relationship between SAT scores and intelligence?

[pzhon]

[ 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, 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]

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.

[hitch1978]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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]

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

[David Sklansky]

"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.

[Taraz]

[ 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.

[Philo]

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.