4 ms·

Again, you are only exposing group bias. Doctorates are largely predicated on test scores - they are a filter on who can access a defense committee - of course

Again, you are only exposing group bias. Doctorates are largely predicated on test scores - they are a filter on who can access a defense committee - of course those with doctorates will have higher prior test scores; those with high test score were intentionally picked as doctoral candidates, in part, because of their test score(s).

trendia 10y ago
What I think you're trying to say is that intelligence is irrelevant to getting a Doctorate because test scores, not intelligence, are the factor. But of course doctorates are based on test scores. That's because test scores are an indicator of intelligence, and so admissions committees filter based on test scores in order to filter on intelligence. So that means yes, admissions depends on test scores, but no, test scores are not independent of intelligence. That is: P(high IQ | high test score) > P(low IQ | high test score) What you're trying to say is that getting a doctorate a degree doesn't depend on intelligence, and is just an indicator of some "group bias". What I'm saying is that test scores are correlated with IQ. This implies that if you do not have high intelligence, it is going to be extremely difficult to get the test scores required to get into graduate school, and thus intelligence is required for admission. In other words, intelligence is indeed a necessary but not sufficient condition to get a graduate degree in STEM.
- dalke 10y ago
  No one thinks intelligence is irrelevant to getting a PhD. The question is, how do you know that getting a PhD relies "heavily on intelligence"? How do you know that intelligence has a strong or weak correlation? Or that there isn't some sort of threshold, where an effective IQ of at least 90 is important, but 140 is no more important? What other factors have you considered, and why have you concluded they are less significant to getting a PhD than the intelligence that can be measured by the SAT? jsprogrammer has, I think, a different point. Let's suppose that everyone has an equal chance of getting a PhD should they be admitted into graduate school. Let's also suppose that the selection committees believe that test scores are correlated with intelligence, and that only those with a high test score (and presumably higher intelligence) should get into graduate school. This would end up with PhDs who all had good test scores, simply because of the selection bias. It would not reveal anything about the underlying population, because it confounds any association between intelligence and getting a PhD. The people who get a PhD this way become members of a selection committee. They know the process worked for them, and repeat it, making this a stable system. How do you know that PhD students now aren't selected in part because of a cultural belief which places a higher weight on test scores than is justified? How much of an effect does that bias have on the correlations you keep pointing to?
  - trendia 10y ago
    OK, let's use your hypothetical that if we accept everyone, that they will have equal graduate attainment (regardless of test scores). Then, we would expect that there would be little correlation between testing scores and outcomes. Especially whether they get a degree. For instance, someone who gets a lower test score will have the same outcomes as someone who gets a higher test score. But that's not what the research suggests: > The report, which examined 1,753 studies, found that GRE scores could help predict students' graduate grade point averages, first-year GPAs, ratings from faculty, exam scores, degree attainment and number of citations earned. The specific subject tests were even stronger indicators of students' performance. http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/09/cover-success.aspx http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/09/cover-success.aspx
    - dalke 10y ago
      I specifically said that intelligence was a factor. The hypothetical was meant to show that your analysis was insufficiently sensitive, not to posit that the hypothetical was actually the case. You have an odd habit of pointing to secondary and preprint material, rather than the primary literature. Your APA links to several papers, including http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/HungryMind_PPS_2011.pdf http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/HungryMind_PPS_2011.pdf , titled "The Hungry Mind: Intellectual Curiosity Is the Third Pillar of Academic Performance". It concludes: > The current study suggests that traditional sets of predictors of academic performance, notably general intelligence and Conscientiousness, should be accompanied by a third factor: intellectual curiosity. Jensen (1998) stated that “[general intelligence] g acts only as a threshold variable that specifies the essential minimum ability required for different kinds of achievement. Other, non-g special abilities and talents, along with certain personality factors ..., are also critical determinants of educational and vocational success” (p. 544–545). A remarkable number of studies on determinants of academic achievement have focused exclusively on ability and effort; the present findings, however, recommend further expanding the “g-nexus” for a better understanding of individual differences in academic performance. The latter requires—beyond intelligence and effort—a hungry mind. It does say "intelligence is the single most powerful predictor of academic performance", then said: > intelligence sustained the strongest effect on academic performance with a path weight of .35. TIE and Conscientiousness had slightly lower, identical path parameters of .20. I believe that means that the other two legs together are more important than intelligence alone.

trendia 10y ago

What I think you're trying to say is that intelligence is irrelevant to getting a Doctorate because test scores, not intelligence, are the factor. But of course doctorates are based on test scores. That's because test scores are an indicator of intelligence, and so admissions committees filter based on test scores in order to filter on intelligence. So that means yes, admissions depends on test scores, but no, test scores are not independent of intelligence. That is: P(high IQ | high test score) > P(low IQ | high test score) What you're trying to say is that getting a doctorate a degree doesn't depend on intelligence, and is just an indicator of some "group bias". What I'm saying is that test scores are correlated with IQ. This implies that if you do not have high intelligence, it is going to be extremely difficult to get the test scores required to get into graduate school, and thus intelligence is required for admission. In other words, intelligence is indeed a necessary but not sufficient condition to get a graduate degree in STEM.

dalke 10y ago
No one thinks intelligence is irrelevant to getting a PhD. The question is, how do you know that getting a PhD relies "heavily on intelligence"? How do you know that intelligence has a strong or weak correlation? Or that there isn't some sort of threshold, where an effective IQ of at least 90 is important, but 140 is no more important? What other factors have you considered, and why have you concluded they are less significant to getting a PhD than the intelligence that can be measured by the SAT? jsprogrammer has, I think, a different point. Let's suppose that everyone has an equal chance of getting a PhD should they be admitted into graduate school. Let's also suppose that the selection committees believe that test scores are correlated with intelligence, and that only those with a high test score (and presumably higher intelligence) should get into graduate school. This would end up with PhDs who all had good test scores, simply because of the selection bias. It would not reveal anything about the underlying population, because it confounds any association between intelligence and getting a PhD. The people who get a PhD this way become members of a selection committee. They know the process worked for them, and repeat it, making this a stable system. How do you know that PhD students now aren't selected in part because of a cultural belief which places a higher weight on test scores than is justified? How much of an effect does that bias have on the correlations you keep pointing to?
- trendia 10y ago
  OK, let's use your hypothetical that if we accept everyone, that they will have equal graduate attainment (regardless of test scores). Then, we would expect that there would be little correlation between testing scores and outcomes. Especially whether they get a degree. For instance, someone who gets a lower test score will have the same outcomes as someone who gets a higher test score. But that's not what the research suggests: > The report, which examined 1,753 studies, found that GRE scores could help predict students' graduate grade point averages, first-year GPAs, ratings from faculty, exam scores, degree attainment and number of citations earned. The specific subject tests were even stronger indicators of students' performance. http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/09/cover-success.aspx http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/09/cover-success.aspx
  - dalke 10y ago
    I specifically said that intelligence was a factor. The hypothetical was meant to show that your analysis was insufficiently sensitive, not to posit that the hypothetical was actually the case. You have an odd habit of pointing to secondary and preprint material, rather than the primary literature. Your APA links to several papers, including http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/HungryMind_PPS_2011.pdf http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/HungryMind_PPS_2011.pdf , titled "The Hungry Mind: Intellectual Curiosity Is the Third Pillar of Academic Performance". It concludes: > The current study suggests that traditional sets of predictors of academic performance, notably general intelligence and Conscientiousness, should be accompanied by a third factor: intellectual curiosity. Jensen (1998) stated that “[general intelligence] g acts only as a threshold variable that specifies the essential minimum ability required for different kinds of achievement. Other, non-g special abilities and talents, along with certain personality factors ..., are also critical determinants of educational and vocational success” (p. 544–545). A remarkable number of studies on determinants of academic achievement have focused exclusively on ability and effort; the present findings, however, recommend further expanding the “g-nexus” for a better understanding of individual differences in academic performance. The latter requires—beyond intelligence and effort—a hungry mind. It does say "intelligence is the single most powerful predictor of academic performance", then said: > intelligence sustained the strongest effect on academic performance with a path weight of .35. TIE and Conscientiousness had slightly lower, identical path parameters of .20. I believe that means that the other two legs together are more important than intelligence alone.