<p>Ceteris Paribus, should one expect more raw intelligence from one with less advanced courses?</p>
<p>I know some people who took calculus in 10th grade who really aren’t that intelligent. They ended up not applying to HYPSMC - because they knew that they would be rejected by them. The fact is - the exposure that people have to material is contingent upon one’s school system, more than one’s raw intelligence (in grade school, at least).</p>
<p>On the other hand, however, people who were able to get through higher-level math in high school (call it Group A) might be able to do just as well as more intelligent people who did not have the opportunity to pursue such high level math (call it group B). Individuals in Group A may have less raw intelligence than those in Group B - but the experience and knowledge that individuals in Group A have can help them through their college courses - after all, review is easier than new material - and the individuals in Group A can then move on to study for future material. Meanwhile, individuals in Group B will have to rely on their raw intelligence to quickly learn material that they have never seen before - and must consequently learn more material than individuals in Group A in a short period of time. </p>
<p>What are the implications of this, anyways? It’s that universities often implement policies like affirmative action and regional preferences for the socially disadvantaged - policies that benefit those who neither have more university-level material exposure in high school nor more raw intelligence, than the mean. I’m not saying that such policies are bad per se - but rather, that they often bring in marginally prepared students who don’t have the raw intelligence to thrive in college. </p>
<p>of course, raw intelligence is difficult to measure (and colleges have few ways to ascertain a student’s raw intelligence). But when a group of students of equal intelligence who have had calculus in 10th grade compete with a group of students who only encountered it in 12th grade - then the former group is likely to do better than the latter.</p>
<p>As there are several (probably dozens of) different approaches to defining intelligence, would you mind explaining to us what you consider “intelligence” and “raw intelligence”?</p>
<p>For me, intelligence is the general ability to pick up new concepts. </p>
<p>
How do you know that these kids have less “raw intelligence” than the non-disadvantaged kids getting into the same colleges? Imo one implication of a social disadvantage is that you grow up with less opportunities. Neither of my parents went to college and when I was little my parents anticipated that I will not go to college either, so they made me take vocational classes instead of college prep classes (even though my teachers recommended a college prep curriculum). The first college prep classes I took were in 7th grade and you can imagine how far I was behind at that point. Now consider two scenarios:
- I made up all the stuff I missed, ended up taking the most advanced classes offered at my high school, graduated as valedictorian and went to colleges X (that’s what happened).
- I did not bother to close the gap but I took the hardest college prep classes I could with my preparation and got straight As in those, but due to missing rigor I placed just outside the top 10% of my class. I got into college X too but only because of a first generation bonus.
Obviously my intelligence is the same in either scenario.</p>
<p>
I already questioned the part with the “raw intelligence”. But what do you think you need to succeed in college? True, someone with less preparation might need to take one or two additional courses until he is at the same level but does that matter? Most colleges offer courses at different levels and I believe that you don’t need to take the hardest courses to have a successful college experience. 99% of students at Harvard are not smart enough to pass Math 55 (Honors Advanced Calculus and Linear Algebra). Is Harvard the right place for them???</p>
<p>“But when a group of students of equal intelligence who have had calculus in 10th grade compete with a group of students who only encountered it in 12th grade - then the former group is likely to do better than the latter.”</p>
<p>Not necessarily. If the group that encountered calculus in 10th grade had a shaky math foundation, and just kept doing more advanced math without understanding why or how the math worked, and without going back and reviewing old material, they might do worse in college math. If they just spent years memorizing formulas, parroting them back for tests, and forgetting them, I wouldn’t be surprised if their math education had a few holes in it.</p>
<p>If the second group continually reviews old material, understands how and why the math works, and makes an effort to get a strong math foundation, they should do well in college math.</p>
<p>At a certain point, it doesn’t matter how many years one is advanced. It matters how solid one’s education is. Even if the first group did get a solid education, all they will do is start out on higher-level math courses once they get to college. The second group will just start on math classes intended for freshman. No group is “likely to do better”.</p>
<p>True. Good points.</p>
<p>Also, how does it benefit a college or university to bring students to its campus who it thinks will not be successful? Colleges WANT the students who they accept to be successful and graduate. It doesn’t look good if they have large numbers of students failing classes. So even though the students may look “less intelligent” to you, the college must see something in them that indicates that they have a good probability of being successful.</p>