups (including disaggregated urban Chinese) - line up more or less exactly where you would expect them to based on the most commonly cited group mean statistics for IQ. There are a few country surprises in there, but just a few and they are generally small populations. See here, e.g.: http://www.unz.com/isteve/2015-pisa-mean-scores-in-perspective/
Everything discussed in this thread has really been very well trodden in the literature.
@OHMomof2 exactly my point, the lucky kids from Beijing and Shanghai r like the prep school kids in America, while the rural Chinese kids r URMs, except they r the vast majority and some of them, against all odds, managed to pass the Gaokao and made it into colleges. And lives thus have the potential to be changed. That is meritocracy, that’s social mobility, not perfect, but at least exists to some degree. I would never say kids in Beijing or Shanghai r smarter tho, even if they might likely have better test scores/IQ scores.