On IQ and career potential--What my daughter learned yesterday

Parent Cafe
61

<p>“it’s still true that a lack of IQ is a limiting factor, just like lack of height.”</p>

<p>I agree. It’s obvious that someone with below average intelligence is not going to make it as a brain surgeon. So when you’re dealing with an IQ of, say, under 100, it’s a pretty sure bet that that person isn’t going to do certain things. It’s the higher ranges that I am referring to. This is really splitting hairs here, but I think the point I was trying to make was that, when you start delineating it with clear cutoffs, such as ‘You must have an IQ over 140 to be a brain surgeon’ that is where it can do some damage, because, when you start getting up into those upper ranges, a person with 135 might actually be smarter than someone who measured 145. Maybe s/he had a bad day when s/he took the test, or maybe some aspects of that intelligence weren’t measured accurately. A high school student might take those values literally, even if s/he missed it by a couple of points. So if such generalizations are given, they need to be qualified with emphasizing that they are estimated ranges and not to be taken literally.</p>

<p>Also, many gifted artists, musicians, and other creative thinkers might not score well at all on an IQ test, because it tends to favor left-brain capability so is therefore less accurate in measuring that which cannot be quantified: ie, creativity and thinking outside the box. IQ tests might be the most helpful when determining aptitude for the hard sciences, and less so for less tangible pursuits.</p>

<p>“Many people underperform their potential, as related to IQ. Fewer people overperform that potential.”</p>

<p>I agree with the former but not the latter. If someone overperformed what they thought was their potential, based on some test designed by humans, then obviously it was an inaccurate measurement of that potential. A potential can only be aspired to, never exceeded; else it is not potential!</p>

<p>As I said, I work for a testing company. Believe me, they make mistakes. I would encourage my kids to not take such measurements too seriously. Allow them to be an inspiration if they’re high, perhaps, but never allow them to be a limiting factor, at least not when the student displays the capabilities needed for his/her chosen pursuit. Interest and inspiration can be quite effective at stretching those brain cells! I don’t know too many people with low intelligence who have aspirations to be brain surgeons, anyway, so it sort of works itself out in the end. More damaging might be when parents push their kids too much, or don’t encourage their kids enough, based on some scores. I think it’s better for the kid if the parents allow their own interests and aspirations to lead the way, while providing gentle (and sometimes firm) nudging.</p>

62

<p>

I agree with this wholeheartedly. You don’t need a test to tell you that you have the capability to do something if you are already DOING it! ;)</p>

<p>I know a good many young people with all sorts of ability levels. I don’t think I know ONE who needs to told by a test what s/he is capable of doing. Most of them have figured that out quite nicely and have adjusted their aspirations accordingly. </p>

<p>kluge, a good many people, myself included, have never had an individual test of intelligence administered by a qualified person. Therefore, I’m not sure we could know with any accuracy just who has “outperformed” his “potential” and who has not. I would hazard a guess that the number of those who have “overachieved” is closer to the number who have “underachieved” than you might suspect.</p>

<p>~berurah</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>All through elementary school my youngest thought he was bad at math because he had trouble memorizing math facts. We had him tested for LDs in 4th grade and his Math subscore put him at the 97th percentile. It took him a while to believe us, when we assured him he was quite capable in math once he got past arithmetic, but when algebra came along and calculators were allowed he suddenly became quite good at math. </p>

<p>Some of those overachievers may just not have tested that well - I’d venture to guess that Feynman had a scatter of scores that brought down his total IQ score, but that in some areas he probably still tested high. IQ scores can be low because of all sorts of circumstances (illness, distractions, uncooperativeness) in addition to the question that they don’t necessarily measure everything that makes someone intelligent, much less successful, in the first place.</p>

64

<p>mathmom~</p>

<p>That’s interesting about your son! I’m glad that he wasn’t so discouraged about his early experiences with math facts that he totally gave up on something he turned out to be very good at. I’m sure that your support and encouragement helped a great deal.</p>

<p>From my own observations, it seems that kids tend to gravitate toward things which they are good at and which they enjoy (it is very hard to truly enjoy something with which you struggle). By high school, many of them have some kinds of interests or an inkling about what they might like to study in college. Of course others don’t. But I don’t think it happens very often that a kid needs a major reality check from a teacher about a career aspiration (as was mentioned above by another poster). I think that by the time kids have received 13 years of grades in various subjects, they pretty much know what they have an aptitude for.</p>

<p>~berurah</p>

65

<p>Allmusic, in your career, have you found that those who score higher are more intelligent, and that somebody who scores 140 is more intelligent than somebody who scores 130?</p>

<p>In other words, do you think IQ tests and similar tests are accurate?</p>

<p>And like many other things, doesn’t your IQ go up with the more tests you take? Doesn’t familiarity with the tests lead to higher scores?</p>

66

<p>Lealdragon, I struggled with how to express what I was trying to say. Of course you’re right, one can never literally outperform one’s potential, by definition. I guess what I was trying to say was that few people outperform their apparent potential. And I still think that’s true; to the extent that people might disagree I think that would be based on a difference of opinion regarding what a person’s “apparent potential” is. </p>

<p>For example, I’m a lawyer. I’m very aware that you don’t need a particularly high IQ to be a successful lawyer. In fact, in some areas of the profession, a really high IQ is likelyto be more of a hindrance than a help. Different character traits are important to different types of lawyers. Organization is important to all; critical to some. “People sense” is vital for a trial lawyer; perhaps less so for a probate or bankruptcy lawyer. So I’m very much aware of the complexity of the concept of “intelligence” and it’s interplay with the successul practice of my own line of work.</p>

<p>But let’s look at what the teacher told the kids:

Other than some reservation about the plumber part, my guess would be that that statement is probably accurate. As a parent and baseball coach I’ve seen kids grow up and mature through the middle school and high school years, and I’ve observed their own growing awareness of where they actually stand in terms of their potential - both in a relatively easy to measure area such as sports, and also in terms of life goals. A lot of the time their parents lag the kids in terms of reaching a realistic assessment of the kid’s actual potential. And the kids usually don’t tell their parents; they go along with the dream they and their parents shared when they were younger, not letting on that they realize that they’re actually not going to become professional athletes, doctors, businessmen or whatever. And eventually the parents come to accept that what Johnnie wants now is to become a firefighter, or a prison guard, or a plumber, or whatever, and that is the new goal, and that’s okay, too. Because it is okay. And it’s even more okay if that new goal is actually a good fit for the talents and inclinations of the kid involved. And in fact “IQ” - rough estimate of the average of a particular bundle of talents that it is - does give some guidance as to some kinds of natural abilities a person has which does have a pretty consistent relationship to suitability for certain types of competencies.</p>

<p>There are exceptions and a variety of quibbles you can cite, but they don’t invalidate the overall general accuracy of the teacher’s statement.</p>

67

<p>There isn’t discernable difference between the IQ 130 and 140, although unquestionably differences between the 100 and 130. </p>

<p>I see kids struggling like crazy to try to get through college, those kids with IQs around 90, who have enormous trouble with analysis and synthesis of information. The material is too vast, the expectations in some way greater than their cognitive capacity. Are they being well served by parental unrealistic expectations? Would they be better suited in another setting, be it a trade or something else? Are there some who make it through by sheer guts and willpower, despite the odds? Yes.</p>

<p>In terms of improved performance on multiple administrations of the WISC, it doesn’t really occur. One can’t take the test more than once in a 12 month period (precisely for the “exposure” reason), but after that, kids may remember seeing block sets, for example, but won’t remember how to solve them. There are error margins, of course, but IQ stays fairly consistent over time.</p>

68

<p>It’s kind of interesting - the social/psychological stigma attached to lower intelligence. People are pretty much OK with other people being short, weak, tactless, unattractive, uncoordinated, etc. But you’re not supposed to admit that someone isn’t very smart.</p>

69

<p>

I think I would disagree with this statement, kluge, particularly in the area of attractiveness. Try being a h.s. girl who doesn’t fit society’s image of what you SHOULD look like. At our h.s., as at many, the less intelligent guys do MUCH better than the less beautiful girls. ;)</p>

70

<p>Allmusic, is the WISC a timed test? I’m not familiar with this test. I know that if prepped for the SAT, your scores will go up. I know that if you practice those IQ tests that are online, your scores wil go up. The way parents are, I can just see them trying to get ahold of the tests and prepping their kids. It looks like this doesn’t happen and it doesn’t work anyway. I’m surprised. </p>

<p>If there is no discernable difference between the 130 and 140 score, if I score a 130 can you give me a 140? Thanks.</p>

<p>I’m just kidding.</p>

<p>Which score puts you in the top 1%? The top .1%? </p>

<p>I am out of the loop. Is the other test used by schools the Stanford-Binet test? Is a 130 on that test the same as a 130 on the WISC? If not, is there a correlation between the two tests? Or is my memory faulty and the Stanford-Binet is some kind of food or something?</p>

<p>Who takes the WISC?</p>

71

<p>dstark~</p>

<p>Hee hee! The Stanford-Binet is an elegant dessert–you should KNOW that! <em>lol</em></p>

<p>Sounds like you’re jockeying for a MENSA invite! ;)</p>

72

<p>Dstark - I’m not a testing professional, nor do I play one anywhere, but our school district gave the WISC III for the gifted program and I know a little about it. I hope this information is accurate.</p>

<p>There is a ceiling on the WISC III, 19 in each section and 160 overall. There are 10 sections I think, 5 verbal, 5 performance. From what I know, if a child hits an 18 or 19 in 3 or more sections, then the test is no longer able to measure the IQ. This test was never intended to test for giftedness and really isn’t good for that because of the ceiling. </p>

<p>It’s not really timed, the child keeps answering questions until they’ve missed a certain number at which point that section is finished. </p>

<p>I was also told by a tester that to convert the WISC III to SB, a very rough estimate is to add 17 points to the WISC III score. I have no idea if that’s correct. </p>

<p>Allmusic - please correct any of this information!</p>

73

<p>There’s a new version of the WISC - the WISC4. I don’t know remember if it has a higher ceiling than the old version. My son got the old one as the new one wasn’t out yet. For a long time some testers were using an old version of the Stanford-Binet because it supposedly could measure higher IQs, but there was a fair amount of controversy about it. Now there’s a new version of the SB, I believe. I’ve read it has plusses and minuses. </p>

<p>I always thought that the scores on the two tests were supposed to be equivalent, but some kids do better on one test than the other. All IQ scores, like all SAT scores, are merely estimates - one shouldn’t get too hung up on exact numbers.</p>

<p>There are lots of links on the subject here: <a href=“http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/testing.htm[/url]”>http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/testing.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

74

<p>Over30, now I’m confused. You said the Wisc III was given for the gifted program in your first paragraph and then later stated that it was never intednded to test for giftedness.</p>

<p>Do you mean it was never intended to measure a person’s IQ?</p>

75

<p>

</p>

<p>Schools use lots of tests for entry into their gifted programs that were never intended for that purpose. :(</p>

<p>The WISC *is *supposed to measure IQs, it just it doesn’t distinguish between high levels of giftedness and very high ones.</p>

76

<p>If the WISC was intended to measure a person’s IQ up to a certain level, after you have that measure, what are you supposed to do with that measure? </p>

<p>What should be used to determine if a kid should be in a gifted program?</p>

<p>What number do you need to be considered gifted? (I see it is around 130). What number do you need to be considered a genius? Shouldn’t you actually have to accomplish something to be considered a genius?</p>

<p>Edit. I guess I should get this book.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/dp/0977109852?tag=thehoagiesgifted&creative=373489&camp=211189&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0977109852[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0977109852?tag=thehoagiesgifted&creative=373489&camp=211189&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0977109852&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

77

<p>

This number typically differs a bit by state.</p>

<p>It is not at all uncommon in our district, and I’m sure in many others, to see extremely underachieving students being served in the gifted program while many who are extremely high functioning in every area have been turned down for placement on the basis of an IQ score, often having missed placement by a slim margin.</p>

<p>This is an interesting blurb from wikipedia:</p>

<p>

</p>

78

<p>130 is the one that gets thrown around most often. (Top 3% of the curve). I’ve seen gifted programs that set the bar as low as 120 and high as 140. Most of the state definitions of giftedness are surprisingly vague.</p>

79

<p>Berurah, I have seen up close kids who have scored over 140 on some test (I think it is WISC. I’m not sure.) underachieve in the classroom. These kids just aren’t interested in school. They want to be in the “real world”. (They really just want to play).</p>

80

<p>my daughter was tested with the Wisc & S-B, the S-B indicated her IQ was upward of 160, however it was very uneven divided into sub sections( this wasn’t through district but through the univ of wa)</p>

<p>Our school district uses a group administered acheivement test for placement into gifted programs, and she didn’t test into even the lower level program using their testing.</p>

<p>( However she did attend a private school, using her results from UW- I was told by friends that I could have submitted her IQ scores to the district, but I didn’t want to work the system, reasoning that if curriculum was designed to meet the needs of students who did well on the acheivement test, it wouldn’t have been appropriate for her)
<a href=“http://www.gt-cybersource.org/Record.aspx?rid=11267&NavID=2_1[/url]”>http://www.gt-cybersource.org/Record.aspx?rid=11267&NavID=2_1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;