lookingforward the real fallacy is believing that the issue about genetics and intelligence isn’t settled. The numerous recent twin studies have definitely corroborated earlier twin studies. No serious academic expert disputes that there is a major heritable component of intelligence ranging from .6-.8. So yes these studies do prove something important. In recent times the educational system very precisely sorts people based on Q that is much different from 75 years ago. While there are always going to be exceptions one can pretty accurately know the IQ of people based on jobs and IQ definitely is highly correlated to income up to a certain point. For instance it would be extremely rare to find a physician, college professor, engineer, or jet pilot with an IQ under 110. IQ certainly matters and everyone reading this post has experienced this in daily life. No test is perfect and mistakes will occur not infrequently for many reasons but that doesn’t invalidate the data. You of course are welcome to judge success however you choose but it is truly a fallacy to claim intelligence tests aren’t roughly accurate or significant.
Fallacy # 199: The parents forum is the only area where threads get off topic and/or discussions begin to sound like debates 8-|
- Fallacy is just a synonym for something that is wrong.
Our local public school happens to be a cross-country powerhouse, so I can actually speak specifically to the quality of local recruits for the girls cross country teams at a variety of elite universities. (In the past three years, local runners have gone to Ivies, as well as MIT, Chicago, and NU.) Top athletes. Good-to-excellent students. Definitely NOT rich or connected. Sports are definitely a major “hook”…even at schools known for academic rather than athletic excellence.
It’s actually more likely that the students sitting on the bench who aren’t skilled athletes are high stats students, bringing up the team gpa averages.
Being connected is a vague term that doesn’t advance the discussion. Being hooked has to do with a few very specific things. The answer to the athletic question is that very few Ivy athletes are the very top at their sport except in a few usually minor sports. Those kids usually go to scholarship D1 schools. However the level of athlete in the ives remains very high and to be recruited the student must be a clear serious D1 level athlete. Being rich has nothing to do with the recruiting process. You might be surprised to know just how seriously the Ivies recruit in sports like football, basketball, and hockey.
“I think it usually goes that SAT scores predict performance better in more difficult majors. If you just compare SAT scores and GPA, you might not get a really strong correlation because students with higher SAT scores tend to go into majors where it’s harder to get high GPAs.”
This is absolutely true, so here is the next fallacy:
201- Your GPA is always a good indicator of how strong a student you are.
Of course, the next fallacy is:
202 Your SAT scores are always a good indicator of how strong a student you are or will be.
As far as I recall from studies posted earlier, the biggest correlation with SAT score was parental wealth.
^what is correlated to parental wealth? Correlation can be deceiving.
Parental wealth can give a different platform. But so can parental education and savvy, no matter income. And parents who know what it means to strive, even if they’re lower SES or didn’t go to college.
It’s still up to the kid to make the most of whatever opportunities there are. And darn, that includes outside the school zone. In cases, for a tippy top, the kid with less is out there doing more. Sometimes, putting to shame the little scattered efforts of richer kids.
You have to understand nothing says a rich kid is really a better applicant, in toto.
There are lots of attempts to correlate this or that. One interesting study used AP calc grades to predict soph college grades. And concluded it’s probably more the sort of kid who would take that class. In the first place.
What really stumps me, at times, is the locked mindset about college grades. They matter for some things, not for everything.
203 NMF will result in lucrative, substantial scholarships at every college you want to apply to.
204 NMF are intellectually more gifted than students who score an equivalent score on the ACT.
Re SAT scores: They obviously aren’t perfect, but they correlate very strongly with general intelligence; I think the old 20th century one was like r > .8, while the newer ones are a little less so.
IIRC this is only because the SAT is a proxy; it doesn’t directly affect anything beyond the number on your application.
One confounding factor is that there isn’t a very strong general consensus on what “general intelligence” even is.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Once again, let’s not get off topic discussing things likes SAT’s predicting success in life, or what intelligence is.
A batch of new CC members, rising high school seniors, are joining the chancing forums and sharing their lack of knowledge.
Some recent postings;
“I don’t know anything about that school but you have a great chance of being admitted.”
“A 29 ACT is a great score for the Ivies”.
etc.
- Students with under a 3.75 GPA deserve to go away to college.
How about this one:
If you don’t take AP calculus in HS, you will never be able to major in engineering in college…or go to med school?
@jd5432 - youve been on cc for a day. Must be a quick reader to already identify memes/fallacies here.