<p>...to Columbia students: </p>
<p>Would you consider most Columbia students A+ brilliant?</p>
<p>No; only a few are. A greater number are really really smart. But the majority are kids who are smart enough to be successful at whatever elite professions they pursue but are clearly not "brilliant" -- people in this cohort probably have IQs in the 130-140 range. And there are plenty of stupidos.</p>
<p>i wouldn't say the majority have iqs in the 130-140s or are <em>that</em> smart - that seems a little too flattering. but i agree about the plenty of stupidos part.</p>
<p>plenty of book smarts. </p>
<p>That said, though, put a bunch of A+ brilliants in a room and someone's going to end up at the bottom. It's all relative. </p>
<p>what C2002 and lslacker said is correct.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i wouldn't say the majority have iqs in the 130-140s or are <em>that</em> smart - that seems a little too flattering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By "130-140 range" I meant between 130 and 140, not "130-140s" which could mean an IQ bordering on 150. Huge difference between a 140 and a 150. I think studies say that top professors, doctors, scientists, etc. have IQs that average in the 125-135 range. Maybe my 130-140 range is a little too flattering, even.</p>
<p>"I think studies say that top professors, doctors, scientists, etc. have IQs that average in the 125-135 range. Maybe my 130-140 range is a little too flattering, even."</p>
<p>125-135 is about right, about 20-25% 'just don't get it'. which puts them at well above average but not 'smart' relative to the population, these tend to be relatively hard working and creative / talented in someway otherwise they wouldn't have made it to Columbia. 3-5% of college students completely throw it away by taking drugs, losing interest etc and just about scrape through. 10% will blow you away with their intelligence, and depth of knowledge / abilities to frame arguments, insights etc.</p>
<p>The remaining two thirds, will go on to do well in life, in a profession that they're decently passionate about, without ever making headlines.</p>
<p>Good post.</p>
<p>This is an interesting question based on how discussion has proceeded.</p>
<p>What I normally tell people is, "half the students at Columbia got there by working their butt off, and continue to do so while students at Columbia. The other half got there by being brilliant, and can do things like get A's despite last-minute planning, manipulating the system, and learning much more quickly than the 'grinds'."</p>
<p>I'm not sure the ratio is really 50/50, or whether those are really the only two categories. but we definitely know people fitting one or the other description. maybe i can break it down this way:</p>
<p>30%: The grinds. they're in the library all the time, they show up to every class and every office hour, take copious notes, and over-prepare for exams and papers. They got into the school - and get out - on the back of their work ethic. IQ range maybe 110-125.</p>
<p>30-40%: Creative & Disciplined. These people have very good work ethics but have more "personality", will do activities but not too much, and are always very tightly scheduled. They can get away with some things, may do more work-intensive research with professors (Rather than thinking-intensive research), but probably will not set the world on fire. IQs 120-135ish. You know, top 10% - top 2% of the population.</p>
<p>20-30%: Very smart. These guys got into Columbia on the back of being really smart. They excel at anything they put their mind to, but may not always put their mind to (say) that research paper as opposed to (say) Mario Kart. They have the ability to slack off and get away with it, can easily get an A in any class that sufficiently interests them, and pursue any career that they like. The vast majority are normal, well-adjusted people who have a variety of interests - plenty of which may be social rather than academic. IQs 130-145. (top 3%-1% of the population, but places like Columbia are magnets for them).</p>
<p>~10%: Surpassingly brilliant. These people are so far away from the norm that they have essentially no ceiling. They may be highly quirky, striking people as weird, but will usually have at least one overriding passion that they pursue to the exclusion of everything else. They have never had any trouble with anything intellectual, are usually way ahead in terms of classes and advancement, and could get a 4.0 if that's what they felt like doing - and not all do. Research is common, PhDs are common, those entering business are more likely to be in hedge funds or VC firms or top 3 consultancies than they are to be in (say) ibanking. Those who focus on social skills as opposed to intellectual skills are invariably leaders and innovators. IQs 145+.</p>
<p>I think it's a good mix. The difference between a Harvard and a Columbia might be 5-10% in the first category moving to the last. No school has people only in the last two categories.</p>
<p>I think Denzera's post is great. A couple comments:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>you don't really account for the stupidos or the really lazy f'ups. these would be a category below the grinds.</p></li>
<li><p>there's some cross-over between the categories. there are a good number of people in his "very smart" category and even a few in his "brilliant" category who exhibit the same behavioral traits as the grinds -- albeit unnecessarily -- due to their personalities.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>during my entire time at columbia, i only knew one person who wasn't intellectually equipped to handle the school. and that was because she was recruited to be on an athletic team. sure i knew some lazy people, but by and large they fit into categories 2 or (more typically) 3, but couldn't muster the motivation. when they felt like it they could do fine, or even very well, but no longer had the spark that got them into the school. the difference between them and the typical person in the "very smart" category is a matter of degree, not of type - the smart ones among us are lazy about some things, just not about quite as much as, say, my friend Neil Sarkar</p>
<p>( On</a> an Ivy League Campus, Slacker Neil Sarkar Offers a New Point of View | Columbia Spectator . he's now running a successful tech startup.)</p>
<p>and i agree with your second point. however, the people in the latter two categories may be grinds by choice, but the actual Grinds sweat it out in Butler because they have to, and i think that's a big difference. I get a lot more out of an hour of studying than the average polisci or econ major, meaning I can study a lot less. i'm sure you appreciate the distinction.</p>
<p>do those numerical distributions sound right to you, btw?</p>
<p>I knew a number of people in SEAS who were grinds (exactly how you describe) and made mostly C+ type grades in the core intro classes (intro CS, gen chem, 1400 physics, etc.). They <em>had</em> to go to every office hour, etc. just to get their C+. These people seemed to have real trouble understanding the concepts. It's debatable whether this type of person is "intellectually equipped to handle the school." On one hand, they did pass the class. On the other hand, did they merely pass because of grade inflation? If this type of student took gen chem or calc-based physics at a big state school where boatloads of people get D's and F's, would they survive even as grinds?</p>
<p>
[quote]
do those numerical distributions sound right to you, btw?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They're within reason, but I think might shift everything a bit at the margins. Perhaps the brilliant category is more like 5%; 10% is 150 kids per CC/SEAS class, and that's a lot of people. Not that I knew everyone, but I can only think of a small number of people who I can affirmatively put in that category.</p>
<p>yeah, if we decide the brilliant category is 5%, maybe we can add a 5% category at the top for...</p>
<p>5%: "Not Qualified". No matter how hard they work, this person is not going to be a huge success at Columbia. They may be athletic recruits, a few "development" admits from big donors, or the like (most of the kids in those categories are well able to handle things, but some can't). Some may transfer schools or end up with a C average after much hard work. They may be great people, just not intellectually well-prepared for Columbia. IQs 100-115.</p>
<p>Well I <em>think</em> I'm a ''Very Smart'' (there is just no way to say that without sounding like an arrogant ******). The description seems to fit my freshman year at my old college perfectly.....Though to be fair it was pretty easy. </p>
<p>I have a feeling Columbia will require a lot more work and scheduling pushing me to become Creative & Talented type. We'll see.....</p>