ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) wrote:
Would you dismiss strong correlations between IQ and success in life and academia as something irrelevant?
Remember: Correlation is not causation. In this as in many other correlations, unreported third factors can strongly affect the outcome. In England, Cyril Burt devised an IQ test given to English school children at age 11 in order to decide whether they should proceed through the trade school system or university system. Unsurprisingly, those with higher IQs at age 11 (whatever the reason) typically received better educations and greater monetary success in life. In France, you may find that rich parents correlate well to "success in life and academia" substantially because they achieve more frequent placement in polytechnical institutions which correspond to the best universities in the U.S. and Canada. Poorer students, independently of IQ, usually go to less capable institutions. In the U.S., the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT) administered by ETS is often required for people applying for post-graduate studies. The obstensible reason is that it gives an indication of the probable ability of the applicant to succeed in the course. By ETS's own figures, the correlation is only 30% with successful completion of one year of studies and lower for full completion. There are higher correlations for other factors (incoming institution, age), yet the GMAT number is still mandatory. The draw of a single number is compelling. Did I mention that ETS is also a monopoly. Ciao, James If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. "What hit him?" "I don't know, I didn't see."