3 ms·

Kids who go to pre-k have a small advantage at first, but become statistically indistinguishable after a few years. So universal pre-k is not a great equalizer

Kids who go to pre-k have a small advantage at first, but become statistically indistinguishable after a few years. So universal pre-k is not a great equalizer. Teacher salary is so low because supply is too high [0]. The top 10% of teachers have a huge impact on the success of their students, but it's difficult to impossible to reward them [1]. On the other side of the coin it's practically impossible to fire incompetent teachers [2]. We might also need to increase funding for schools, but I don't believe it will work without fixing these other systemic problems. I think credentialism is really the core issue here. People use credentials as a proxy for merit because they lack better tools. The science is pretty solid around the correlation between IQ/EQ and workplace performance, but it's illegal to give IQ tests to potential hires. If you can't get into Harvard due to some social/economic issue, you may at least have a high IQ. The more useful metrics we give to hiring companies the closer we will likely get to meritocracy. [0]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/18/oversupply-elementary-education/1917569/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/18/oversu... [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/02/are-teachers-overpaid/there-are-simply-too-many-teachers https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/02/are-teacher... [2]: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/07/no_teacher_left_behind.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The science is pretty solid around the correlation between IQ/EQ and workplace performance, No, it's not, generally (the science around pretty much any practical application of any of the various different constructs identified as “EQ” is weak). > but it's illegal to give IQ tests to potential hires. No, it's not; specifically, it's not where there is clear evidence that IQ test given is closely tied to performance in the particular job being hired for. The idea that this is illegal is a myth based on a case where a particular instance was found to be illegal racial discrimination given it's disparate racial impact specifically because there was no demonstrated connection between job performance in the jobs being hired for to support that it was a bona fide test of job ability. IQ tests have been upheld by the courts subsequently when challenged when there was evidence that they were related to slecific job performance, including when a police department used scores above a certain level as a negative hiring signal.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  There is a strong correlation between national average IQ and GDP per worker [0]. >A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance [1]. >Beware of I.Q. tests. Many companies rely on I.Q. tests that are not professionally developed and have not demonstrated that only people with an I.Q. above a certain level can be successful in the job. Before administering any I.Q. test, you should make sure your legal counsel reviews the test, you know who developed it, you understand how it’s being applied and how the results will be used to screen candidates before you administer a test to any employee or applicant! The main issue when administering a pre-employment I.Q. test is, how can the "threshold" you set for hire/not-hire be defended? For example, if you state that an applicant must have an I.Q. of 108, can you demonstrate how an applicant or employee with an I.Q. of 107 is not capable of doing the job but a person with an I.Q. of 108 has what it takes to succeed? This is one important reason why many companies will not use I.Q. tests for pre-employment testing. [2] Basically, while technically IQ tests are not banned explicitly it's such a high risk legal venture that almost no one does it. Instead, they use other proxies such as credentialism, SAT scores, etc. [0]: https://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/IQandNationalProductivity.pdf https://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/IQandNationalProductivity.pdf [1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influences-your-success-at-work-2017-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influenc... [2]: https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Basically, while technically IQ tests are not banned explicitly it's such a high risk legal venture that almost no one does it. Instead, they use other proxies such as credentialism, SAT scores, etc. Which have exactly the same legal problem, the only advantage is they don't have the “this is illegal” myth about them, so are somewhat less likely to be challenged. But, the evidentiary requirements for them to be upheld if challenged is exactly the same, and most of them have as little (or less) scientific link to performance in the jobs they are used to hire for as IQ tests. If you evidence that IQ has a particular weight in job performance, using it as a hiring signal with that weight is not illegal (thresholding may be particularly problematic and hard to support, but that's something a red herring—using an IQ test doesn't require using it as a threshold-based filter rather than a weighted input to a multifactorial decision criteria. If you don't have that evidence and the use of the test has the effect of unequal impact against a protected class, it's illegal, but that's true of anything used as a hiring input, not something specific about IQ tests.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The science is pretty solid around the correlation between IQ/EQ and workplace performance, No, it's not, generally (the science around pretty much any practical application of any of the various different constructs identified as “EQ” is weak). > but it's illegal to give IQ tests to potential hires. No, it's not; specifically, it's not where there is clear evidence that IQ test given is closely tied to performance in the particular job being hired for. The idea that this is illegal is a myth based on a case where a particular instance was found to be illegal racial discrimination given it's disparate racial impact specifically because there was no demonstrated connection between job performance in the jobs being hired for to support that it was a bona fide test of job ability. IQ tests have been upheld by the courts subsequently when challenged when there was evidence that they were related to slecific job performance, including when a police department used scores above a certain level as a negative hiring signal.

Consultant32452 9y ago
There is a strong correlation between national average IQ and GDP per worker [0]. >A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance [1]. >Beware of I.Q. tests. Many companies rely on I.Q. tests that are not professionally developed and have not demonstrated that only people with an I.Q. above a certain level can be successful in the job. Before administering any I.Q. test, you should make sure your legal counsel reviews the test, you know who developed it, you understand how it’s being applied and how the results will be used to screen candidates before you administer a test to any employee or applicant! The main issue when administering a pre-employment I.Q. test is, how can the "threshold" you set for hire/not-hire be defended? For example, if you state that an applicant must have an I.Q. of 108, can you demonstrate how an applicant or employee with an I.Q. of 107 is not capable of doing the job but a person with an I.Q. of 108 has what it takes to succeed? This is one important reason why many companies will not use I.Q. tests for pre-employment testing. [2] Basically, while technically IQ tests are not banned explicitly it's such a high risk legal venture that almost no one does it. Instead, they use other proxies such as credentialism, SAT scores, etc. [0]: https://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/IQandNationalProductivity.pdf https://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/IQandNationalProductivity.pdf [1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influences-your-success-at-work-2017-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influenc... [2]: https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Basically, while technically IQ tests are not banned explicitly it's such a high risk legal venture that almost no one does it. Instead, they use other proxies such as credentialism, SAT scores, etc. Which have exactly the same legal problem, the only advantage is they don't have the “this is illegal” myth about them, so are somewhat less likely to be challenged. But, the evidentiary requirements for them to be upheld if challenged is exactly the same, and most of them have as little (or less) scientific link to performance in the jobs they are used to hire for as IQ tests. If you evidence that IQ has a particular weight in job performance, using it as a hiring signal with that weight is not illegal (thresholding may be particularly problematic and hard to support, but that's something a red herring—using an IQ test doesn't require using it as a threshold-based filter rather than a weighted input to a multifactorial decision criteria. If you don't have that evidence and the use of the test has the effect of unequal impact against a protected class, it's illegal, but that's true of anything used as a hiring input, not something specific about IQ tests.