<p>
</p>
<p>Hey now, no need to rub it in :-)</p>
<p>chris: what public college provides a “quality” education, cal, michigan? And being intelligent does pay, for instance you can’t get an acceptal mcat score without having an IQ of at least 121. </p>
<p>A 125 IQ is very very high. Most people have an IQ of 100. And an IQ of 187 is high genuis level, one in a million. However the quick IQ tests given to 18 year olds can be radically incorrect. After age 12 they lose there value. And I doubt the army administered a real 3 ay exam. It was probably more like what they give 7th graders in california, a qw question 20 minute test.</p>
<p>But in any cases is some of you actually believe intelligence and test results doesn’t matter, will OK then</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Every state has a public university that provides a decent education. Who are you kidding? Don’t be so pretentious that the only state universities that are worthwhile are Berkeley and Michigan.<br>
2) The doctor with no bedside manner or people skills doesn’t make anything, regardless of how brilliant he or she may be or what his or her MCAT scores were. It’s not merely intelligence that is important in the real world. Are you a parent or a student?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re completely missing the point, because the lower income kids from disadvantaged backgrounds don’t HAVE the money to be tutored for their SAT’s, and may just be lucky to work to support the family and not get shot at. That doesn’t make the upper-middle-class kid whose parents can afford to hire a tutor “smarter.” It makes the second kid more fortunate.</p>
<p>
bUt i need acceptal mcat score!</p>
<p>
I find the ability to communicate well far more important.</p>
<p>A 125 is not very, very high. It does not qualify a child for a gifted and talented program at most schools. Cut offs vary, but they are usually 130 or 135. I am not a psychologist so I can’t rattle off standard deviations and when one is classified as truly gifted and then genius, but 125 does not qualify. However, the achievements of Feynmann’s and Watson’s
achievements are enormously impressive.</p>
<p>Typing while driving, woops.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that several of you believe environment is almost everything. Wow! </p>
<p>And i pizza I wasn’t pointing to cal or michigan as examples of “quality”</p>
<p>Public high schools haven’t administer real IQ tests in 30 years…the gifted programs at least in california are determined by the stanford test and where a child ranks based on a national percentile of test takers…I. think you’re making up the 135 IQ thing</p>
<p>A really good friend is a very successful cognitive psychologist. He told me that intelligence is now believe to be 60% environment and 40% inherited. I see no reason to doubt him. Since I am not an expert in this field, I don’t have an opinion.</p>
<p>I found his POV very modest indeed. His own son was named one of the top 10 high school students in the country some years ago. Scored perfect marks on the SAT in seventh grade with no coaching first time out. Went full ride to Duke. Wooed by Cambridge for a masters (got two instead – one in AI, the other in Shakespeare studies) and came back for a PhD at Carnegie Mellon where he now teaches.</p>
<p>I thought it extremely modest of my friend to take so little credit for these very impressive achievements. He was a divorced dad who did not live in the household this man came out of. He’s also a handsome, lovely person and a good son.</p>
<p>So this is the serious nurture vs nature crowd. Does your attitude only apply to smarts or does it extend to the playing field as well?</p>
<p>nuturing is important but if the raw IQ and talent isn’t there it will not matter how many resources you have. Sorry billymc, all babies are not born the same</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>pacheight, are you a ■■■■■?</p>
<p>[Pacific</a> Heights (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Heights_(film)]Pacific”>Pacific Heights (film) - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, I’m sorry you feel this way.</p>
<p>Classic. You proved my point. 2400 on the SAT in 7th grade oh ya that must have been because of his good environment. His dna had only 40% influence…please</p>
<p>Who hear actually paid attention when genetics were covered?</p>
<p>Shravas you took it out of context.</p>
<p>Ohio huh…sorry</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoops indeed.</p>
<p>[Texting</a> while driving: everything you need to know about the new law - latimes.com](<a href=“Archive blogs”>Texting while driving: everything you need to know about the new law)</p>
<p>Seriously: cut it out. Not funny or clever at all. :mad:</p>
<p>
Such skills can be genetic; they can also be environmental; they are, in fact, a mixture of both.</p>
<p>I think we all agree on that. It’s the mix that has people worked up. I’ll go with 80/20. 80 dna and 20 environment</p>
<p>
Average kid in an average family, see where he goes. Average kid in a billionaire family, see where he goes. Average kid in a starving Ethiopian family, see where he goes. Then stick an above average kid in a poor family (just US ghetto poor will do) and a below average kid in a rich/powerful family and see where they go. 20% seems a little light for environmental factors. My psychology professor said it’s roughly 50/50, and that’s a stance I can get behind.</p>
<p>Billy, I know you’ve been reduced to arguing in terms this person can understand, but nobody is born “average.” (I know you know what I mean.)</p>
<p>Each of us is born gifted, in something. The difference between the kid in a financially impoverished environment and the kid in a wealthy environment is opportunity to find out what it is they are gifted at.</p>
<p>I have a gifted dyslexic. She couldn’t read until she was in middle school. She has an IQ over 180, measured the long form way, and she also scored perfectly on her SATs first sitting. But, and this is the thing, we took her everywhre, and I mean everywhere, to every single program in the country until we found someone who could finally teach her to disorient herself enough to be able to keep the letters on the page and to read.</p>
<p>She still writes with voice recognition technology. She was accepted to some intensely comptitive schools, partially because of her test scores, partially because she has some really outstanding credentials in her EC. But, and ths is the main thing, put her in an overcrowded school, where teachers are dealing with starving kids, or in a house where the parents don’t have the resources to think past the next weeks paycheck? I’d love to believe she’d still be where she is today, but I doubt it.</p>
<p>Which is why I work very hard with an organization getting technology to kids with LD’s who can’t afford it. I know our resources made the difference. I would be a fool to believe anything else…in both the academic and the EC realm. We could do anything for our kids, and we have.</p>
<p>People who don’t “get” this just aren’t paying attention, imho. It’s one thing to be fortunate, and it’s just offensive to be arrogant about it, so unattractive.</p>
<p>There are exceptional results in height, weight, IQ, eye color, temperament, creative ability. Outliers, if you will.</p>
<p>Then there is the concept of regression toward the mean.</p>
<p>Children of outliers tend closer to the mean then they’re parents. Outliers can be environmental, genetic (through genetic recombination) or even mutations.</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t my friend, a professor emeritus from SUNY, be reliable? Of course research might not be correct, but I see no reason to doubt his communication of the state of current research. Studies and investigation have yielded the results I reported. If we want to invalidate all scientific methods then I don’t understand why we’re talking about intelligence at all.</p>