Topic: have they ever judged at what IQ score someone might have just 50/50 odds of doing a degree
boof started this discussion 1 year ago #120,263
I supposed type of degree would be relevant, though someone could be good at calculation-heavy study and hate reading and writing heavy work despite being good at it when struggling through the hate, or vice versa. Meaning that temperaments would complicate things.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 49 minutes later[^] [v] #1,316,485
Family income would be a better metric.
A poor genius doesn't get a degree, but a rich moron just might.
A poor genius doesn't get a degree, but a rich moron just might.
boof (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 29 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,502
@previous (B)
ohh well that's another thing altogether, where the fucker pretty much has other people do the actual work
ohh well that's another thing altogether, where the fucker pretty much has other people do the actual work
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 43 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,506
@previous (boof)
Or the school passes anyone who pays the tuition and shows up. Some programs have little homework, and give out extra credit to make it work.
Even STEM fields are easy to cheat on without hiring help, there are apps that will give you the step by step answers to complex math problems.
The #1 obstacle in getting a degree is money, it hasn't been a signal of academic ability for a long time.
Or the school passes anyone who pays the tuition and shows up. Some programs have little homework, and give out extra credit to make it work.
Even STEM fields are easy to cheat on without hiring help, there are apps that will give you the step by step answers to complex math problems.
The #1 obstacle in getting a degree is money, it hasn't been a signal of academic ability for a long time.
boof (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,509
OK, let's limit the discussion to a hypothetical place and time without that kind of bullshit.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,512
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,513
Standards have fallen off a cliff over the last 20 years. It used to be the case that you needed an IQ of at least 125 (top 5 percentile) to attempt a degree. Now a borderline retarded person (IQ of 75) would stand a good chance of passing.
boof (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,538
Jeepers! OK let's throw in a first year calculus requirement.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,561
IQ score meanings are changed over time to adjust for the Flynn effect. So the person above is suggesting that you needed a 125 IQ in 2000 to achieve a degree, which would today be measured as 140 for an Asian. For obvious reasons, that is a laughable opinion.Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 56 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,568
@previous (E)
That graph is laughable. It only shows one data point per region since IQ testing protocols were standardized in the 1990s.
That graph is laughable. It only shows one data point per region since IQ testing protocols were standardized in the 1990s.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,569
@1,316,561 (E)
> IQ score meanings are changed over time to adjust for the Flynn effect. So the person above is suggesting that you needed a 125 IQ in 2000 to achieve a degree, which would today be measured as 140 for an Asian. For obvious reasons, that is a laughable opinion.
Even if we accept the Flynn effect as being true (debatable) then firstly your interpretation of the graph is wrong. The difference for Asians would be be 5 or 6 points, not 15. Secondly you missed my point. I said standards of tertiary education have fallen, making it easier for somebody of poor to average intelligence to do a degree. For obvious reasons, it is a laughable opinion that a straw man is strong.
> IQ score meanings are changed over time to adjust for the Flynn effect. So the person above is suggesting that you needed a 125 IQ in 2000 to achieve a degree, which would today be measured as 140 for an Asian. For obvious reasons, that is a laughable opinion.
Even if we accept the Flynn effect as being true (debatable) then firstly your interpretation of the graph is wrong. The difference for Asians would be be 5 or 6 points, not 15. Secondly you missed my point. I said standards of tertiary education have fallen, making it easier for somebody of poor to average intelligence to do a degree. For obvious reasons, it is a laughable opinion that a straw man is strong.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,570
@previous (D)
Standards of education have fallen, and yet grades and IQ go up. Could it be that you are pulling things out of your butthole?
Standards of education have fallen, and yet grades and IQ go up. Could it be that you are pulling things out of your butthole?
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,571
100
Anonymous G double-posted this 1 year ago, 25 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,572
College isn’t difficult
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,573
@1,316,570 (E)
What happened between the mid 1970s and 2014 to raise global IQ scores? Those are the 2 most recent points plotted on the graph you provided.
What happened between the mid 1970s and 2014 to raise global IQ scores? Those are the 2 most recent points plotted on the graph you provided.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,575
@1,316,570 (E)
> Standards of education have fallen, and yet grades and IQ go up.
If you are incapable of contemplating how and why this might be possible then I can't help you.
By the way, also look up the reverse Flynn effect. You might find it quite interesting.
> Standards of education have fallen, and yet grades and IQ go up.
If you are incapable of contemplating how and why this might be possible then I can't help you.
By the way, also look up the reverse Flynn effect. You might find it quite interesting.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,576
boof (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,589
@1,316,572 (G)
> College isn’t difficult
depends who you are, I would say lots of people would have some difficulty, especially if trying to do as well as possible
> College isn’t difficult
depends who you are, I would say lots of people would have some difficulty, especially if trying to do as well as possible
boof (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,590
Is there any indication of what IQ is 50/50 related to achieving adequate first year calculus?
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,591
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,592
boof (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,599
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,602
boof (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,615
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 41 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,627
@previous (boof)
Just in general, I can assure you that nobody has done a probability estimate of passing Calculus class and filtered it to find out which IQ has 0.5 probability to do so. The answer is that IQ has very little to do with the real world and anybody could pass Calculus 1 with the correct education.
Just in general, I can assure you that nobody has done a probability estimate of passing Calculus class and filtered it to find out which IQ has 0.5 probability to do so. The answer is that IQ has very little to do with the real world and anybody could pass Calculus 1 with the correct education.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,640
@previous (E)
> IQ has very little to do with the real world
Except that it is the most accurate, most well researched, most understood, and most scientifically recognised and verified measure of intelligence we have.
> anybody could pass Calculus 1 with the correct education.
Depends what you mean by "pass".
> IQ has very little to do with the real world
Except that it is the most accurate, most well researched, most understood, and most scientifically recognised and verified measure of intelligence we have.
> anybody could pass Calculus 1 with the correct education.
Depends what you mean by "pass".
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,641
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,642
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,643
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,645
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,646
@previous (D)
That's what your mom said when I asked her if we should go back to her place, for sex!
That's what your mom said when I asked her if we should go back to her place, for sex!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
boof (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,654
well about IQ, I'll give you some history: it was at least originally developed to be a predictor of future achievement in school. As it turned out, IQ became the second best predictor of future achievement in school. The first best predictor is past achievement in school.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,692
@1,316,640 (D)
It doesn't really mean anything in the realm world. It measures only one type of intelligence and doesn't particularly do a good job of that.
It doesn't really mean anything in the realm world. It measures only one type of intelligence and doesn't particularly do a good job of that.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,702
@previous (E)
> It doesn't really mean anything in the realm [sic] world.
It does. Thanks.
> It measures only one type of intelligence
There is only one type of intelligence. All the others I think you might be referring to were concocted by low-IQ hipster armchair psychologists. Thanks.
> and doesn't particularly do a good job of that.
It does an extremely good and consistent job. Thanks. If you still don't think so, name a better standard measure of intelligence that is objectively better, has been studied in minute detail, and has had hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed research papers written about it over the last century.
> It doesn't really mean anything in the realm [sic] world.
It does. Thanks.
> It measures only one type of intelligence
There is only one type of intelligence. All the others I think you might be referring to were concocted by low-IQ hipster armchair psychologists. Thanks.
> and doesn't particularly do a good job of that.
It does an extremely good and consistent job. Thanks. If you still don't think so, name a better standard measure of intelligence that is objectively better, has been studied in minute detail, and has had hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed research papers written about it over the last century.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,703
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,704
@1,316,702 (D)
> extremely good and consistent job
No, it doesn't. Your results can vary wildly depending on several factors, including who administered the testing, what day of the week it was, what colors you wore, which side of bed you got out, etc
> extremely good and consistent job
No, it doesn't. Your results can vary wildly depending on several factors, including who administered the testing, what day of the week it was, what colors you wore, which side of bed you got out, etc
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,713
@1,316,703 (E)
@previous (F)
So you know better than thousands of professional psychiatrists, psychologists, anthropologists etc. some of whom have dedicated their lives to researching the subject.
Absolutely no point in arguing with you then.
@previous (F)
So you know better than thousands of professional psychiatrists, psychologists, anthropologists etc. some of whom have dedicated their lives to researching the subject.
Absolutely no point in arguing with you then.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,715
@previous (D)
"Thousands of professional psychiatrists, psychologists, anthropologists etc" aren't posting in this thread. It's just you.
"Thousands of professional psychiatrists, psychologists, anthropologists etc" aren't posting in this thread. It's just you.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 54 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,721
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,723
ITT: uneducated people jealous of the educated and trying to come up with excuses for why they only have a GED
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,730
@previous (H)
> ITT: uneducated people jealous of the educated and trying to come up with excuses for why they only have a GED
Lol, precisely.
> ITT: uneducated people jealous of the educated and trying to come up with excuses for why they only have a GED
Lol, precisely.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,813
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,015
@previous (I)
Most scholarships are awarded for two reasons:
1. Extracurriculars: For the most part clubs and activities that the wealthier participate in more because buying equipment and having a parent pay for membership fees and transportation. Some poor kids included for athletic scholarships. Little academic merit outside of those.
2. Diversity: Some black/brown financial aid, and a lot more free money for women to improve the sausage ratio of the school.
Look up a scholarship directory for colleges in your area, almost none of it has anything to do with actual academic performance.
Most scholarships are awarded for two reasons:
1. Extracurriculars: For the most part clubs and activities that the wealthier participate in more because buying equipment and having a parent pay for membership fees and transportation. Some poor kids included for athletic scholarships. Little academic merit outside of those.
2. Diversity: Some black/brown financial aid, and a lot more free money for women to improve the sausage ratio of the school.
Look up a scholarship directory for colleges in your area, almost none of it has anything to do with actual academic performance.