The average IQ of harvard students is definitely higher than 122, there are some factors that attenuate the IQ observed in this study, the sample is mostly composed of psychology students, ceiling effect, they used the abbreviated WAIS which obviously has a lower g-loading than the full WAIS and I'm not sure if it's right to correct for the flynn effect in this case.
Taking all this into account, the average IQ of Harvard students should be around 130.
Seb, how big are the populations in question? I mean, of people who have accomplishments at the level of being a chess GM by the time they apply for college?
Regarding the guy in the introduction of this piece in particular: say 10k slots per year at HYP-equivalent schools and 4m American 18yo in the pool suggests that students at the 99.75th percentile for ability should be admitted. Reasonable to believe this fellow should be admitted - especially given that his success extends beyond GPA and SAT.
Another issue at play is that signals like chess GM and running successful businesses are currently undervalued, so smart players underinvest in those; he's not trying to optimize for your metrics, so why should he look particularly good by them?
I don't think this can be estimated -- it doesn't really affect my opinion on how the students should be selected anyway, as the remaining student body would just be selected for test scores/GPA and maybe a few slots would be left to the athletes for competitive purposes.
what if the asian is chad, verbally adept, and athletic 😉 though iq wise i freely admit my 3+ sigma mediocrity, by your analysis harvard ideally would only have an average of 130
i trust la griffe's estimation of verbal ability as the important underlying factor in per capita GDP, and it has explanatory power regarding asian achievement, but then i have a bit of verbal iq myself
indeed, i have had the opportunity to be independently wealthy several times, impractical only because of my unusual sleep genetics (nobody's perfect), and still might
I like this take but I also think there is a false dichotomy between things like test scores and things like extracurriculars. I think the Oxbridge selection system is pretty decent. It depends on test scores and subject-reasoning-specific interviews. It therefore uses how one performs in standardised testing _and_ how they reason in an interview.
By making the interviews specific to reasoning in a subject, they are less vulnerable to biases just towards the more amicable interviewees etc. But it does therefore assess more than something like the SAT - which is really a test of being able to reliably and quickly do _very basic_ cognitive puzzles, and thus fails to capture any assessment of higher level reasoning.
I'm a little curious as to how athletics may be more significant than other extracurriculars. I have noticed that a lot of presidents were pretty skilled athletes in their youth, but is there any other information on a disproportionate number of successful people who were athletes?
Question: If my younger sibling got a 36 out of 36 on their ACT and a 1590 out of 1600 on their SAT and also got straight A’s in every quarter for every year during their time at an extraordinarily elite US university being a Computer Science major and Mathematics minor, what would their IQ be?
I don’t understand discriminating against Asians. Asians are more conformist, but they are responsible for numerous significant inventions prior to Europeans: printing press, gunpowder, compass, etc. Also they are not lacking in creativity considering the great art that has come out of Japan and Korea. Their intelligence isn’t just memorization. What would discriminating against them entail?
South Korea produces half as many highly cited studies as Switzerland. There is a lot of indirect evidence that Asians simply have a very low standard deviation, which is why the number of Asian geniuses will always be lower than that of Europeans. As for these inventions: they were made over a very significant period, and besides, before they fell into the hands of Europeans, they had a narrow and small application. the same printing was under the strictest ban. Personally, I don’t like the word discrimination: the one who needs it will always get through
The printing press was banned because allowing the common folk to read and write was seen as blasphemous basically everywhere until the Protestant revolution in Europe, it doesn’t have anything to do with some inherent passiveness of Asians. I just don’t think you can judge a group as wide as “Asians” to justify discrimination. Eminence is a difficult thing to measure anyhow.
no, because the Jewish indicators are overestimated and, with the most optimistic forecasts, for every 1 Jewish super-intellectual there are 7 white super-intellectuals. Unpromising. fairy tales about superintellectuals fairy tales
The average IQ of harvard students is definitely higher than 122, there are some factors that attenuate the IQ observed in this study, the sample is mostly composed of psychology students, ceiling effect, they used the abbreviated WAIS which obviously has a lower g-loading than the full WAIS and I'm not sure if it's right to correct for the flynn effect in this case.
Taking all this into account, the average IQ of Harvard students should be around 130.
"and men should be discriminated against at elite universities — this is because a sex ratio of 50-50 is ideal for social purposes"
Why exactly? For the purpose of increasing the likelihood of high IQ men and women having children with each other? I don't see any other reason.
Seb, how big are the populations in question? I mean, of people who have accomplishments at the level of being a chess GM by the time they apply for college?
Regarding the guy in the introduction of this piece in particular: say 10k slots per year at HYP-equivalent schools and 4m American 18yo in the pool suggests that students at the 99.75th percentile for ability should be admitted. Reasonable to believe this fellow should be admitted - especially given that his success extends beyond GPA and SAT.
Another issue at play is that signals like chess GM and running successful businesses are currently undervalued, so smart players underinvest in those; he's not trying to optimize for your metrics, so why should he look particularly good by them?
>Seb, how big are the populations in question?
I don't think this can be estimated -- it doesn't really affect my opinion on how the students should be selected anyway, as the remaining student body would just be selected for test scores/GPA and maybe a few slots would be left to the athletes for competitive purposes.
what if the asian is chad, verbally adept, and athletic 😉 though iq wise i freely admit my 3+ sigma mediocrity, by your analysis harvard ideally would only have an average of 130
i trust la griffe's estimation of verbal ability as the important underlying factor in per capita GDP, and it has explanatory power regarding asian achievement, but then i have a bit of verbal iq myself
indeed, i have had the opportunity to be independently wealthy several times, impractical only because of my unusual sleep genetics (nobody's perfect), and still might
it helps to be super forecaster like
I like this take but I also think there is a false dichotomy between things like test scores and things like extracurriculars. I think the Oxbridge selection system is pretty decent. It depends on test scores and subject-reasoning-specific interviews. It therefore uses how one performs in standardised testing _and_ how they reason in an interview.
By making the interviews specific to reasoning in a subject, they are less vulnerable to biases just towards the more amicable interviewees etc. But it does therefore assess more than something like the SAT - which is really a test of being able to reliably and quickly do _very basic_ cognitive puzzles, and thus fails to capture any assessment of higher level reasoning.
which university has the highest iq among the students caltech, mit?
Probably caltech based on test scores.
so its not a surprise that they have the highest percentage of asian students, specially female
I'm a little curious as to how athletics may be more significant than other extracurriculars. I have noticed that a lot of presidents were pretty skilled athletes in their youth, but is there any other information on a disproportionate number of successful people who were athletes?
Question: If my younger sibling got a 36 out of 36 on their ACT and a 1590 out of 1600 on their SAT and also got straight A’s in every quarter for every year during their time at an extraordinarily elite US university being a Computer Science major and Mathematics minor, what would their IQ be?
I don’t understand discriminating against Asians. Asians are more conformist, but they are responsible for numerous significant inventions prior to Europeans: printing press, gunpowder, compass, etc. Also they are not lacking in creativity considering the great art that has come out of Japan and Korea. Their intelligence isn’t just memorization. What would discriminating against them entail?
South Korea produces half as many highly cited studies as Switzerland. There is a lot of indirect evidence that Asians simply have a very low standard deviation, which is why the number of Asian geniuses will always be lower than that of Europeans. As for these inventions: they were made over a very significant period, and besides, before they fell into the hands of Europeans, they had a narrow and small application. the same printing was under the strictest ban. Personally, I don’t like the word discrimination: the one who needs it will always get through
The printing press was banned because allowing the common folk to read and write was seen as blasphemous basically everywhere until the Protestant revolution in Europe, it doesn’t have anything to do with some inherent passiveness of Asians. I just don’t think you can judge a group as wide as “Asians” to justify discrimination. Eminence is a difficult thing to measure anyhow.
Would be unnecessary imo, see Unz's article.
this one https://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
no, because the Jewish indicators are overestimated and, with the most optimistic forecasts, for every 1 Jewish super-intellectual there are 7 white super-intellectuals. Unpromising. fairy tales about superintellectuals fairy tales