relationship between SAT scores and intelligence? [Archive]

Mr_Pathetic

11-22-2007, 10:16 PM

In high school I took all the AP and honors english, history, and science classes but not math. When I took the SAT I took it once and scored 640 on the verbal and 420 on the math in 1998. My math education was the pits in high school, a total joke. I am talking I never learned geometry or very much Algebra 2. So based on my results and quality of education throughout math, english, science, and history, I tend to think that SAT scores take into account your quality of education as well as your level of intelligence.

Now when I took the GRE in 04 I did poor on it as well. I think I scored 1000 for quantitative and verbal with verbal being much higher. However on the analytical writing part I scored a 5 out of 6 which I was told is very good (wonder what the % is for ppl getting a 6). I credit much of my poor results on this test to my poor math skills which are nonexistent outside basic statistics and my lack of vocabulary. So to me this is a test of how much math you remember from high school unless you major in math and how big your vocabulary is. When I got my results it was no shocker to me that I did the best in the analytical writing part. I actually thought I was going to score 800 or lower on the Q+V. Luckily for me I had a prof who really wanted me in the program so my results did not matter.

I took an IQ test in middle school and scored a 122 on it, or two points away from being considered "academically gifted" and put in advanced math and english classes which is why I ended up in poor math classes but the best history science and english classes since the math you could not select but you could the others regardless of your "academically gifted" standing.

Cliffnotes: I think the whole point I am trying to drive home here is that your results on these tests are determined by your quality of education, how hard you worked in school, AND your level of intelligence.

Mr_Pathetic

11-22-2007, 10:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
However, if someone cannot score perfect or near-perfect on the SAT, it is very unlikely that person will flourish in a difficult academic setting.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is spot on b/c one who will not take the time to get a high score on the test is not going to take the time to get good grades in a difficult setting since they have no idea how to get it done on a smaller scale like in HS. I did not even go to college after HS cause I was so lazy in HS and had such bad math classes I knew I would flunk out so I did two years in a comm. college first. Best money I ever spent/saved as I was nowhere near ready for college level work.

tame_deuces

11-23-2007, 04:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If school results correlate with intelligence, then intelligence tests seriously need some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think it should be a random relationship?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not random. In my drunken state I probably failed to get my point across. Some logical puzzle solving ability probably gets you a long way in school, but I don't think that alone makes anyone worthy of being called intelligent. I've certainly met my fair share of stupid people with top grades.

Subfallen

11-23-2007, 05:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If school results correlate with intelligence, then intelligence tests seriously need some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think it should be a random relationship?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not random. In my drunken state I probably failed to get my point across. Some logical puzzle solving ability probably gets you a long way in school, but I don't think that alone makes anyone worthy of being called intelligent. I've certainly met my fair share of stupid people with top grades.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the point of such an amorphous definition of "intelligence"? For example, Godel starved himself to death after his wife was hospitalized because he believed everyone else was conspiring to poison him.

Obviously by your all-encompassing fuzzy terminology, Godel was a very stupid man. And yet you can count on the fingers of your two hands the number of mathematicians rivaling his staggering insight IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.

You seem to think intelligence denotes self-actualization, but it really doesn't in any usage I'm familiar with.

tame_deuces

11-23-2007, 05:29 AM

Sorry if I fail to see where in my post I stated that paranoia = stupidity.

Maybe at one time academic provess was a testament of intelligence, these days it is just a skill like any other. Fine mathematicians probably need high capacity for solving logical puzzles, so you need some well developed brain centre. Someone who needs complex motoric skills in their professions also have a well developed brain centre and indeed well developed nervous system, and their skill is just as high demand.

Yes I hold that the definition of intelligence as proposed by IQ tests are indeed simple and stupid, and think it is abhorrent the way it is often used to create arbitrary differences of worth.

Subfallen

11-23-2007, 05:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I fail to see where in my post I stated that paranoia = stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I've misunderstood your gist. You agree that Godel was in the upper tier of attainable intelligence, even though he starved himself to death?

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I hold that the definition of intelligence as proposed by IQ tests are indeed simple and stupid, and think it is abhorrent the way it is often used to create arbitrary differences of worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

But IQ isn't an arbitrary measure of worth, if it's impossible to score well on IQ tests without being intelligent. (And this does appear to be the case.)

Even if you don't like the idea of calling low IQ people "stupid" (or some pejorative), still you agree that the property commonly referred as "intelligence" correlates with IQ? (That is: high IQ is a sufficient---if perhaps not necessary---condition for intelligence.)

tame_deuces

11-23-2007, 05:57 AM

I don't think you have to score high on the IQ measure to be very intelligent, nor do I agree that scoring high on an IQ test necessarily means you are very intelligent.

But scoring high does mean your brain is well geared to perform certain forms of thinking, and I'll agree that the IQ scale measures one facet of intelligence.

blah_blah

11-23-2007, 06:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
However on the analytical writing part I scored a 5 out of 6 which I was told is very good (wonder what the % is for ppl getting a 6).

[/ QUOTE ]

a 5 on writing on the GRE is 73rd percentile.

Subfallen

11-23-2007, 06:15 AM

I must be very out of the loop usage-wise, if you're comfortable labeling so many domains as referents of "intelligence."

E.g., this baffles me:

[ QUOTE ]

...nor do I agree that scoring high on an IQ test necessarily means you are very intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me Taryn consistently scores 150 on IQ tests. I cannot think of a single cognitive function for which I would not bet that Taryn easily outstrips a 120 scorer. Pattern matching, memorization, logical deduction, language acquisition...I mean, ANYTHING.

What am I missing? How is it that high IQ is not sufficient for intelligence?

Taraz

11-23-2007, 06:41 AM

I think that if you score very highly on an IQ test you probably have a high intelligence. Unfortunately If you have a very high intelligence you won't necessarily have a high IQ score. Does that make any sense?

Subfallen

11-23-2007, 06:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think that if you score very highly on an IQ test you probably have a high intelligence. Unfortunately If you have a very high intelligence you won't necessarily have a high IQ score. Does that make any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me---no. But I guess I'll just have to accept that "intelligent" is now a billowing portmanteau of a word that envelopes bloody close to everyone. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

tame_deuces

11-23-2007, 06:47 AM

I haven't said a 150 scorer can't be very intelligent. I have said a 150 scorer doesn't have to be very intelligent.

Subfallen

11-23-2007, 06:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't said a 150 scorer can't be very intelligent. I have said a 150 scorer doesn't have to be very intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll try to follow you one last time (without much hope, heh.) What necessary quality for intelligence could a 150 scorer possibly lack?

It's really that simple...I cannot think of a way that someone could score 150 on an IQ test and still qualify as unintelligent to me. (I've only known 1-2? people in real life who could score that high, and they basically awed me.)

Alex-db

11-23-2007, 07:05 AM

Everyone intuitively knows what "intelligence" means.

If classes of students of any age are asked to rank each other according to their natural view of "intelligence" it will correlate incredibly well with IQ tests.

Some people like to be nice to everyone, they want to be able to tell people who score badly on IQ tests that they can still be "intelligent" in their own special way.

So they attempt to change the meaning of "intelligence" and kick up a fuss about its definition whenever it is used in a way that is not all-encompassing.

If they have a good point, then all words are meaningless unless defined, and since you will attempt to define them using other words, everything is meaningless and everybody and every thing can be correctly described using every adjective that ever existed.

There is no non-meritocratic definition of intelligence that is of any use to us, and our standard natural definition (which matches IQ test) proves to have amazing predictive validity again and again and again.

We can tollerate telling some kid that couldn't be bothered passing a maths class that his "creative" doodles means he is intelligent in a different way, but lets not pretend that has a real meaning.

tame_deuces

11-23-2007, 07:06 AM

People who score high on intelligence tests will have impressive capacity for solving verbal, numerical and geometrical puzzles by traditional logic standards. In this regard they will be impressive.

However from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience, who are the guys who are building AIs, this distinction of intelligence is useless. They can build machines that do these puzzles far better than people, but it is still agreed that these machines are not very intelligent in any useful form of the expression.

Simply put the measure LACKS the ability to measure a large set of values we need to measure a meaningful value for intelligence.

A skilled piano player has exceptionally fine motor control and a highly developed nervous system and sense of touch. His sense of hearing is immense, the sense of rhytm highly evolved, the centres of his brains that pick up sound patterns is also highly developed. His brain will be specialized for this in the same way a skilled mathematician is skilled in maths. But the whole package is in its right, from a pure 'nervous system capacity' standpoint far more impressive. But still his ability may fall entirely outside of the realm of what an IQ test measures and his intelligence may even be ranked as average.

This simply isn't meaningful. Someone sat down and decided what was 'useful intelligence' and made a test for it.

Subfallen

11-23-2007, 07:32 AM

tame -

What do you think about Alex-db's post? He also suggests that the referent domains of "intelligence" are quite atomic and correlate heavily with IQ. So when you say...

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put the measure LACKS the ability to measure a large set of values we need to measure a meaningful value for intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

...you confuse us, because IQ seems quite comprehensive and meaningful to Alex and me. Again, I cannot think of any scenario where someone scores 150 and then appears unintelligent to me.

[ QUOTE ]
A skilled piano player has exceptionally fine motor control and a highly developed nervous system and sense of touch. His sense of hearing is immense, the sense of rhytm highly evolved, the centres of his brains that pick up sound patterns is also highly developed. His brain will be specialized for this in the same way a skilled mathematician is skilled in maths. But the whole package is in its right, from a pure 'nervous system capacity' standpoint far more impressive. But still his ability may fall entirely outside of the realm of what an IQ test measures and his intelligence may even be ranked as average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironically, I have extensive experience with pianists, and the best are always very "intelligent" in the IQ-y sense that Alex and I mean.

But that's neither here nor there...again, I'm just saying that in normal usage, there is no aspect of "intelligence" that a high IQ score is not sufficient for demonstrating.

tame_deuces

11-23-2007, 08:05 AM

Creativity, social skills, ability to handle stress, outside the box thinking, leadership ability, empathy, openness, senso-motoric ability, spatial awareness, courage/ability to control panic...too name a few.

Subfallen

11-23-2007, 08:17 AM

Yeah, I don't consider any of those except creativity (of a sort) to be constitutive for intelligence. Just a question of usage, of course, no material consideration...all those things are highly desirable no matter what you call them.

tame_deuces

11-23-2007, 08:34 AM

Yep, my viewpoint is essentially that since these things are part of a complete view of intelligence, and that IQ just measures a small facet of brain capacity.

I also happen to think that the value of IQ is vastly overstated in academic papers because it stems from the academic environment, which classically puts great emphasis on logical capacity.

My pet peevve is probably that IQ have grown far too equivalent with the word intelligence, sometimes to the extent that IQ and intelligence is seen as the same thing.

willie24

11-23-2007, 08:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot think of a single cognitive function for which I would not bet that Taryn easily outstrips a 120 scorer. Pattern matching, memorization, logical deduction, language acquisition...I mean, ANYTHING.

[/ QUOTE ]

physical coordination. musical creativity. social intuition.

willie24

11-23-2007, 08:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I don't consider any of those except creativity (of a sort) to be constitutive for intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's your point, other than that the definition of intelligence is arbitrary?

Alex-db

11-23-2007, 10:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Creativity, social skills, ability to handle stress, outside the box thinking, leadership ability, empathy, openness, senso-motoric ability,spatial awareness, courage/ability to control panic...too name a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

These correlate well with IQ tests.

[ QUOTE ]
Creativity, social skills, ability to handle stress, outside the box thinking, leadership ability, empathy, openness, senso-motoric ability, spatial awareness, courage/ability to control panic...too name a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

These aren't considered to be "intelligence" by the majority of people usings its normal meaning.

"That kid is not very intelligent"
"No she is very intelligent because she is very calm in emergencies and is the life of the party"
"WTF has that got to do with intelligence? Did you mis-hear me?"

tame_deuces

11-23-2007, 10:53 AM

Yep, that's how ingrained the term has become. For most people logic capacity in a limited set of fields as measured by IQ is now the chief measurement of overall intelligence.

So a lot of people with brilliant mental capacity perfect for doing certain tasks very well can then branded as 'averagely intelligent'. I sense a lot of academic bias in the IQ measure.

luckyme

11-23-2007, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, that's how ingrained the term has become.

[/ QUOTE ]

How was the term used in, say, 1850?
High-jumping ability or ??
Or were the people that were considered intelligent then ( called intelligent in the day) the same ones we would call intelligent now?

luckyme

hitch1978

11-23-2007, 01:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Yep, that's how ingrained the term has become. For most people logic capacity in a limited set of fields as measured by IQ is now the chief measurement of overall intelligence.

So a lot of people with brilliant mental capacity perfect for doing certain tasks very well can then branded as 'averagely intelligent'. I sense a lot of academic bias in the IQ measure.

[/ QUOTE ]

John is capable of being shouted at by his boss all day long because he never thinks about anything, his mind is literally blank. He is also capable, however, after many years of training, of cleaning the dirtiest, smelliest toilets in the world for 70hrs/week without complaining, thanks to his blank mind.

On his resume, it reads -'brilliant mental capacity perfect for doing certain tasks very well.'

Case Closed

11-23-2007, 02:05 PM

I am grunching here a little bit. But there is no real relationship between IQ(if you want to use that as a standard for intelligence) and results on SAT or ACT. SAT is a test that will try and figure out how one will do in their first semester of college. ACT is a test to figure out how much of the high school information a student can remember.

I don't know much about the SAT, but I do know that there are classes that people can take so when they take the ACT they can improve several point. If you put a lot of effort into this class your test results increase greatly. If you're trying to gauge someone's intelligence they should not be able to greatly improve their results from a class once a week for a couple of months. Since I was not forced to take the SAT I would not know if there are classes that are capable of doing that.

hitch1978

11-23-2007, 02:24 PM

It is tilting me that people can read this thread and still think thst there is NO CORRELATION between intelligence, and test scores, and IQ.

NO CORRELATION? SERIOUSLY?

furyshade

11-23-2007, 02:55 PM

uh, in my OP i never even used the phrase "IQ", im asking about the relationship between SAT scores and intelligence, not IQ scores and intelligence

hitch1978

11-23-2007, 03:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
uh, in my OP i never even used the phrase "IQ", im asking about the relationship between SAT scores and intelligence, not IQ scores and intelligence

[/ QUOTE ]

I know.

I am saying that I find it incredible that people can say there is no correlation between any two of the THREE.

vhawk01

11-23-2007, 04:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I don't consider any of those except creativity (of a sort) to be constitutive for intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's your point, other than that the definition of intelligence is arbitrary?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point is that you guys are BADLY abusing the definition of intelligence so that every little kid gets to be called intelligence "in his own little way." Honestly you guys, intelligence isnt just a synonym for "vaguely good." It has meaninging. When you start to lump into intelligence basically EVERY SINGLE HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC that most people would consider positive, it starts to become foolish.

furyshade

11-23-2007, 04:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I don't consider any of those except creativity (of a sort) to be constitutive for intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's your point, other than that the definition of intelligence is arbitrary?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point is that you guys are BADLY abusing the definition of intelligence so that every little kid gets to be called intelligence "in his own little way." Honestly you guys, intelligence isnt just a synonym for "vaguely good." It has meaninging. When you start to lump into intelligence basically EVERY SINGLE HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC that most people would consider positive, it starts to become foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

i see where you are coming from, but also remember that 15,000 years ago being good at math didn't mean [censored], but if you could hunt really well you were highly regarded (most likely of course). in differnet cultures intelligence is defined differently; there were polls done of different people in different countries asking what makes someone smart. people in spain said that it was social ability, in an african tribe it was the ability to work with the community as a group and to follow elders. these are vastly differnet from the western definition of intelligence, but does that make them any less valid? intelligence when it comes down to is the metric of qualities a specific cultures holds in high regard, which is why there is no universal definition of intelligence

hitch1978

11-23-2007, 04:41 PM

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/intelligence?view=uk

David Sklansky

11-23-2007, 04:44 PM

It is totally wrong to say that intelligence tests measure the capacity to do things that machines can do even better.

Finding a creative geometry proof or solving an algebra word problem, is way beyond the ability of any machine for the forseeable future.

Most tests are flawed because there is the possibility that a taker is unaware of aspects of the question that the test designer expected him to know. There are also people who have studied a lot of test taking tricks. Thus high scorers are sometimes slightly dumber than their score indicates. And the low scorer is on rare occasions a lot smarter. But these are just feel good exceptions. Same with SAT's. And there is a fairly high correlation between the SAT and IQ tests.
Mensa accepts, I believe, a 1350 score in lieu of an IQ test.

If SATs were not a pretty reliable indicator, the best colleges couldn't get away with using them. A random "genius" scorer of 1370, I would venture to say,is probly three times as likely to flunk out of Harvard as a random 1570. (The statistics might not show this because those few 1370s at Harvard are far from random.)

Another point not raised in this discussion is that high scorers are not just better at answering questions but that they are typically MUCH BETTER AT LEARNING AND UNDERSTANDING THINGS. Thus even though it is not nice to say it, the truth is that it is far more likely that the skill of intelligence will make an impact on the world than some other skill, motor or otherwise. If there was an asteroid hurtling toward earth we would be turning to intelligent people to save us. If starting 10,000 years ago, aliens kidnapped those 20 year olds who scored in the top 5% on IQ tests and SATs, we would barely be out of caves.

The average person takes for granted the monumental impact on his life, that could never have happened, except for the elite few who had super intelligence of the kind that tests do a pretty good job of measuring.

tame_deuces

11-23-2007, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
uh, in my OP i never even used the phrase "IQ", im asking about the relationship between SAT scores and intelligence, not IQ scores and intelligence

[/ QUOTE ]

I know.

I am saying that I find it incredible that people can say there is no correlation between any two of the THREE.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is correlation, but a lot of people are going with the correlation as the sole indicator. That is the fallacy.

blah_blah

11-23-2007, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If SATs were not a pretty reliable indicator, the best colleges couldn't get away with using them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best colleges barely look at SATs, but manage to accept a ton of 1600 scorers anyways (and reject a ton of 1600 scorers). The important thing here is that correlation does not imply causation. Yes, Harvard accepts a ton of really bright kids but there are better indicators of intelligence contained within an application than merely an SAT score. It's a bit of a sanity check, really, just as the GREs are a sanity check for a graduate school application.

That being said, the correlation seems pretty good.

AlexM

11-23-2007, 08:07 PM

More intelligent people are going to do better at most anything. More intelligent athletes will do better than less intelligent ones given that all their physical skills are equal or close, but obviously being a better athelete doesn't mean you're more intelligent.

AlexM

11-23-2007, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If SATs were not a pretty reliable indicator, the best colleges couldn't get away with using them.

[/ QUOTE ]

SATs are certainly a pretty reliable indicator of academic proficiency and knowledge, but not much else, which is why the scores are used. Certainly more intelligent people are more likely to have these skills, but these skills are only a tiny portion of what makes up intelligence. They just happen to be the intelligence based skills that are most useful for school. A very large portion of this is based on personality rather than intelligence though.

willie24

11-23-2007, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am grunching here a little bit. But there is no real relationship between IQ(if you want to use that as a standard for intelligence) and results on SAT or ACT. SAT is a test that will try and figure out how one will do in their first semester of college. ACT is a test to figure out how much of the high school information a student can remember.

I don't know much about the SAT, but I do know that there are classes that people can take so when they take the ACT they can improve several point. If you put a lot of effort into this class your test results increase greatly. If you're trying to gauge someone's intelligence they should not be able to greatly improve their results from a class once a week for a couple of months. Since I was not forced to take the SAT I would not know if there are classes that are capable of doing that.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm pretty sure you are wrong. there is probably a very high correlation between SAT/ACT scores and IQ scores...much higher than the correlation between SAT/ACT scores and college performance. I have no evidence, and may be wrong, but i doubt it. seems like something that could be looked up.

furyshade

11-23-2007, 08:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am grunching here a little bit. But there is no real relationship between IQ(if you want to use that as a standard for intelligence) and results on SAT or ACT. SAT is a test that will try and figure out how one will do in their first semester of college. ACT is a test to figure out how much of the high school information a student can remember.

I don't know much about the SAT, but I do know that there are classes that people can take so when they take the ACT they can improve several point. If you put a lot of effort into this class your test results increase greatly. If you're trying to gauge someone's intelligence they should not be able to greatly improve their results from a class once a week for a couple of months. Since I was not forced to take the SAT I would not know if there are classes that are capable of doing that.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm pretty sure you are wrong. there is probably a very high correlation between SAT/ACT scores and IQ scores...much higher than the correlation between SAT/ACT scores and college performance. I have no evidence, and may be wrong, but i doubt it. seems like something that could be looked up.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is untrue, the SAT has been proven quite accurate in predicting college performance, that is what the test is designed to do. while there is probably some sort of connection between IQ and those scores, it isnt nearly as strong as that of academic performance. one thing that does appear true is that stupid people in my experience rarely do well on the SAT, it does tend to be a level playing field at least on a small scale. it is hard to expand it to a large field but within a school, or district i think it is a decent metric

willie24

11-23-2007, 09:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think his point is that you guys are BADLY abusing the definition of intelligence so that every little kid gets to be called intelligence "in his own little way." Honestly you guys, intelligence isnt just a synonym for "vaguely good." It has meaninging. When you start to lump into intelligence basically EVERY SINGLE HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC that most people would consider positive, it starts to become foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

look, i agree with you. there's not much worse than the self-esteem boosting attitude prevalent in schools today. but i'm being serious - i don't know what intelligence means. to me, it means "brainpower." i think i'm one of many that go by that definition. if you want it to mean "reasoning ability" or "mathematical ability" or whatever, that's fine. just define it as such when you use it.

is there a high correlation between "reasoning ability" and other intelligences? i'm sure there probably is, but that doesn't mean they are exactly the same thing.

i scored 1480 on the SAT, but i couldn't pass calc 2...in two tries. your average 12 year old can draw a better picture than me. i can't rotate an object in my mind. when i'm in the car and i'm having trouble hearing what my passenger is saying, i mindlessly turn the RADIO volume knob up even though it's not even on.

am i smarter than your average 1200 scorer? well, in some ways yes, and some ways no. my only point is that IQ tests measure what they measure. they do not measure mental superiority. is reasoning ability the single most important mental skill? i don't know, maybe it is. it's not something you can say for sure, because importance is relative.

willie24

11-23-2007, 09:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
this is untrue, the SAT has been proven quite accurate in predicting college performance, that is what the test is designed to do. while there is probably some sort of connection between IQ and those scores, it isnt nearly as strong as that of academic performance. one thing that does appear true is that stupid people in my experience rarely do well on the SAT, it does tend to be a level playing field at least on a small scale. it is hard to expand it to a large field but within a school, or district i think it is a decent metric

[/ QUOTE ]

since you seem to be educated on the subject, and i was guessing, i'll take your word for it.

it seems strange to me though, given that it really doesn't seem to take much more than effort to succeed in college (at least at colleges below Ivy League level), provided you pick a major that you can handle.

vhawk01

11-23-2007, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think his point is that you guys are BADLY abusing the definition of intelligence so that every little kid gets to be called intelligence "in his own little way." Honestly you guys, intelligence isnt just a synonym for "vaguely good." It has meaninging. When you start to lump into intelligence basically EVERY SINGLE HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC that most people would consider positive, it starts to become foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

look, i agree with you. there's not much worse than the self-esteem boosting attitude prevalent in schools today. but i'm being serious - i don't know what intelligence means. to me, it means "brainpower." i think i'm one of many that go by that definition. if you want it to mean "reasoning ability" or "mathematical ability" or whatever, that's fine. just define it as such when you use it.

is there a high correlation between "reasoning ability" and other intelligences? i'm sure there probably is, but that doesn't mean they are exactly the same thing.

i scored 1480 on the SAT, but i couldn't pass calc 2...in two tries. your average 12 year old can draw a better picture than me. i can't rotate an object in my mind. when i'm in the car and i'm having trouble hearing what my passenger is saying, i mindlessly turn the RADIO volume knob up even though it's not even on.

am i smarter than your average 1200 scorer? well, in some ways yes, and some ways no. my only point is that IQ tests measure what they measure. they do not measure mental superiority. is reasoning ability the single most important mental skill? i don't know, maybe it is. it's not something you can say for sure, because importance is relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, people were using it to mean hand-eye coordination or athletic ability or essentially any possible skill that someone might be good at. While I certainly think charisma and charm are traits that lead to success in life, I dont know why they have to be lumped into intelligence. Intelligence is such a tricky beast because everyone wants to always be expanding the definition and making it all inclusive, rather than trying EXCLUDE as many things as possible and find a more limited but more specific definition. It seems to me that this is because no one wants to be left out of the intelligence circle. So, if I suck at pretty much every skill that anyone would call intelligence, I'll simply add in my skills to the definition.

But of course, there is the "I know it when I see it" problem with intelligence. Were Mozart or Bach intelligent because they wrote masterpiece music? I say yes. Is the guy who plays first chair viola in the London Philharmonic intelligent because he plays that Bach piece better than anyone else in the world? I say no. But this ought to be easy enough for you to poke holes in. I guess its just about motivation. I have no inclination to try to include any more skills or abilities than are absolutely necessary into "intelligence."

furyshade

11-23-2007, 09:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is untrue, the SAT has been proven quite accurate in predicting college performance, that is what the test is designed to do. while there is probably some sort of connection between IQ and those scores, it isnt nearly as strong as that of academic performance. one thing that does appear true is that stupid people in my experience rarely do well on the SAT, it does tend to be a level playing field at least on a small scale. it is hard to expand it to a large field but within a school, or district i think it is a decent metric

[/ QUOTE ]

since you seem to be educated on the subject, and i was guessing, i'll take your word for it.

it seems strange to me though, given that it really doesn't seem to take much more than effort to succeed in college (at least at colleges below Ivy League level), provided you pick a major that you can handle.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, the SAT was first designed by the ivy league, same with college essays etc. and not all colleges requires a perfect SAT score, at most colleges you only need a reasonable SAT score because that relates to the difficulty of that school

willie24

11-23-2007, 09:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
well, the SAT was first designed by the ivy league, same with college essays etc. and not all colleges requires a perfect SAT score, at most colleges you only need a reasonable SAT score because that relates to the difficulty of that school

[/ QUOTE ]

well, you can get into most colleges with a score no where close to perfect, as long as you meet other criteria, like good HS grades or being a minority or athlete. i attended both Wisconsin and Minnesota. I know of many people who scored around 20 on the ACT but graduated with high college GPAs.

i agree that below a certain point, it would be difficult to succeed in college. but as long as you are close to average, i think college is more about effort than aptitude.

vhawk01

11-23-2007, 09:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, the SAT was first designed by the ivy league, same with college essays etc. and not all colleges requires a perfect SAT score, at most colleges you only need a reasonable SAT score because that relates to the difficulty of that school

[/ QUOTE ]

well, you can get into most colleges with a score no where close to perfect, as long as you meet other criteria, like good HS grades or being a minority or athlete. i attended both Wisconsin and Minnesota. I know of many people who scored around 20 on the ACT but graduated with high college GPAs.

i agree that below a certain point, it would be difficult to succeed in college. but as long as you are close to average, i think college is more about effort than aptitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which completely ignores however much of the ACT or SAT is ALSO about effort and not aptitude. Which is probably not most but certainly some.

furyshade

11-23-2007, 09:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, the SAT was first designed by the ivy league, same with college essays etc. and not all colleges requires a perfect SAT score, at most colleges you only need a reasonable SAT score because that relates to the difficulty of that school

[/ QUOTE ]

well, you can get into most colleges with a score no where close to perfect, as long as you meet other criteria, like good HS grades or being a minority or athlete. i attended both Wisconsin and Minnesota. I know of many people who scored around 20 on the ACT but graduated with high college GPAs.

i agree that below a certain point, it would be difficult to succeed in college. but as long as you are close to average, i think college is more about effort than aptitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

well like i said, most schools dont require near perfect SAT scores, they require SAT scores which are good enough to match their curriculum. also there are always special cases like athletes and private connections but lets talk about the 99% of students who fall into the average category of students with nothing but essays, test scores and grades

Philo

11-23-2007, 10:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]

it seems strange to me though, given that it really doesn't seem to take much more than effort to succeed in college (at least at colleges below Ivy League level), provided you pick a major that you can handle.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many colleges that are not "Ivy League level" at which it is harder to succeed academically than at Ivy League institutions.

xorbie

11-23-2007, 10:43 PM

Not much has been said in this thread about the ease with which one can improve one's score by 100-200 points simply by memorizing some words. Obviously any correlation is going to be fairly fuzzy.

willie24

11-23-2007, 10:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are many colleges that are not "Ivy League level" at which it is harder to succeed academically than at Ivy League institutions

[/ QUOTE ]

i would assume so. i meant "ivy league level" to mean highest tier, not necessarily actually membership in the ivy league. sorry for the lack of clarity.

furyshade

11-23-2007, 10:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not much has been said in this thread about the ease with which one can improve one's score by 100-200 points simply by memorizing some words. Obviously any correlation is going to be fairly fuzzy.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are stuck a lot in the old SAT, they changed it a lot, no more analgogies for one thing. the vocab section is really minimal, it still exists but the verbal section is now the critical reading section. the point is primarily to be able to understand context

xorbie

11-23-2007, 11:00 PM

Ah, I hadn't realized they removed analogies. I personally upped my score (700 -> 800) in the Verbal section just by memorizing vocab, but this was, indeed, mostly for the analogies section (which sucked). The reading section was boring but always easy.

AlexM

11-23-2007, 11:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Creativity, social skills, ability to handle stress, outside the box thinking, leadership ability, empathy, openness, senso-motoric ability, spatial awareness, courage/ability to control panic...too name a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree somewhat with the point you're trying to make, a lot of these things have more to do with environment and personality than intelligence. For example, the 180 IQ child is more likely to be ostracized and self-reliant than the 120 IQ child, and both of these things will feed on each other, stunting the 180 IQ child's social development because he's intelligent. On the other hand, the 120 IQ child not only won't have these road blocks, but he'll also see things that other people are doing better than him (which the 180 child doesn't) and thus place more value on developing those social skills in order to have friends to rely on when they need a skill that they themselves do not have. So sure, all things being equal, it might be true that the person with better social skills is "more intelligent", but in reality this likely has a lot more to do with experiences than anything else.

By the same token, crappy IQ tests often include knowledge based questions rather than strictly IQ questions, and even in good ones, it's hard to not do it to some extent, so while IQ tests are a strong indicator of intelligence, some intelligent people are going to underscore on them, and the worse the test is, the more likely people are to overscore on them. In general though, assuming similar cultural backgrounds and education, they're a good indicator.

willie24

11-23-2007, 11:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am grunching here a little bit. But there is no real relationship between IQ(if you want to use that as a standard for intelligence) and results on SAT or ACT. SAT is a test that will try and figure out how one will do in their first semester of college. ACT is a test to figure out how much of the high school information a student can remember.

I don't know much about the SAT, but I do know that there are classes that people can take so when they take the ACT they can improve several point. If you put a lot of effort into this class your test results increase greatly. If you're trying to gauge someone's intelligence they should not be able to greatly improve their results from a class once a week for a couple of months. Since I was not forced to take the SAT I would not know if there are classes that are capable of doing that.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm pretty sure you are wrong. there is probably a very high correlation between SAT/ACT scores and IQ scores...much higher than the correlation between SAT/ACT scores and college performance. I have no evidence, and may be wrong, but i doubt it. seems like something that could be looked up.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is untrue, the SAT has been proven quite accurate in predicting college performance, that is what the test is designed to do. while there is probably some sort of connection between IQ and those scores, it isnt nearly as strong as that of academic performance. one thing that does appear true is that stupid people in my experience rarely do well on the SAT, it does tend to be a level playing field at least on a small scale. it is hard to expand it to a large field but within a school, or district i think it is a decent metric

[/ QUOTE ]

i just looked up some correlations. i'm sure different sources give different numbers yada yada yada but...

wikipedia IQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ) cites a study that puts correlation between SAT score and IQ at .82

collegeboard.com article (http://www.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/rs04_3960.pdf) puts correlation between SAT score and freshman college GPA at .62 for females and .56 for males.

doesn't prove anything as i'm sure different studies have different numbers, but at least i'm not definitely wrong.

Fly

11-24-2007, 03:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If SATs were not a pretty reliable indicator, the best colleges couldn't get away with using them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best colleges barely look at SATs, but manage to accept a ton of 1600 scorers anyways (and reject a ton of 1600 scorers). The important thing here is that correlation does not imply causation. Yes, Harvard accepts a ton of really bright kids but there are better indicators of intelligence contained within an application than merely an SAT score. It's a bit of a sanity check, really, just as the GREs are a sanity check for a graduate school application.

That being said, the correlation seems pretty good.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly are the best colleges looking at?

Philo

11-24-2007, 04:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are many colleges that are not "Ivy League level" at which it is harder to succeed academically than at Ivy League institutions

[/ QUOTE ]

i would assume so. i meant "ivy league level" to mean highest tier, not necessarily actually membership in the ivy league. sorry for the lack of clarity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I took it that by "Ivy League level" you meant highest tier. There are many non top-tier schools at which it is more difficult to succeed academically than Ivy League level or highest tier schools. Once you get into an Ivy league school or many of the top tier colleges getting good grades does not require much effort.

Grading standards are more difficult at many schools that are not top tier, which is one reason why admissions standards for professional schools like law schools are doubly prejudiced when it comes to comparing applicants from those schools to those of Ivy League type institutions (the applicant is penalized relative to the Ivy League level applicant for not having gone to a top tier school, and then penalized again for having gotten similar or lower grades at their institution).

David Sklansky

11-24-2007, 04:52 AM

I find your comments hard to believe. Do you stand by them comparing, lets say, Georgia Tech and Cal Tech?

Philo

11-24-2007, 07:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I find your comments hard to believe. Do you stand by them comparing, lets say, Georgia Tech and Cal Tech?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I can't compare Georgia Tech and Cal Tech because I have from no first-hand knowledge of grading standards from either school, nor any statistics from those particular schools.

I certainly wouldn't go so far as to generalize across all schools, but speaking from my personal experiences in higher education (which I've been in for over 20 years as a student, professional academic, and administrator), it seems clear to me that many schools not considered top-tier for an undergraduate education do not have the same level of grade inflation as Ivy League schools and many top-tier private colleges. I have had numerous discussions with colleagues from different institutions around the country about this very topic which seem to confirm this as well.

From a quick search on the internet here are two examples of grade inflation from Ivy League schools: The Dean of the College at Harvard reported that for the 2002-2003 school year 47.8% of grades for undergrads were either A's or A-'s. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences reported that in 1997 43% of grades at Princeton were A's, and only 12% were below the B range. I saw the same grading practices at Amherst College as an undergraduate.

I was a doctoral student at Columbia University, where I taught undergraduates and also worked in the Dean's Office and read the internal reports from Ivy League institutions about grade inflation. I have taken classes at eight different colleges and universities, served on graduate school admissions committees at both Columbia and UCLA, and worked as an academic counselor for the College of Letters and Science at UCLA.

The toughest grading institution I have ever taken classes at was the University of Louisville. It was much harder to get an A at U of L than it is for undergrads at Amherst, Columbia, Harvard or Princeton to get an A.

Taraz

11-24-2007, 07:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that if you score very highly on an IQ test you probably have a high intelligence. Unfortunately If you have a very high intelligence you won't necessarily have a high IQ score. Does that make any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me---no. But I guess I'll just have to accept that "intelligent" is now a billowing portmanteau of a word that envelopes bloody close to everyone. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It is hard to score exceptionally well on an IQ test if you aren't pretty smart. This does not mean that if you are pretty smart you will score highly on an IQ test. Think of it as a filter. You will filter out a lot of the "dumber" people with an IQ test, but you will also be filtering out a lot of the smart people as well.

There will be some correlation because only moderately intelligent people will be able to score highly. This does not mean that people who score poorly aren't intelligent. You can get a bad score for a large variety of reasons, only one of which is that you aren't actually smart.

luckyme

11-24-2007, 12:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There will be some correlation because only moderately intelligent people will be able to score highly. This does not mean that people who score poorly aren't intelligent. You can get a bad score for a large variety of reasons, only one of which is that you aren't actually smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are claiming that IQ is not 100% correlated with intelligence in every case, np. If you are claiming that the "large variety of reasons" add up to a big percentage of mis-testing, then you are wrong. There are a large variety, huge actually, of ailments I could be suffering from, but the long odds are that I don't have any of them.

luckyme

luckyme

11-24-2007, 01:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The toughest grading institution I have ever taken classes at was the University of Louisville. It was much harder to get an A at U of L than it is for undergrads at Amherst, Columbia, Harvard or Princeton to get an A.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I can follow this, is there any prior selection that needs to be taken into account?

I need to kill off this -
All high school grads with an A average go to Harvard.
All high schools grads with a B or lower average go to Smavard.
Harvard awards a higher percentage of A's than Smarvard.

I'm not sure what you meant by "much harder". generally, or you personally or ??

thanks, luckyme

furyshade

11-24-2007, 02:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If SATs were not a pretty reliable indicator, the best colleges couldn't get away with using them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best colleges barely look at SATs, but manage to accept a ton of 1600 scorers anyways (and reject a ton of 1600 scorers). The important thing here is that correlation does not imply causation. Yes, Harvard accepts a ton of really bright kids but there are better indicators of intelligence contained within an application than merely an SAT score. It's a bit of a sanity check, really, just as the GREs are a sanity check for a graduate school application.

That being said, the correlation seems pretty good.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly are the best colleges looking at?

[/ QUOTE ]

i find it really hard to believe that the best colleges dont look at SATs much considering, to my knowledge, they invented them

David Sklansky

11-24-2007, 04:37 PM

"The toughest grading institution I have ever taken classes at was the University of Louisville. It was much harder to get an A at U of L than it is for undergrads at Amherst, Columbia, Harvard or Princeton to get an A."

Almost certainly doesn't matter. I'm betting the Harvard courses are much harder. Especially the science and math courses. They probably go through twice as much stuff and in more detail. Most Louisville calculus B students would flunk out of freshman calculus at Harvard, if I had to guess. In fact I will specualte that the elite schools give out a lot of A's because they don't want to give the wrong impression to outsiders. If they gave out the typical percentage of B's some people wouldn't realize that their B students are usually better than average college's A students.

joker122

11-24-2007, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I scored a 180 on the LSAT. This should be ample proof for 2+2'ers that there is no significant correlation between standardized test scores and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

where do you/did you goto law school?

Philo

11-24-2007, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"The toughest grading institution I have ever taken classes at was the University of Louisville. It was much harder to get an A at U of L than it is for undergrads at Amherst, Columbia, Harvard or Princeton to get an A."

Almost certainly doesn't matter. I'm betting the Harvard courses are much harder. Especially the science and math courses. They probably go through twice as much stuff and in more detail. Most Louisville calculus B students would flunk out of freshman calculus at Harvard, if I had to guess. In fact I will specualte that the elite schools give out a lot of A's because they don't want to give the wrong impression to outsiders. If they gave out the typical percentage of B's some people wouldn't realize that their B students are usually better than average college's A students.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're generalizing in saying the Harvard courses are much harder you're wrong. In fact, I took calculus at U of L and it was an incredibly difficult class even for very good students. Getting a B in that class was absolutely comparable to getting a B in calculus at Columbia, and I would suspect Harvard as well. And no, they don't go through twice as much stuff. The idea that Ivy League classes are always more difficult is just a misconception. No one flunks out at Harvard unless they just don't do any work. Harvard is not in the business of flunking out students.

What do you base these conclusions on?

David Sklansky

11-24-2007, 05:15 PM

I was just guessing. If you know for a fact that I'm wrong, I can't argue. But what you are saying doesn't make sense. I remember the students from my high school who went to Harvard and those who went to, let's say, Penn State. The difference in intelligence was pretty huge.

joker122

11-24-2007, 05:16 PM

philo i have no experience here but if you look at it logically: why does a degree from harvard open more doors/mean more to just about everyone than a degree from some huge state school? it isn't because of how hard it is to get in to harvard, it is the quality of education the school bestows on the degree holder. the academic demand of a school is a function of the quality of education. put another way, you can't expect a school to administer excellent education without it being very demanding for the student. it's just not possible.

that, or everyone in the world is wrong about what a degree from a top school means. is that what you contend?

Taraz

11-24-2007, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If you are claiming that IQ is not 100% correlated with intelligence in every case, np. If you are claiming that the "large variety of reasons" add up to a big percentage of mis-testing, then you are wrong. There are a large variety, huge actually, of ailments I could be suffering from, but the long odds are that I don't have any of them.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm claiming that IQ is only weakly correlated with intelligence. IQ tests are evaluating fairly specific kinds of problem solving. You have to think the way the makers of the test want you to think. If you aren't intelligent, you probably won't be able do well. But if you haven't been trained to think like the testers want you to think you won't be score well either.

Before anybody brings up the fact that IQ tests are supposed to be culturally neutral, consider the case of the Raven's IQ test. It is supposed to be the least culturally sensitive test, however the scores on this specific test have increased more than any other over the past 50 years. Either people's intelligence is increasing over time, or people are learning to think differently. I would go with the latter.

Philo

11-24-2007, 05:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was just guessing. If you know for a fact that I'm wrong, I can't argue. But what you are saying doesn't make sense. I remember the students from my high school who went to Harvard and those who went to, let's say, Penn State. The difference in intelligence was pretty huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did we get to the claim that students who go to Harvard aren't more intelligent than students who go to Penn State? I never said that, and in fact I completely agree that students who go to Harvard are on average more intelligent than students who go to Penn State.

I'm making a very specific claim about grading practices, which is that there are many classes at schools that are not considered top-tier schools in which it is harder to get A-range grades than it is in comparable classes at top-tier schools. I don't think that claim implies anything about the relative intelligence of students at top-tier versus non top-tier schools.

furyshade

11-24-2007, 05:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was just guessing. If you know for a fact that I'm wrong, I can't argue. But what you are saying doesn't make sense. I remember the students from my high school who went to Harvard and those who went to, let's say, Penn State. The difference in intelligence was pretty huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did we get to the claim that students who go to Harvard aren't more intelligent than students who go to Penn State? I never said that, and in fact I completely agree that students who go to Harvard are on average more intelligent than students who go to Penn State.

I'm making a very specific claim about grading practices, which is that there are many classes at schools that are not considered top-tier schools in which it is harder to get A-range grades than it is in comparable classes at top-tier schools. I don't think that claim implies anything about the relative intelligence of students at top-tier versus non top-tier schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the point david is making is that the grading practices are differnet at harder schools because they realize as a whole the education is more difficult, so it wouldn't be fair for someone going to a worse school to have a signficantly higher GPA just because they took easier classes. obviously this wont be true for every school or every class, but i think as a whole it is solid reasoning.

Philo

11-24-2007, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
philo i have no experience here but if you look at it logically: why does a degree from harvard open more doors/mean more to just about everyone than a degree from some huge state school? it isn't because of how hard it is to get in to harvard, it is the quality of education the school bestows on the degree holder. the academic demand of a school is a function of the quality of education. put another way, you can't expect a school to administer excellent education without it being very demanding for the student. it's just not possible.

that, or everyone in the world is wrong about what a degree from a top school means. is that what you contend?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's any disagreement here about the quality of education an undergraduate receives at a school like Harvard. A student who goes to Harvard and works hard will undoubtedly receive a great education.

But grade inflation at Ivy League institutions in particular (and I think at many other top private colleges) is a well-established phenomenon, and I think that students coming from schools not considered top-tier are often at an unfair disadvantage when competing for, say, admission to top law schools, because their grades are not as high, when in fact it may have been just as difficult, and in some cases even more difficult, to get A-range grades at those non top-tier schools.

luckyme

11-24-2007, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's any disagreement here about the quality of education an undergraduate receives at a school like Harvard. A student who goes to Harvard and works hard will undoubtedly receive a great education.

But grade inflation at Ivy League institutions in particular (and I think at many other top private colleges) is a well-established phenomenon, and I think that students coming from schools not considered top-tier are often at an unfair disadvantage when competing for, say, admission to top law schools, because their grades are not as high, when in fact it may have been just as difficult, and in some cases even more difficult, to get A-range grades at those non top-tier schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Potential employees in front of me. Both A grade.
Is the one from Harvard more likely to be 'better educated' or not?
Or, take those just out of A grade?
Does the addition of 'from harvard' bring any potential to the choice when looking at the grades.
It's not grade inflation if the end result is A-harvard grad has a better education claim than A-non-harvard grad. is it?
If we were grading across universities, would harvard receive a higher percentage of A's?

luckyme

Philo

11-24-2007, 06:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]

i think the point david is making is that the grading practices are differnet at harder schools because they realize as a whole the education is more difficult, so it wouldn't be fair for someone going to a worse school to have a signficantly higher GPA just because they took easier classes. obviously this wont be true for every school or every class, but i think as a whole it is solid reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think David has said that it's fair for there to be grade inflation at top-tier schools because that insures that those students who have a 'harder education' are not penalized for having significantly lower grades. I could be wrong but I think David believes that an A-range grade at a top school clearly represents a higher level of achievement than an A-range grade from a non top school, and that is what I'm disputing.

I'm reading 'more difficult' as a function of grading practices, and I think it is quite possible for an A-range grade from a non top-tier school to represent a level of academic accomplishment comparable to an A-range from a top-tier school.

The problem is not that students from top schools might be punished for having significantly lower grades than students who went to easier schools, since Ivy-League level schools already have the highest average GPA's. The problem is for the student who doesn't come from a top school but whose A-range grade may represent a level of achievement comparable to an A-range grade from a top school.

chezlaw

11-24-2007, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's any disagreement here about the quality of education an undergraduate receives at a school like Harvard. A student who goes to Harvard and works hard will undoubtedly receive a great education.

But grade inflation at Ivy League institutions in particular (and I think at many other top private colleges) is a well-established phenomenon, and I think that students coming from schools not considered top-tier are often at an unfair disadvantage when competing for, say, admission to top law schools, because their grades are not as high, when in fact it may have been just as difficult, and in some cases even more difficult, to get A-range grades at those non top-tier schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Potential employees in front of me. Both A grade.
Is the one from Harvard more likely to be 'better educated' or not?
Or, take those just out of A grade?
Does the addition of 'from harvard' bring any potential to the choice when looking at the grades.
It's not grade inflation if the end result is A-harvard grad has a better education claim than A-non-harvard grad. is it?
If we were grading across universities, would harvard receive a higher percentage of A's?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
one from Oxford Uni, one from London Uni both with the same class maths degrees.

The one from Oxford has proved themselves to a much higher standard. Anyone who says different hasn't got a clue.

chez

joker122

11-24-2007, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
philo i have no experience here but if you look at it logically: why does a degree from harvard open more doors/mean more to just about everyone than a degree from some huge state school? it isn't because of how hard it is to get in to harvard, it is the quality of education the school bestows on the degree holder. the academic demand of a school is a function of the quality of education. put another way, you can't expect a school to administer excellent education without it being very demanding for the student. it's just not possible.

that, or everyone in the world is wrong about what a degree from a top school means. is that what you contend?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's any disagreement here about the quality of education an undergraduate receives at a school like Harvard. A student who goes to Harvard and works hard will undoubtedly receive a great education.

But grade inflation at Ivy League institutions in particular (and I think at many other top private colleges) is a well-established phenomenon, and I think that students coming from schools not considered top-tier are often at an unfair disadvantage when competing for, say, admission to top law schools, because their grades are not as high, when in fact it may have been just as difficult, and in some cases even more difficult, to get A-range grades at those non top-tier schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know there is no disagreement about quality of education, but there seems to be a disagreement about whether higher quality of education entails a more demanding curriculum. to say that a more demanding curriculum is not a necessity of a better education strikes me as illogical. would you agree?

Philo

11-24-2007, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Potential employees in front of me. Both A grade.
Is the one from Harvard more likely to be 'better educated' or not?
Or, take those just out of A grade?
Does the addition of 'from harvard' bring any potential to the choice when looking at the grades.
It's not grade inflation if the end result is A-harvard grad has a better education claim than A-non-harvard grad. is it?
If we were grading across universities, would harvard receive a higher percentage of A's?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the student from Harvard is likely to be better educated. I've not said anything to the contrary. However, if I'm interviewing potential employees I will make sure to find out if that's not the case, which is certainly possible.

Philo

11-24-2007, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]

one from Oxford Uni, one from London Uni both with the same class maths degrees.

The one from Oxford has proved themselves to a much higher standard. Anyone who says different hasn't got a clue.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I know nothing about grading practices in the UK, nor have I claimed anything about them.

chezlaw

11-24-2007, 06:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

one from Oxford Uni, one from London Uni both with the same class maths degrees.

The one from Oxford has proved themselves to a much higher standard. Anyone who says different hasn't got a clue.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anything about grading practices in the UK, nor do I claim to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wasn't a dig at you. Its not just grading, the syllabus at Oxford is so much more advanced that people from London are doing a toy degree by comparison.

I'm almost ceratin this is a general trend in the UK. Be suprised if its not the same in the USA unless they have a common exam.

chez

gumpzilla

11-24-2007, 07:26 PM

Philo,

Here, I think, is the crux of the disagreement you and Sklansky are having.

Completely making up some numbers, it may be that 5% of students at Louisville get A's in their calculus class, whereas 20% of Harvard students get A's in their class. Sklansky, I think, is saying that because Harvard presumably has a smarter population to begin with, being in the top 20% at Harvard compares favorably to being in the top 5% at Louisville.

willie24

11-24-2007, 08:37 PM

i understand the point philo is trying to make, and i agree with it on some level.

does a 3.8 from harvard indicate better potential than a 3.95 from Minnesota? of course. did it require more effort? no, not necessarily.

harvard degrees indicate value because of "quality of education," but also, because they prove that the guy was smart enough to get into harvard.

as an aside - i attended Wisconsin (madison), which is one of the highest rated public schools in the upper midwest, for 1 year. i attended perhaps 10-15% of my class sessions and achieved a 3.1 GPA. I attended UW-River Falls, which is a school anyone can get into, for a year, and put in probably, i dont know, 20 times more effort to get a 2.8.

the difference is not that uw-river falls gives tougher grades, it's that they grade based on different criteria. at madison, if you understand the information - you can show up for the test and pass the class (in a freshman-level intro course). at uwrf, you have to do a bunch of "effort work" to prove to the teacher that you are trying. you could NOT understand the information, and probably still pass the class - but knowing the info better than the teacher would not get you a passing grade by itself.

is this example analogous to harvard and louisville? no. but it goes to show that different schools grade differently, and that prestige and quality are not necessarily always correlated with effort required.

Philo

11-24-2007, 09:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

one from Oxford Uni, one from London Uni both with the same class maths degrees.

The one from Oxford has proved themselves to a much higher standard. Anyone who says different hasn't got a clue.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anything about grading practices in the UK, nor do I claim to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wasn't a dig at you. Its not just grading, the syllabus at Oxford is so much more advanced that people from London are doing a toy degree by comparison.

I'm almost ceratin this is a general trend in the UK. Be suprised if its not the same in the USA unless they have a common exam.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The content of many courses in the U.S., especially science and math courses, is pretty uniform. Often the very same texts are used. You can't take calculus at the University of Louisville and only be taught half as much as someone taking the equivalent course at an Ivy League school.

For example, in California the UC system has articulation agreements with all California community colleges where the work the UC's require for lower division courses in calculus, physics, life sciences, humanities, and social sciences has been evaluated for content and a student can transfer her entire lower division general education courses from a California CC. A friend of mine on the faculty in the philosophy department at UCLA just commented to me the other day how his son had taken a calculus course at Santa Monica College and was surprised at how difficult it was. I'm not saying this is the norm, but it is not that uncommon.

southerndog

11-24-2007, 09:10 PM

Of course there's a correlation between SAT scores and intelligence. The test asks questions about vocabulary, reading comprehension, algebra, and geometry. Last i checked, you had to have a brain to answer those.

Hmm, let's see.. First take the test guessing at every question, without looking at the test, then take the test actually trying at every question and see how you do.

Now, am I saying that the test determines IQ or something with 100% accuracy?? No.. But, if you take 100 people from group A, and they average 1450, and group B has an average of 1150 who do you think is going to win the following competitions between the groups:

A. Chess
B. Poker
C. Physics
D. Mathematics
etc...

When evaluating people on an individual basis, the SAT should not be the ONLY thing that one uses, but that doesn't mean the test means nothing.

The same arguments hold when arguing race and IQ. If you give 100 people from one race a reasonable IQ test, and the same test to another race, if one race scores 2 standard deviations higher on average, THAT F'IN means something.

Philo

11-24-2007, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

as an aside - i attended Wisconsin (madison), which is one of the highest rated public schools in the upper midwest, for 1 year. i attended perhaps 10-15% of my class sessions and achieved a 3.1 GPA. I attended UW-River Falls, which is a school anyone can get into, for a year, and put in probably, i dont know, 20 times more effort to get a 2.8.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more common than most people realize. I've known plenty of undergraduates from Amherst College and Columbia University who graduated with around 3.2-3.4 GPA's, whose actual academic work would not compare favorably to someone coming from the University of Louisville at the time I attended with the same GPA.

Philo

11-24-2007, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Philo,

Here, I think, is the crux of the disagreement you and Sklansky are having.

Completely making up some numbers, it may be that 5% of students at Louisville get A's in their calculus class, whereas 20% of Harvard students get A's in their class. Sklansky, I think, is saying that because Harvard presumably has a smarter population to begin with, being in the top 20% at Harvard compares favorably to being in the top 5% at Louisville.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be a fair characterization of the disagreement. I might agree with the claim as you have stated it, but I think it is more tendentious than most people realize.

I also think that there are also clear exceptions to the generalization, which is the main point I have been making. The exceptions are those students who do very well at a less heralded institution, and whose actual performance would translate well into any Ivy League type setting, but who are then penalized both for not having attended an Ivy league school, and for having their comparable GPA devalued for that fact alone. If I understand David's view, he doesn't see this as a reasonable possibility.

luckyme

11-24-2007, 09:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I also think that there are also clear exceptions to the generalization, which is the main point I have been making. The exceptions are those students who do very well at a less heralded institution, and whose actual performance would translate well into any Ivy League type setting, but who are then penalized both for not having attended an Ivy league school, and for having their comparable GPA devalued for that fact alone. If I understand David's view, he doesn't see this as a reasonable possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exceptions for individual students sounds different than the original --

[ QUOTE ]
There are many colleges that are not "Ivy League level" at which it is harder to succeed academically than at Ivy League institutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

or was that a point or two ago ?
sorry if I jumped one, luckyme

tame_deuces

11-24-2007, 09:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think his point is that you guys are BADLY abusing the definition of intelligence so that every little kid gets to be called intelligence "in his own little way." Honestly you guys, intelligence isnt just a synonym for "vaguely good." It has meaninging. When you start to lump into intelligence basically EVERY SINGLE HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC that most people would consider positive, it starts to become foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

look, i agree with you. there's not much worse than the self-esteem boosting attitude prevalent in schools today. but i'm being serious - i don't know what intelligence means. to me, it means "brainpower." i think i'm one of many that go by that definition. if you want it to mean "reasoning ability" or "mathematical ability" or whatever, that's fine. just define it as such when you use it.

is there a high correlation between "reasoning ability" and other intelligences? i'm sure there probably is, but that doesn't mean they are exactly the same thing.

i scored 1480 on the SAT, but i couldn't pass calc 2...in two tries. your average 12 year old can draw a better picture than me. i can't rotate an object in my mind. when i'm in the car and i'm having trouble hearing what my passenger is saying, i mindlessly turn the RADIO volume knob up even though it's not even on.

am i smarter than your average 1200 scorer? well, in some ways yes, and some ways no. my only point is that IQ tests measure what they measure. they do not measure mental superiority. is reasoning ability the single most important mental skill? i don't know, maybe it is. it's not something you can say for sure, because importance is relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, people were using it to mean hand-eye coordination or athletic ability or essentially any possible skill that someone might be good at. While I certainly think charisma and charm are traits that lead to success in life, I dont know why they have to be lumped into intelligence. Intelligence is such a tricky beast because everyone wants to always be expanding the definition and making it all inclusive, rather than trying EXCLUDE as many things as possible and find a more limited but more specific definition. It seems to me that this is because no one wants to be left out of the intelligence circle. So, if I suck at pretty much every skill that anyone would call intelligence, I'll simply add in my skills to the definition.

But of course, there is the "I know it when I see it" problem with intelligence. Were Mozart or Bach intelligent because they wrote masterpiece music? I say yes. Is the guy who plays first chair viola in the London Philharmonic intelligent because he plays that Bach piece better than anyone else in the world? I say no. But this ought to be easy enough for you to poke holes in. I guess its just about motivation. I have no inclination to try to include any more skills or abilities than are absolutely necessary into "intelligence."

[/ QUOTE ]

The only meaningful definition of intelligence is the ability to perform a necessary mental task well. It is meaningless to limit the intelligence measure to a specific subset of mental tasks, especially if they might not even be needed.

pzhon

11-24-2007, 10:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The content of many courses in the U.S., especially science and math courses, is pretty uniform. Often the very same texts are used. You can't take calculus at the University of Louisville and only be taught half as much as someone taking the equivalent course at an Ivy League school.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my experience teaching at elite schools and discussing teaching with mathematicians, scientists, and engineers elsewhere, this is dead wrong.

You can find many exceptions, but in general, mediocre schools do not have anywhere close to the same depth of curriculum as schools like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc. Almost all (over 95%) of the students taking freshman mathematics (Math 1) at Caltech have passed AP BC calculus or the equivalent in high school. The content of the course is not set by keeping pace with the other calculus classes in schools with students with weaker backgrounds. It is determined by the demands of later classes, which are also much more demanding at Caltech than elsewhere. The text books used at elite schools are sometimes the same, but sometimes very different.

Let's see. In one year, students in Caltech's Ma 1a (the first term of freshman mathematics) were required to be able to prove differentiability implies continuity, and to be able to rigorously derive Stirling's formula (from error estimates in Simpson's rule applied to a particular function; they also had to be able to derive the error estimates). By the way, this was not for mathematics majors. Many mathematics majors at Caltech would skip Ma 1, and would take classes like Ma 5, introduction to abstract algebra, which used a text used for graduate abstract algebra courses elsewhere. Please point to anything remotely resembling that, in a class called calculus, for non-majors, at a school where the average SAT math scores are under 600. The material you teach people you expect will become accomplished scientists and engineers is very different from the material you teach to future middle-level managers.

Some schools of all types align the calculus classes with the high school courses, to let students who have passed AP Calculus pass out of the lowest level calculus class(es). This often means that there is a college class designed to substitute for an AP class, which therefore does not cover as much material as a normal college class. These classes are not representative of the courses taught to students in later years.

blah_blah

11-24-2007, 10:13 PM

the best incoming math majors at harvard take math 55a, a course which is limited to first year students but which your typical first year graduate student at the university of louisville would almost certainly fail. in general the courses that a typical math major will take at harvard/princeton/mit will be completely different in breadth and depth than the courses that a typical math major at an average public school will take (of course, your typical math major at harvard/princeton/mit is significantly more intelligent than your typical math major at the above schools).

this being said, there definitely are grade inflation issues at ivy league schools in non-quantitative majors. for the most part these issues aren't shared by academic peers of ivy league schools like caltech/mit/berkeley/chicago etc (not sure about stanford) etc.

Philo

11-24-2007, 10:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The content of many courses in the U.S., especially science and math courses, is pretty uniform. Often the very same texts are used. You can't take calculus at the University of Louisville and only be taught half as much as someone taking the equivalent course at an Ivy League school.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my experience teaching at elite schools and discussing teaching with mathematicians, scientists, and engineers elsewhere, this is dead wrong.

You can find many exceptions, but in general, mediocre schools do not have anywhere close to the same depth of curriculum as schools like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc. Almost all (over 95%) of the students taking freshman mathematics (Math 1) at Caltech have passed AP BC calculus or the equivalent in high school. The content of the course is not set by keeping pace with the other calculus classes in schools with students with weaker backgrounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are obviously not equivalent classes then, and I would not expect them to be evaluated for content as equivalent.

jogsxyz

11-24-2007, 11:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
does a 3.8 from harvard indicate better potential than a 3.95 from Minnesota? of course. did it require more effort? no, not necessarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It opens more doors.

furyshade

11-25-2007, 12:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
does a 3.8 from harvard indicate better potential than a 3.95 from Minnesota? of course. did it require more effort? no, not necessarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It opens more doors.

[/ QUOTE ]

the idea of requiring more effort is totally irrelevent, of course you could have someone who went to harvard and got all A's except for the occasional B without studying and a kid who was less capable and worked his ass off to get straight A's at minnesota. effort doesn't mean anything because different people have different levels of required effort to do the same work

pzhon

11-25-2007, 01:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The content of many courses in the U.S., especially science and math courses, is pretty uniform. Often the very same texts are used. You can't take calculus at the University of Louisville and only be taught half as much as someone taking the equivalent course at an Ivy League school.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my experience teaching at elite schools and discussing teaching with mathematicians, scientists, and engineers elsewhere, this is dead wrong.

You can find many exceptions, but in general, mediocre schools do not have anywhere close to the same depth of curriculum as schools like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are obviously not equivalent classes then, and I would not expect them to be evaluated for content as equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are too picky, you can say just about any class at an elite school is not precisely equivalent to a class elsewhere.

It is generally accepted in mathematics that the core classes for a mathematics major are introductions to abstract algebra, analysis, and geometry/topology. These classes have few prerequisites, and should be comparable between schools. In the examples I have compared, the depth at elite schools is much greater than at mediocre schools. For example, a non-elite school's abstract algebra class may use Gallian's book for a year, and cover material through the Sylow theorems, rings and ideals, and finite fields. An elite school may use the more advanced texts by Artin, Dummit and Foote, or Herstein. Classes at MIT and Harvard using Artin's book covered everything in Gallian, plus more including the basics of representation theory, in the first semester. If you want to do some comparisons on your own, this might help: MIT Open Courseware (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/courses/courses/index.htm).

Occasionally, there are extremely good or tough classes at mediocre schools, but they are the exception. Students are expected to have less preparation and to take more time to learn the material. In general, students are expected not to be able to do as much homework. This means much less material is included in courses of the same name and role.

If you want to take it easy, go to Harvard. If you want a challenge, try to learn the same material at Iowa State University, where you have to learn most of it yourself at the library or from the internet.

chezlaw

11-25-2007, 02:25 AM

furyshade

11-25-2007, 02:39 AM

i think by equivilent he is merely saying a linear algebra course at school A and a linear algebra course at school B intended for the same relative students, for example class is intended from junior math majors with xyz pre-requisite

chezlaw

11-25-2007, 02:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i think by equivilent he is merely saying a linear algebra course at school A and a linear algebra course at school B intended for the same relative students, for example class is intended from junior math majors with xyz pre-requisite

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what he is saying here, if an example is offered where the course at A is harder than the course at B then he will simply say he wouldn't count them as equivalent.

The issue is whether or not some courses are made up of harder classes than others and hence are not equivalent. Certainly true in the UK, I'm struggling to accept the possibility it's not true in the USA. BTW it seems like a very bad thing if the courses are equivalent.

chez

Philo

11-25-2007, 02:58 AM

I don't deny that there are more challenging courses at places like MIT and CalTech than at a place like Iowa State. The Harvard math course that blah blah referred to, Math 55a, is described as "the most difficult undergraduate math class in the country." I have no doubt that similar classes are probably not available at Iowa State.

Do I think that students at Harvard get a better undergraduate education than at Iowa State? Yes. Do I think that the average math major at Harvard will come out knowing more than the average math major at Iowa State? Yes. Perhaps there are very few math courses offered at Harvard and Iowa State that are comparable in content. Do I think that the average undergraduate at Harvard is more intelligent than the average undergraduate at Iowa State? Yes.

My claim is about grading practices, and it is this: it is a misconception to think that an A- at Harvard in a course that is equivalent in content to a course at Iowa State means necessarily that the A- from Iowa State in the same course was easier.

furyshade

11-25-2007, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't deny that there are more challenging courses at places like MIT and CalTech than at a place like Iowa State. The Harvard math course that blah blah referred to, Math 55a, is described as "the most difficult undergraduate math class in the country." I have no doubt that similar classes are probably not available at Iowa State.

Do I think that students at Harvard get a better undergraduate education than at Iowa State? Yes. Do I think that the average math major at Harvard will come out knowing more than the average math major at Iowa State? Yes. Perhaps there are very few math courses offered at Harvard and Iowa State that are comparable in content. Do I think that the average undergraduate at Harvard is more intelligent than the average undergraduate at Iowa State? Yes.

My claim is about grading practices, and it is this: it is a misconception to think that an A- at Harvard in a course that is equivalent in content to a course at Iowa State means necessarily that the A- from Iowa State in the same course was easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

but perhaps that is the idea, that if the A at harvard were proportionally diffcult to get as the A at Iowa State then no one would get them. obviously this is not the only reason for inflation, there is the aspect that those schools want to look better to the public.

David Sklansky

11-25-2007, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't deny that there are more challenging courses at places like MIT and CalTech than at a place like Iowa State. The Harvard math course that blah blah referred to, Math 55a, is described as "the most difficult undergraduate math class in the country." I have no doubt that similar classes are probably not available at Iowa State.

Do I think that students at Harvard get a better undergraduate education than at Iowa State? Yes. Do I think that the average math major at Harvard will come out knowing more than the average math major at Iowa State? Yes. Perhaps there are very few math courses offered at Harvard and Iowa State that are comparable in content. Do I think that the average undergraduate at Harvard is more intelligent than the average undergraduate at Iowa State? Yes.

My claim is about grading practices, and it is this: it is a misconception to think that an A- at Harvard in a course that is equivalent in content to a course at Iowa State means necessarily that the A- from Iowa State in the same course was easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't mean to pile on but I would think even your last statement is wrong. Just because they use the same book and cover the same material dosn't mean the underlying concepts are not delved into deeper at Harvard. So the same grade at Harvard, probably denotes a better understanding of the subject

Philo

11-25-2007, 03:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't deny that there are more challenging courses at places like MIT and CalTech than at a place like Iowa State. The Harvard math course that blah blah referred to, Math 55a, is described as "the most difficult undergraduate math class in the country." I have no doubt that similar classes are probably not available at Iowa State.

Do I think that students at Harvard get a better undergraduate education than at Iowa State? Yes. Do I think that the average math major at Harvard will come out knowing more than the average math major at Iowa State? Yes. Perhaps there are very few math courses offered at Harvard and Iowa State that are comparable in content. Do I think that the average undergraduate at Harvard is more intelligent than the average undergraduate at Iowa State? Yes.

My claim is about grading practices, and it is this: it is a misconception to think that an A- at Harvard in a course that is equivalent in content to a course at Iowa State means necessarily that the A- from Iowa State in the same course was easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

but perhaps that is the idea, that if the A at harvard were proportionally diffcult to get as the A at Iowa State then no one would get them. obviously this is not the only reason for inflation, there is the aspect that those schools want to look better to the public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I can understand some of the rationale for grade inflation, and I think it is the exception rather than the rule when the student from a public university is unfairly disadvantaged in comparing her grades to the grades of her Ivy League counterparts, but it does happen.

If grades were strictly a reflection of relative merit and academic performance, 1966 graduates of Harvard would be much poorer students than 1996 graduates of Harvard. I doubt that that's true.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002/02/08/edtwof2.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503EEDF153FF93BA25751C0A96E9582 60

"Clifford Adelman, a senior research analyst with the United States Education Department who has studied 21,000 college transcripts from 3,000 colleges, said: ''Elite schools always give higher grades. The faculty make the assumption that the kids are smarter."

Philo

11-25-2007, 03:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Don't mean to pile on but I would think even your last statement is wrong. Just because they use the same book and cover the same material dosn't mean the underlying concepts are not delved into deeper at Harvard. So the same grade at Harvard, probably denotes a better understanding of the subject

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, again, in my experience I would not presume to make that assumption:

"For most people, if you are getting A's, it means you are doing good work," said Tucker Culbertson, 20, a Princeton junior majoring in English. "If you go to class and participate and write a semi-intelligible paper you get an A."

"'A B is what most anybody who finishes a course gets,' said Alexander Nehamas, a philosophy professor and chairman of the Council of the Humanities, an interdisciplinary program."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503EEDF153FF93BA25751C0A96E9582 60

blah_blah

11-25-2007, 04:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My claim is about grading practices, and it is this: it is a misconception to think that an A- at Harvard in a course that is equivalent in content to a course at Iowa State means necessarily that the A- from Iowa State in the same course was easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point that I am trying to make is that there are not going to be very many courses which are equivalent in content at Iowa State and Harvard. If you pick a top tier public school like Berkeley then the comparison is more meaningful; there are many courses which will be functionally equivalent, and it will probably be harder to obtain a good grade at Berkeley than at Harvard.

chezlaw

11-25-2007, 07:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there are very few math courses offered at Harvard and Iowa State that are comparable in content. Do I think that the average undergraduate at Harvard is more intelligent than the average undergraduate at Iowa State? Yes.

My claim is about grading practices, and it is this: it is a misconception to think that an A- at Harvard in a course that is equivalent in content to a course at Iowa State means necessarily that the A- from Iowa State in the same course was easier.

[/ QUOTE ]
That conclusion must be wrong. Consider someone who aces all the exams at Iowa State - that doesn't imply they could ace the exams at Harvard. However someone who could ace the exams at Harvard could ace the exams at Iowa State. So the top grades cannot be equivalent and in any non-freaky practice it must follow that the lesser grades are also not equivalent as someone who nearly aces the exams is marked relative to the person who does ace the exams.

chez

Philo

11-25-2007, 03:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]

That conclusion must be wrong. Consider someone who aces all the exams at Iowa State - that doesn't imply they could ace the exams at Harvard. However someone who could ace the exams at Harvard could ace the exams at Iowa State. So the top grades cannot be equivalent and in any non-freaky practice it must follow that the lesser grades are also not equivalent as someone who nearly aces the exams is marked relative to the person who does ace the exams.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that someone who aces the exams at Iowa State could also ace the exams at Harvard. I said that we can't conclude that an A- at Iowa State was easier than an A- at Harvard.

Perhaps you didn't see this. I think it emphasizes the same point:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503EEDF153FF93BA25751C0A96E9582 60

"For most people, if you are getting A's, it means you are doing good work," said Tucker Culbertson, 20, a Princeton junior majoring in English. "If you go to class and participate and write a semi-intelligible paper you get an A."

If I'm wrong it means that students at Iowa State must be graded just as leniently in a class like this as students at Princeton are, and in my experience that is not necessarily true. People don't want to believe that it can be easier to get the A- at Princeton than at Iowa State, but it can be.

pzhon

11-25-2007, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
People don't want to believe that it can be easier to get the A- at Princeton than at Iowa State, but it can be.

[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't demonstrated that, just asserted it repeatedly. What I have shown is that comparable classes (e.g., the first introduction to abstract algebra, or freshman "calculus") cover a lot more material at elite schools.

[ QUOTE ]
"For most people, if you are getting A's, it means you are doing good work," said Tucker Culbertson, 20, a Princeton junior majoring in English. "If you go to class and participate and write a semi-intelligible paper you get an A."

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if we take this 20-year-old as an expert (which I don't), so what? Are you claiming it is just as easy to participate in a class and write a semi-intelligible paper at an elite school as it is at a mediocre school? I think the standards for "semi-intelligible" are much higher at elite schools.

For example, here are some papers written by MIT students (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/18-100CSpring-2006/Projects/index.htm), I believe mostly freshmen math majors since this was in the second semester of the introduction to analysis. The ones I flipped through aren't great, but they blow away what is expected of second year mathematics majors at typical schools. (At many schools, the introduction to proofs class is aimed at juniors. How do they call themselves math majors before that?) I sat through many worse presentations when I attended the National Conference on Undergraduate Research, where the presenters were typically seniors from mediocre schools.

Even if it is easier to get an A- at an Ivy League school than a typical state school, I would still bet that an A- at an Ivy League school represents more understanding on average than an A- at Iowa State.

There is a component of grade inflation, and you might find that students at Dartmouth are not as bright or as qualified as students at Yale while getting higher grades, or vice versa. However, in my experience this factor is much smaller than the difference between the caliber of the courses at elite schools and mediocre schools.

I mentioned Iowa State because a friend of mine went there. He enjoyed a lot of extra attention from the professors, and he thought he was getting a Harvard-quality education there... until he worked with a bunch of Harvard students, not even the best of Harvard, and found that his background wasn't close.

There are a lot of schools, including better UC campuses and some of the Ivy League schools, where there are widely different ranges of students. These students have the ability to do get a mediocre education, or an elite education, as they choose. However, it is difficult to make it through the required classes at Caltech without getting a great education in the sciences, and it is difficult to get anything close to that while getting straight As at a typical state school.

David Sklansky

11-25-2007, 06:33 PM

I'm sure Philo's points are truer for non science classes.
A motivated student at Iowa State is going to get better at English Literature than a lazy student who barely skates through Brown. But the same is much less likely to be true in Physics. Innate intelligence, unfortunately plays too great a part.

chezlaw

11-25-2007, 06:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that someone who aces the exams at Iowa State could also ace the exams at Harvard. I said that we can't conclude that an A- at Iowa State was easier than an A- at Harvard.

[/ QUOTE ]
You acknowledged that they may not be comparable in content. What can that possibly mean for a maths couse if one is not significantly easily than the other, and what can that mean if being able to ace the harder one doesn't imply being able to ace the easier one?

Your conclusion can only follow if the non-comparable part of the course is not examioned at all.

chez

hitch1978

11-25-2007, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure Philo's points are truer for non science classes.
A motivated student at Iowa State is going to get better at English Literature than a lazy student who barely skates through Brown. But the same is much less likely to be true in Physics. Innate intelligence, unfortunately plays too great a part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taraz and Tame Dueces,

Disagree with this? If so, why? How are you using the definition of intelligence differently to DS?

tame_deuces

11-25-2007, 07:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure Philo's points are truer for non science classes.
A motivated student at Iowa State is going to get better at English Literature than a lazy student who barely skates through Brown. But the same is much less likely to be true in Physics. Innate intelligence, unfortunately plays too great a part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taraz and Tame Dueces,

Disagree with this? If so, why? How are you using the definition of intelligence differently to DS?

[/ QUOTE ]

The definition of intelligence is too narrow. You can be very intelligent at some mental tasks and not especially adept at math.

And if you are very adept at math you might be bad at some other mental task, and thus not be very intelligent when using those as a measure.

hitch1978

11-25-2007, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure Philo's points are truer for non science classes.
A motivated student at Iowa State is going to get better at English Literature than a lazy student who barely skates through Brown. But the same is much less likely to be true in Physics. Innate intelligence, unfortunately plays too great a part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taraz and Tame Dueces,

Disagree with this? If so, why? How are you using the definition of intelligence differently to DS?

[/ QUOTE ]

The definition of intelligence is too narrow. You can be very intelligent at some mental tasks and not especially adept at math.

And if you are very adept at math you might be bad at some other mental task, and thus not be very intelligent when using those as a measure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for answering my questions, but I don't think you've actually answered my questions.

tame_deuces

11-25-2007, 08:07 PM

I disagree with how it is worded. If you replace 'intelligence' with 'mathematical aptitude' instead in DS' post I would agree with it.

Included in mathematical aptitude I would probably include the ability to work hard with studies, which will always be incredibly helpful in mathematics/physics. You might even want to include measurements of the brain's pleasure centres when reaching mathematical solutions - being geared towards that would be a great boon.

For the rest of my views on how it should be defined, see my above post.

hitch1978

11-25-2007, 08:12 PM

So do you disagree with DS's statement or agree, as worded? It is a one worded answer.

tame_deuces

11-25-2007, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So do you disagree with DS's statement or agree, as worded? It is a one worded answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't, as I already readily explained. A one worded answer is exactly the uselessness of the intelligence term I am arguing against.

If you say no you are assuming good intelligence isn't needed to do well in physics. If you say yes you assume a person is intelligent because he has mathematical aptitude.

Obviously some facet of intelligence will help you do well in physics, that doesn't mean you are intelligent at other mental tasks.

Philo

11-25-2007, 09:47 PM

There's nothing more I can do to demonstrate what I've claimed. I've given evidence that students at Ivy league schools have said themselves that they can get an A in a class just by turning in a semi-intelligible paper. This is not a generalization--it does not mean that for any class at Princeton a student can get an A by turning in a semi-intelligible paper. It means that in that particular class the grading standards were lax, such that simply turning in a paper that was not incoherent sufficed to receive an A. If you want to discount the Princeton student himself who said it was easy to get an A in that class be my guest.

I've been a student at eight different schools that run the gamut in terms of rankings, and I've experienced first-hand the fact that some classes at lesser ranked schools can be harder to get an A-range grade in than at an Ivy League school. I've also taught students at Columbia University, so I'm well aware of the abilities of students at an Ivy League school. I've never claimed that students at Ivy League schools aren't more intelligent on average than students at an average state school, though for some reason people keep making that inference.

You consistently misrepresent what I've claimed by saying things like, "Even if it is easier to get an A- at an Ivy League school than a typical state school, I would still bet that an A- at an Ivy League school represents more understanding on average than an A- at Iowa State." I've never claimed otherwise and in fact I agreed with David when he said the same thing. Get your facts straight. I've also never claimed that in general it's easier to get an A- in a class at a state school than it is at an Ivy league school, which your remark seems to imply, or that an Iowa State education is the equivalent of a Harvard education. It's not, I've never said it was, and it's just silly to keep making inferences from what I said to conclusions that do not follow.

Here is what I'm claiming, and this is the last word I'm going to say on the subject. If a student at Iowa State gets an A- in a class, let's say "Social Psychology," and a student from Harvard gets an A- in "Social Psychology," that does not by itself mean that the A- from Harvard was a harder grade to earn, or that the student from Harvard necessarily had a higher level of academic achievement in that particular class than the Iowa State student. This is a fact that I've experienced first-hand in comparing the grading standards for classes I took at the University of Louisville, Amherst College, Columbia University, and five other private and public institutions. Turning in a 'semi-intelligible' paper will not get you an A in every class you can take at any state university.

David Sklansky

11-25-2007, 10:09 PM

"Included in mathematical aptitude I would probably include the ability to work hard with studies, which will always be incredibly helpful in mathematics/physics."

Both clauses are just wrong.

furyshade

11-25-2007, 10:35 PM

pzhon

11-25-2007, 11:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You consistently misrepresent what I've claimed

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see that. I responded to an incorrect statement of yours,

[ QUOTE ]
The content of many courses in the U.S., especially science and math courses, is pretty uniform. Often the very same texts are used. You can't take calculus at the University of Louisville and only be taught half as much as someone taking the equivalent course at an Ivy League school.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is nothing logically wrong with this idea, but it doesn't describe this universe. I have given examples showing that it is indeed possible (in fact, common) to be taught less than half as much (or less in a full year class than in a one semester class at an elite school), and often the texts used are quite different.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pzhon: If you want to take it easy, go to Harvard. If you want a challenge, try to learn the same material at Iowa State University, where you have to learn most of it yourself at the library or from the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]
philo: People don't want to believe that it can be easier to get the A- at Princeton than at Iowa State, but it can be.

[/ QUOTE ]
pzhon: Even if it is easier to get an A- at an Ivy League school than a typical state school, I would still bet that an A- at an Ivy League school represents more understanding on average than an A- at Iowa State.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you accuse me of misrepresenting you with that statement. I don't see that I did anything of the sort. You made a misleading statement. I pointed out that the statement you made did not have the consequence that would be relevant to this discussion.

An easy class, where you just show up and participate in relevant discussions of deep ideas and then write a paper about one of those deep ideas, may teach you much more (and may be expected to teach you much more) than a pain-in-the-ass class where you have to complete a dozen tedious assignments about trivialities. So what if it is easy to get a good education at an elite school? That's part of what people pay for, in money or blood/sweat/tears to get in.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is what I'm claiming, and this is the last word I'm going to say on the subject. If a student at Iowa State gets an A- in a class, let's say "Social Psychology," and a student from Harvard gets an A- in "Social Psychology," that does not by itself mean that the A- from Harvard was a harder grade to earn, or that the student from Harvard necessarily had a higher level of academic achievement in that particular class than the Iowa State student.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, all you are claiming that is correct is that there are occasional exceptions to the idea that high grades at elite schools generally represent more understanding than equally high grades at mediocre schools? Great. If anyone thought there were no exceptions in the messy subject of education, they stand corrected.

In general, getting an A- in an undergraduate mathematics or science class at Caltech indicates a far greater grasp of the relevant material than an A- at Columbia, which in turn represents a far greater grasp of the relevant material than an A- at Florida State University. While the average grades may be lower at FSU than at Caltech, this does not adequately describe the difference between typical graduates of FSU and typical graduates of Caltech. Grade inflation may be present more at some schools than others, but in my experience, it's not enough for GPAs to be comparable across schools. Hiring someone with a 3.7 from a mediocre school over someone with a 3.5 from an elite school based on the GPA alone would be a mistake.

Some people would say this is not necessarily true outside of the sciences. However, I think the reasons for the differences between elite schools and mediocre schools still apply.

Max Raker

11-26-2007, 12:13 AM

I haven't read the whole thread, but there is a decent chance the SAT has impacted my life more then maybe everybody in this thread. I went to a pretty horrible high school and I was not a great student. Pretty much half As and half Bs. I figured I was pretty decent at math though as I was better then all the teachers. I assumed kids in good colleges where much better than me as I never knew anybody who went to school out of state. I took the SAT my freshman year at the request of the principal since she thought that I may "have potential". I think I got a 1560 or so (nobody in the past had broken 1400) and they decided that I should be bussed to a school 40 miles away, that should tell you how bad my school was.

The new school was much better and i met quite a few kids (maybe 6 or so) with 1500 or 1600 scores. I think the scores were pretty much meaningless in comparing people in this group though. Only one of the kids at my new school was a genius in any real sense of the word and it was pretty obvious to everybody that he was on a different level but there was no way an SAT could show it. He only got about a 1300 though and was horrible at verbal. Just didn't know what the words meant. There were exams that could tell him apart though, we got our hands on a Putnam and he got maybe 6 or 7 (though the teacher that graded them was not really qualified and was way nicer than the real graders) and I was second best with a 2 (would have certainly been a 1 with the real grading).

I think the SAT is pretty good at picking out people who are smart. I think everybody I know who got a 1500 is smart, but it is pretty bad at picking out the ordinary smart kids from the truly special. I guess nobody really expects it to though.

thesnowman22

11-26-2007, 03:43 AM

Wow. when we stay away from religion, we have some pretty good discussions on here. I think we should have a "Religion" forum and outlaw religion topics here.

Now...

SAT criteria for Mensa: pre-1974- 1300, 1974-Jan 1994-1250 , after 1994- NA

I do believe there is a pretty high correlation in SAT and intelligence, although i do think what tamedeuces says has some truth, that intelligence has many factors. To soley base intelligence on IQ tests or SAT is wrong.

I also think that just because you have a 1560 on your SAT and Joe has a 1400, Joe COULD be smarter. The DEGREE to which people's intelligence varies is not measured completely by standardized tests.

Also, along the lines of what tame said, the ability to APPLY your knowledge in the real world, TO ME, is a part of intelligence. The ability to control your anger or get along in the world are facets of it. that doesnt mean, someone suggested, that a docile idiot is a genius. the 170 IQ whos a frickin nutcase is smarter than him, but maybe not smarter than the 155 with better social and emotional skills.

i finsihed 56 of 128 in HS. I made a D in advanced Math, and she gave me that. I didnt try, i slept in class, I never studied, I didnt do my homework, I was the classic underacheiver. All i wanted to do was play ball and hang out.

But I made a 690 on the math SAT in 1986 BECAUSE ITS CORRELATED WITH IQ.

Another thing- there are people who CHOOSE to go to pennstate instead of harvard. And how hard a class is or how deep the curriculum is varies not just from school to school, but from prof to prof. There mite be a guy at Louisville teaching a class deeper than at harvard. Unless youve been at both u dont know.

Bottom line- everything and everyone needs to be evaluated individually. Generalizations do just that- generalize.

tame_deuces

11-26-2007, 06:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Included in mathematical aptitude I would probably include the ability to work hard with studies, which will always be incredibly helpful in mathematics/physics."

Both clauses are just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it helps you do your field better it should be included. That some slackers can get top grades is pretty uninteresting - a person with the same aptitude as them plus the ability to work hard is still the best bet for who ends up to be best.

Jon1000

11-26-2007, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Included in mathematical aptitude I would probably include the ability to work hard with studies, which will always be incredibly helpful in mathematics/physics."

Both clauses are just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it helps you do your field better it should be included. That some slackers can get top grades is pretty uninteresting - a person with the same aptitude as them plus the ability to work hard is still the best bet for who ends up to be best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two people with the same innate mathematical ability, but one works harder and will thus do better. I get that.

Anything that helps you in the field should be included in mathematical aptitude? wtf?

Taraz

11-26-2007, 09:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure Philo's points are truer for non science classes.
A motivated student at Iowa State is going to get better at English Literature than a lazy student who barely skates through Brown. But the same is much less likely to be true in Physics. Innate intelligence, unfortunately plays too great a part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taraz and Tame Dueces,

Disagree with this? If so, why? How are you using the definition of intelligence differently to DS?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the usage of the word "innate", but I agree otherwise. I would agree that there is probably a lot of mathematical thinking and understanding that is relatively immutable by the time you reach college though. This doesn't mean that this ability is inborn necessarily.

DougShrapnel

11-27-2007, 08:08 AM

the sat provides a standardized test that you can rate yourself against other persons. There are ways to increase your score by studying and finding test taking strategies, so it's not an excellent measure of intelligence, yet it's a good indicator of intelligence for those that have a high school diploma.

southerndog

11-27-2007, 08:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the whole thread, but there is a decent chance the SAT has impacted my life more then maybe everybody in this thread. I went to a pretty horrible high school and I was not a great student. Pretty much half As and half Bs. I figured I was pretty decent at math though as I was better then all the teachers. I assumed kids in good colleges where much better than me as I never knew anybody who went to school out of state. I took the SAT my freshman year at the request of the principal since she thought that I may "have potential". I think I got a 1560 or so (nobody in the past had broken 1400) and they decided that I should be bussed to a school 40 miles away, that should tell you how bad my school was.

The new school was much better and i met quite a few kids (maybe 6 or so) with 1500 or 1600 scores. I think the scores were pretty much meaningless in comparing people in this group though. Only one of the kids at my new school was a genius in any real sense of the word and it was pretty obvious to everybody that he was on a different level but there was no way an SAT could show it. He only got about a 1300 though and was horrible at verbal. Just didn't know what the words meant. There were exams that could tell him apart though, we got our hands on a Putnam and he got maybe 6 or 7 (though the teacher that graded them was not really qualified and was way nicer than the real graders) and I was second best with a 2 (would have certainly been a 1 with the real grading).

I think the SAT is pretty good at picking out people who are smart. I think everybody I know who got a 1500 is smart, but it is pretty bad at picking out the ordinary smart kids from the truly special. I guess nobody really expects it to though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post, bud. Can I axe where you ended up going to college?

tame_deuces

11-27-2007, 08:40 AM

To make it perfectly clear, I am in no way denying that IQ tests correlate very well with school results, and thus also that there is good correlation between those two and SAT results also.

There is good data to point that out.

What I'm saying is that those three can not on their own be a complete measure of intelligence, since they only reflect on a small portion of possible mental tasks posed. Basically I'm arguing against the narrowing of the intelligence term, and giving academia 'sole ownership' of true intelligence.

Jon1000

11-27-2007, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that those three (SAT, IQ, grades) can not on their own be a complete measure of intelligence, since they only reflect on a small portion of possible mental tasks posed. Basically I'm arguing against the narrowing of the intelligence term, and giving academia 'sole ownership' of true intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Within a certain range of IQ/SAT tests that seems pretty reasonable, but there is some point where a lower score crosses an individual over from maybe less intelligent to most likely less intelligent than another. And the convergence of all three is certainly a fair indicator of intelligence even if it is not a complete one.

I volunteer taught the math side of the SAT in college and occasionally tutor the math/verbal side for one of those big prep companies now. I'd say that lower than a certain SAT score makes a student academically inept. That is not the same as unintelligent, but the two conditions are so similar that they amount to the same thing in most quasi-academic situations I can think of such as basic math and problem solving ability needed in everyday life. In my experience, significantly low SAT scores reflect poor education most often, but given that there is no math above very basic geometry and no verbal requirements above an intermediate grade school reading level, I would call most students who score below a certain level completely unprepared for higher academia.

To me, these students are not innately unintelligent, but if you asked me to characterize them in a vacuum, I would not be kind. Bringing things like social skills and work ethic into a discussion of their intelligence/academic preparedness seems silly because at that point you're talking about their ability to succeed (if you catch them up somehow), and that seems to be completely separate from almost anyone's definition of intelligence.