<h1>111: "We are spending ridiculous sums of money on things which are not very efficient. Educating ~105 IQ people an additional four years on unneeded skills is absurdly wasteful."</h1>
<p>Mr. Payne, I really have issues with your reliance on IQ tests. Neither IQ tests nor SATs can be relied upon to identify the future performance of a specific individual even if, in general, they are predictive of a group. After all, people who score well on IQ or SATs test well and will generally be rewarded with good grades in school. Those people are much more likely to be encouraged to continue in school and set corresponding goals. But the performance of a motivated individual (or a person with a disability who didn't score well on the IQ test, one who tests poorly, has a poor primary education or inferior home life or a late bloomer) can leave the IQ naysayers in the dust. </p>
<p>Frankly, I do think society needs to invest educational resources into average and even low IQ people. It seems to me that our jails are full of illiterates. Our welfare rolls are full of people who can't compete for jobs (for a variety of reasons-- education, health, psychological problems). Learning doesn't end at 18yo. If a person learns to read at 30, he or she has 50 years of reading ahead of him/ her! And yes, some people don't learn higher maths or foreign languages until they are older either. </p>
<p>As far as changes in K-12 education, I think curriculum is too wide. I know of a middle school that routinely makes 8th graders earning a C or below in Algebra I take a 2nd period of algebra a day. A number of those kids <em>repeated</em> Algebra I in 9th grade. You would think that anyone who needed to spend that much time to master Algebra I was pretty slow, huh? Well I know several of those kids who are in top universities and liberal arts colleges (I'm talking top20 here), even in STEM fields. It seems that when students spent adequate time cementing the foundational concepts, they were able to do well in subsequent maths. </p>
<p>Frankly, I love history and I love science-- but I'm not sure why they're taught in elementary school. I think little kids should spend a lot of time reading, doing math and learning a foreign language.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[The problem is Murray is using a assessment which has been largely discredited. S.J Gould in "The Mismeasure of Man" and other essays clearly illuminate all the longstanding flaws in the use of I.Q. tests. Old news insofar as Gould and others were writing about this issue back in the 90s.
[/quote]
That is a joke beyond jokes. Arthur Jensen brutalized Gould's book beyond all recognition.</p>
<p>In fact, it's downright impossible to read Jensen's response without scratching your head and reevaluating your position on intelligence and IQ testing in general.</p>
111: "We are spending ridiculous sums of money on things which are not very efficient. Educating ~105 IQ people an additional four years on unneeded skills is absurdly wasteful."</p>
<p>Mr. Payne, I really have issues with your reliance on IQ tests. Neither IQ tests nor SATs can be relied upon to identify the future performance of a specific individual even if, in general, they are predictive of a group. After all, people who score well on IQ or SATs test well and will generally be rewarded with good grades in school. Those people are much more likely to be encouraged to continue in school and set corresponding goals. But the performance of a motivated individual (or a person with a disability who didn't score well on the IQ test, one who tests poorly, has a poor primary education or inferior home life or a late bloomer) can leave the IQ naysayers in the dust.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've been reading many of Mr. Payne's posts throughout this thread, and it's obvious that he believes that IQ means everything and he won't be told otherwise... no matter what type of evidence is used against his statement. This very belief is utterly abysmal, and therefore should deem any and all of his posts in this thread as negligible. The point is.. yes IQ as well as SAT etc. show a positive correlation between the test scores and the individual's intelligence and/or academic success, but by no means do they clearly define it and an individual's future success.</p>
<p>"So when you tell a youngster that the degree is not necessary, you are pushing the short term goal over the long term benefit."</p>
<p>Not necessarily. The youngster may not be ready for college in terms of money, experience and maturity and working for a few years may fix those things. Especially if an employer provides tuition reimbursement. In this case there are short-term and long-term benefits. It would be nice if we restored the tax benefits to employers that we had in the 1980s and early 1990s to encourage them to provide this benefit. The small tax deductions and credits only cover the amounts of an inexpensive community college.</p>
<p>I love history and I love science-- but I'm not sure why they're taught in elementary school</p>
<p>My D who went to Reed ( for a degree in science!) had lots of history although not as much science in elementary school as they have now. Now they study genetics- . Her classroom had a moldy jar of apple cider as a class pet. ;) Microbes</a> in Action: Classroom Activities</p>
<p>Kids are fantastic scientists- because they don't have preconcieved expectations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've been reading many of Mr. Payne's posts throughout this thread, and it's obvious that he believes that IQ means everything and he won't be told otherwise... no matter what type of evidence is used against his statement. This very belief is utterly abysmal, and therefore should deem any and all of his posts in this thread as negligible. The point is.. yes IQ as well as SAT etc. show a positive correlation between the test scores and the individual's intelligence and/or academic success, but by no means do they clearly define it and an individual's future success.
[/quote]
You've said nothing that I disagree with, so what's your point?</p>
<p>IQ is very important in academics. Do you dispute that?</p>
<p>I believe that IQ is much less important in general "success" in life, because other things like hard work, personality which are uncorrelated with IQ are extremely important. Do you dispute that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mr. Payne, I really have issues with your reliance on IQ tests. Neither IQ tests nor SATs can be relied upon to identify the future performance of a specific individual even if, in general, they are predictive of a group.
[/quote]
And I agree. You can find an anecdote for anything. The simple fact of the matter is that people with higher IQ/SATs will do better in college (ie: higher grades). And obviously I'm talking about "on average".</p>
<p>^ I was tested in elementary&middle school for placement and deemed special ed material because of poor math performance.</p>
<p>Flash to high school, I've scored 5's on 5 AP exams including BC Calc and the Physics C exams. According to the earlier linked sat->IQ predictor, I should have a 153 IQ.</p>
<p>Am I slow or smart? These tests are starting to annoy me...</p>
<p>I know one thing: I was accepted to Stanford when I was told I would struggle to graduate from high school. Tests aren't everything. You tell a kid his IQ is 153, he will probably live up to what people expect out of a student with a 153 IQ. You tell a kid his IQ is 89, he will probably live up only to what people expect out of a student with a 89 IQ.</p>
<p>IQ and SATs can be useful predictors, but they should not be worshiped. According to ***uyama in 'A Posthuman Future,' roughly 40-50% of intelligence is determined by experience (conditions of childhood). The other approximate half is genetic. That leaves a great deal of ground for change.</p>
<p>edit: In the middle chapters of 'A Posthuman Future' ***uyama looks at the bell curve, IQ, and genetics studies from the 1970s and comes out with a more even-handed, objective - not racist - conclusion on the development of intelligence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
IQ and SATs can be useful predictors, but they should not be worshiped. According to ***uyama in 'A Posthuman Future,' roughly 40-50% of intelligence is determined by experience (conditions of childhood). The other approximate half is genetic. That leaves a great deal of ground for change.
[/quote]
His position is no different from mine.</p>
<p>I realize kids are great scientists. They also love art, music, pe. It's also important to teach them about health including nutrition and, while we're there, we should have a policeman come in and talk to them about avoiding drugs and gangs. And social skills can be even more important than academic skills-- so that should be included. </p>
<p>Anyway, this is why our curriculum is wide. I don't disagree with you; kids love learning and it's wonderful to get them when they're young. I just personally think that they should spend a few years (say grades 1-3) focusing on the basics so that their reading and math is stronger in upper elementary and middle school. I guess if you're in a school district with very high achievers, it's unnecessary... but I think it would be a good idea for the average public school where there are always some kids still struggling with reading in higher grades.</p>
<p>Ah me, squabbling theorists. No doubt there are those who disputed the work of Gould and others however IQ testing is not regarded especially highly within academe. In part because what was intended as a limited assessment tool for very specific conditions has been used for all manner of skewed agendas. </p>
<p>Since we're tossing out theorists, might as well have some fun. Any test or academic procedure is essentially a form of social symbol wherein what a given sector of society values is expressed. As such at its core all it can be is a variable form of social mnemonic. To the extent that whatever questions are used to supposedly assess without agenda or bias are often little more than a reflection of the given class or group which wrote the test. The problem is that these forms of social memory are only relevant to the groups who condone that particular form of testing. Essentially what's being alluded here to is one facet of Vygotsky's theory about social mnemonics; we change our reality to fit a preexisting set of symbols. </p>
<p>The problem with worship at the altar of the IQ test, is that these assessments are very poor at measuring non linear modes of thinking. We'll toss out the more controversial aspects of class and race in regards to this discourse and use examples which are global conditions going across such boundaries. One arena in which IQ testing is almost useless is assessing the ability for analogical thinking. This manner of thinking is very difficult to assess using rigid formats such as IQ tests, the mere structure of these is a conditional against the use of that form of cognitive abilities. For example within IQ testing there is virtually no effective means to assess abilities such as what N. Tesla did with pigeons and alternating current. Tesla was obviously a intelligent man as much of our technology is reliant on his ideas. But how exactly could his obsessions about birds combining with his engineering knowledge leading to AC current be assessed? </p>
<p>Additionally there have been recent papers (Ramachadran & Hubbard) which indicate that the ability to derive metaphors might be hardwired in our cognitive structures. The problem is that to assess such abilities via the limited paradigm of IQ testing bangs up against two very problematic conditions. First, although Ramachadran and his colleague did state the core abilities to derive metaphors may be hardwired, they did acknowledge the expression of these is also culturally formed. And that runs us into the same problem as before insofar as this is a mode of thinking which cannot be easily assessed via such as IQ tests because of inherent variability. The second problematic condition is that success is the primary mode of establishing who does apply this predisposition well. And since there aren't that many W.B. Yeats or kindred floating about, that wafts us into the conceptual realm of Hume. And there we have to admit that with certain forms of intellect there is no point where one can quantify it except to acknowledge its successful effect upon the individual and society. Which is of course a relative state, and those forms of ambiguity are something which IQ tests are abysmally suited to assess. </p>
<p>And it gets even worse when other attributes of research related to R&H are considered. Especially the findings that within certain collegiate groups (mainly those in art, music, or creative writing) there is a higher level of predisposition for synaesthesia than in other populations. Does that mean we have to write up special IQ tests for that crew, and every other group which is found to possess different potential modes of thinking? </p>
<p>Personally I do not feel that everyone should go to college. But those who have the drive to do so should be given the chance and not be excluded by arbitrary standards such as IQ testing etc. Plus to take the approach Murray and company advocate could be socially very, very dangerous. There is a growing perception for many in this country that education and the presumed status it brings are becoming an exclusive and almost hereditary state. Once intelligent and ambitious people (who are excluded) genuinely believe that they cannot improve themselves within the system its assured they will do so without it. I'd wonder if Murray even considered this problem?</p>
<p>I've worked in the IT industry for the last 5 years. In that time, I've hired a couple of technicians and I can tell you that they all currently had a B.A. or B.S. or were planning to finish one within the year. The sad part was, none of them were even as technically knowledgeable as the CEO, who was a real estate agent. It was an abysmal turnout. </p>
<p>Vocational training is king in IT. I believe we should stop pressuring every single kid to go to college. You don't need a college degree to be a plumber and they make more money than any of my technicians did. The problem lies in our warn down concept of youth in education. We are still telling every student they can be presidents and astronauts instead of telling them how they can live their life to the fullest. We confuse one with the other and it hurts kids, because when they can't go to college they feel stigmatized and might not pursue vocational training, which is what they needed in the first place.</p>
<p>I feel I'm speaking from a unique position because I have achieved an expert level in application architecture and enterprise network design through experience and vocational training. However, I just recently decided to go back to college because it is something I am drawn to. I am at a stage in my life where higher education is necessary to me. When I left high school, I didn't want to go to college because it was the next step and I'm glad I made that choice because I have shaped my life in the last few years. </p>
<p>Never mind that as we shower college education with praise and affection, we ship as many blue-collar jobs as we can abroad and demean the rest of them.</p>
<p>Mr Payne,</p>
<p>
[quote]
IQ is very important in academics. Do you dispute that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I dispute your language. Important? Maybe. "Very important?" Probably not. It's but one of many variables that are very hard to disentangle from one another.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ah me, squabbling theorists. No doubt there are those who disputed the work of Gould and others however IQ testing is not regarded especially highly within academe. In part because what was intended as a limited assessment tool for very specific conditions has been used for all manner of skewed agendas.
[/quote]
IQ only has value because it is predictive.</p>
<p>Here's my take: I've seen papers that show results both ways. All of the ones I've seen rely on p-values, which are, in and of themselves, not very useful. So I therefore remain agnostic to IQ as predictive of anything. Saying that it's "more predictive" of future success than hair color or eye color is actually not really a useful statement, though.</p>
<p>Probably the best thing we can say is, "maybe" and "it depends." I'd actually wager that good looks are more predictive of success than IQ, but that's a whole different bag of social baggage to haul around in a discussion.</p>
<p>^ Why do you think colleges used to ask for pictures in the admissions process? Children with good looks tend to be treated better than other children, which leads to higher self-esteems...and then to more accomplishments.</p>
<p>I don't agree with using it as a factor to make decisions upon, but the idea does make some sense.</p>
<p>It would make sense if the good-looking children had the same credentials (GPA; test scores) as the other children, but that specification wasn't initially stated.</p>