4 ms·
If you're saying that lawyers and PhDs all have to score high on what's literally an IQ test, then I don't think that is true. You can become both without ever
by morsch 4y ago
If you're saying that lawyers and PhDs all have to score high on what's literally an IQ test, then I don't think that is true. You can become both without ever doing an IQ test, and as such there can be no filtering -- are those even routinely administered?
However, to succeed at higher education (and to get into it), especially written tests, you need to be good at some stuff that also means you'll be decent at an IQ test. That means they have some value, though I tend to agree that it means very little overall.
- mjburgess 4y agoAll law and medical schools i'm aware of require IQ tests for admission, they're often called "aptitude" or "admissions" tests
- morsch 4y agoYeah, that's not a thing here.
- User23 4y agoThe Abitur isn't a thing anymore?
- morsch 4y agoOf course it is, but it's not "literally an IQ test" in that the result is not an IQ. Universities don't require an IQ above 105 to apply, they require good grades. Apparently in other places, doctors and lawyers literally take an IQ test, which is bizarre. Or maybe the original poster has an unusually broad understanding of what's an IQ test, in that pretty much any (written?) examination qualifies. Which would transform his thesis from "IQs are a sham" to "any evaluation of specific aptitude and knowledge is a sham".
- User23 4y agoYes, I believe that's essentially his thesis, at least with respect to aptitude, based on my discussion with him in a sister thread. He's apparently referring to the MCAT and LSAT, which serve as entrance examinations for medical and law schools respectively. Similarly the SAT, which is the undergraduate entrance examination used by many schools, is a very good predictor for score on an actual IQ test. So much so that one can conflate the two without really being very wrong.