<p>SAT tutoring shows that the individual can become “smarter” and that the SAT isn’t completely innate.</p>
<p>The Flynn effect shows that whole populations can become “smarter” and that IQ isn’t completely innate.</p>
<p>I completely agree that a lot of people are wasting their time, money, and energy on college, but if you open up the can of worms called “improvement” in the area of intelligence, everyone’s limits become theoretical, where it’s foolish to set limits when the average IQ has increased by whole standard deviations without any coherent plan or effort.</p>
<p>It’s one thing to issue rigid, segregating testing in 5th grade for the sake of efficiency in an industrializing, vastly overpopulated country, but it’s another to believe wholeheartedly that America should lean towards deterministic early testing and that intellectual improvements for the masses is bunk.</p>
<p>PS: All your examples involving countries are anecdotal evidence on a larger scale</p>
<p>No, it shows that billions of people worldwide completely disagree with the egalitarian rhetoric spewed by elite liberal American universities. It shows that no wonder we’re losing ground on the international level. And coincidentally, who are we falling behind? China and Japan, two countries that just so happen to practice policies that I’m advocating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you actually read any of my posts? I’ve never stated the SAT (or IQ for that matter) is a perfect correlation with innate intelligence. I said they were “well correlated”, which equates to about 0.7 on a 0-1 scale (r values, if I remember from stat). Of course studying matters and one can raise their score. But remember, standardized test scores are in relation to the rest of the testing taking public. Thus, an individual of a given intelligence would get a certain score without studying. Studying basically gives you a certain amount on top of your innate score, but everyone studies, so most people get around the same on top, give or take. Thus, you’re not getting “smarter”, you’re artificially adding like everyone else is. How can you “artificially” add on a test that purports to show aptitude? Well, again, it correlates with aptitude; it’s not a direct measure of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Flynn has even stated his research doesn’t undermine IQ testing. Read the following article for a defense of IQ testing despite Flynn effect (and basically a defense of SAT testing as well).</p>
<p>In relation to the above article, we live in a much more technological society (obviously). Related to that, all professions, in addition to life in general, requires a higher degree of intelligence. Is it harder to be a doctor now or 30 years ago? Now of course. The amount of medical knowledge, the complexity of newer research and equipment, etc. all force the profession’s standards (and base level intelligence requirements) to increase. How about being in finance? Oh, the global marketplace, increased prevalence of hedge funds and investment banks, computer software, much improved mathematical modeling, etc. all require slightly more intelligent people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>China and Japan sure think so. No matter how much you try to get around it, there’s always going to be half the population below average (well assuming a normal distribution). You can’t get around that. And I agree that outliers exist. Kids do blossom late. But be honest with your own history. Are the really smart kids in 3rd grade the same kids winning all the awards at the end of high school? Are the really smart kids at the beginning of high school becoming doctors and lawyers? Are the average kids throughout elementary going to state school and then becoming salespeople or electricians? I don’t have the data, but I imagine there isn’t much variation between standardized performance early in life and standardized performance at college.</p>
<p>Listen, I only brought that up because you bristled when cindy used an ad hominem. Well here you are, too, with information that does not directly address the points at hand is more akin to finger-pointing. Then you use extremely dubious premises and a non-sequitur to arrive at the conclusion that it’s “no wonder” the US is losing ground to China and Japan because we don’t use your policies. I admit I’m not keen on international politics/economics, but I’m going to have to call BS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s interesting. How can IQ, or SAT, be correlated with something that no one even claims to measure? Do you mean that there’s a 0.7 inter-correlation between different IQ tests?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re implying a very insular and simplistic dichotomy between nature (innate intelligence) and nurture (studying). However, the two are so intertwined that it’s near impossible to isolate one or the other, especially not instinctively. Consider that someone’s intelligence makes them more inclined to study, due to increased ability, and then that studying, in turn, makes them more intelligent via greater neuron formation. Now expand “studying” to any mentally stimulating activity, from video games to childhood storytime to sports, and it’s almost impossible, even irrelevant, to tease out what’s “innate” and what’s “artificial”. There’s no such thing as “artificial” aptitude. And your assumption that everyone’s particular environments cancel each other out in a percentile-based score, simply because “everyone studies”, therefore doesn’t seem to hold.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t undermine IQ testing, but it does undermine your understanding of innate intelligence. He’s basically saying that intelligence is incredibly malleable lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So how does it make sense to forsake the bottom group? If not for the sake of greater egalitarianism, educational romanticism seems more like a necessity of modern life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny thing is that the Flynn effect shows the bottom half improving the most. But of course educational romanticism is a waste of time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not even in college yet, so I don’t claim to know. </p>
<p>But hey I agree with a lot of what you say: it’s futile to get all the kids in America to dream of becoming doctors and lawyers. For the individual, it’s wise to take stock of their abilities, as well as their potential, and make pragmatic decisions that can often conflict with the idealized expectation of a college degree. I said earlier that cindy is not the norm.</p>
<p>I only disagreed on more subtle points, like rigid SAT minimums. Then I was alarmed when you started down a slippery slope of touting fifth grade slotting and bashing educational romanticism. I admit that there ultimately are limits to intelligence, and that increasing intelligence is a tricky and inexplicable task, but it’s shortsighted to set up boundaries when intelligence is evidently increasing in a society that demands more and more of it everyday. I imagine it would have seemed like incredibly asinine decisions, to many, to mandate primary schooling, and later secondary schooling. Now they’re commonplace and taken for granted. Maybe the whole college frenzy is a waste of time, but maybe we’re still not done growing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have the data either, but since there’s a pretty tenuous two-year connection between high school SAT scores and college GPA, I would be only a little hesitant to extrapolate a near non-correlation between performance early in life and performance in college.</p>
<p>Oh please, how are the SAT’s indicative of intelligence (if anyone said that, I skimmed through the first page or so)? </p>
<p>It just measures how good you are in test-taking. It doesn’t mean he/she cannot succeed in college or anything…I know plenty of people that aren’t “intelligent” (such as myself) but have aced the SAT’s with 2300+'s without preparation and such (I didn’t do this, I’ve yet to take SAT), and other experiences/people I’ve met. But anecdotal evidence probably means nothing to most people on here, so.</p>
<p>wow long response! I’ll try to avoid any and all verbosity in my response.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s very simple. Our technical development as a nation depends on our most precious commodity: minds. Smart people build nations and it’s in our best interest, a sentiment expressed in a paranoid manner during the Cold War crisis of the 1950’s, to cultivate our top students. But in America, it’s not about smart kids, as opposed to China and Japan who don’t give a ****e. This is an actual statistic: We spend over 90% of our educational resources on “disadvantaged kids” which includes kids with learning problems, socioeconomic problems, speech problems, etc. We spend 1 percent of 1 percent (0.01%) of our educational resources on gifted and talented. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Basically. The SAT has a 0.7 correlation with g factor. Before the politically correct overtook all public discourse, the SAT was surely viewed as an IQ test. Mensa (before the percentile rescaling of the mid 90’s) considered the SAT as an IQ test. I don’t fully agree, but it says something.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read up on twin studies. You’d be surprised how little effect “nurture” has. Although I admit it does generate differences but not the all consuming effect the establishment would have you believe. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not forsaking them. I’m encouraging they follow a path that more aptly suits their mental abilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a basic assumption that I wholeheartedly disagree with. Everyone is equal before law, but not in every context. Not everyone is beautiful. Should we convince everyone that they look like Jessica Simpson?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have never heard of this. So basically, we’re all converging? Come on. Go to any public high school’s general courses and tell me educational romanticism is a worthwhile enterprise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually think we agree more than disagree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those studies are so flawed and biased. I doubt they controlled for so many factors. How about people with higher SATs tend to go to harder majors? How about people with high SATs congregate at more rigorous schools where only so many people can get A’s? Also, let’s say they controlled for major and school rigor. So in a given major at a given school (or even across similiar schools), you’ll have kids all around the same SAT score. Thus, if a kid with a 1300 has a GPA 0.25 points higher than a kid with a 1370, then there ya go, right?! But come on, no one is claiming they’re significantly different due to 70 points. </p>
<p>But this is inconsequential. GPA is not standardized. Here’s a better example. Let’s check LSAT scores vs. bar passing rate. Or check MCATs versus doctor income. Ya think there would be strong correlations over given ranges of scoring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I bash educational romanticism because it tells all the stupid kids that they’re smart. There are fat people, muscular people, tall and short people. We just get all huffy when someone gives the same ostensible observations about intellectual ability. </p>
<p>I tout slotting because everyone knows the smart kids shine early. There are exceptions though, but not many. Ironically, I happen to be an exception. I wasn’t even in the top reading and math courses till 4th grade.</p>
<p>Here’s a nice anecdote to finish: In 5th everyone in my state took a standardized test. All the highest scoring kids in the state got to go a banquet. I kept the brochure with everyone’ name. 7 years later, one of my best friends got to be a National Presidential Scholar and he got in to Harvard. A couple years after that I was rummaging through old papers and I come upon the brochure. Not surprisingly, he had the highest verbal score in the state. Then I look at the other names, something like 70% of the kids on the brochure attended my very prestigious magnet high school. Another surprise right. Wait more: The same people at the end of elementary school who won the best student awards also shared valedictorian at the end of high school (different high school but in my district).</p>
<p>Wait, some evidence for SAT vs. g.: From wikipedia:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ALso from wikipedia, for all the intelligence deniers:</p>