Requiring a college degree is a safe way to test an applicant without the consequence of discriminatory lawsuits.
In a lot of ways, college is just an expensive IQ test
And most people don’t have high IQ either.
By the very definition, they can’t. Even if the vast majority of people had an IQ if 140+, the definition of high would change.
Where exactly are you trying to go with this?
Allow for companies to select for the smartest people while not pushing the less intelligent into colleges when they shouldn’t be there in first place.
What is so hard to understand?
You seem to be conflating smart, educated, and qualified, when they are 3 unrelated items.
The only way what you propose would work is in a eugenic/communist type of society where people are sorted by intelligence and directed to work in fields according to a standardized system of generic qualification metrics.
Thats some sci-fi shit if I ever heard it.
edit: it works in the military to some extent, but is not a holy grail by any means.
2 Likes
So, no, the case doesn’t require it, and you posted it without understanding it.
Second, college degrees are useful not only because they show requisite subject matter knowledge but also because it shows ambition, trainability, and ability to see tasks through, which is fundamentally more useful to evaluating a candidate than an IQ test.
As a result, businesses use resumes to evaluate candidates (college degree or not, frankly) because it is a better tool to figure out a person’s chances of doing well, not out of fear of discriminatory lawsuits. There isn’t a single business that would rather use IQ tests but fear doing so. That’s idiotic, and it’s as though you have no knowledge of how actual business works.
Honest question - where do you get this nonsense you peddle from? A website?
1 Like
Outside of philosophy no surprises here. Maybe philosophy students are those with their eyes on law school?
Do you happen to know what your own is?
2 Likes
You know what’s funny about this? (Besides the fact that you stole this from a website without attributing the source, despite the author’s written request on the webpage that you ask him for permission before reprinting it)
The “IQ Scores” on this graph aren’t actual IQ scores.
They’re estimated IQ scores based on the students’ SAT scores.
“The answer comes from the fact that the IQ score here is estimated from the students’ SAT score.”
It would be really nice if you started reading the crap you posted before posting it to make sure that it actually means what you think it means.
For anyone else interested, the full description can be found on a website by Randal Olson, a data scientist at Penn. His full entry describes a great deal more than just a simple graph of IQ scores vs. percentage of female majors, by the way.
3 Likes
Yeah, I’m trying to figure out what business (if any) would prefer to screen employees with an IQ test rather than i) a more job-specific test (which is very explicitly ALLOWED by the case that raj posted) or ii) an evaluation of the student’s educational background and skill set.
None, and my guess is Raj is peddling some theory obtained from one of his creeper racist websites insisting on the value of IQ as a way to get society to sort into castes based on race - as in, companies will hire on IQ, freed from the restraints of lesser testing imposed by law or political correctness, and we all know the whites have the high IQs and blacks and Hispanics have lower ones, and the right and good “smart” people will claim their proper place in society according to what nature intended. Also, insert gender for race and “justice” is accomplished as well.
Right, Raj?
Well of course you guys don’t know of any businesses that want to test for IQ.
- it’s illegal to test for IQ
- that court case I posted dates back to 1971 things have changed substantially in the past 45 years?
What I do know is the aggregate student debt in America has reached $1.3 Trillion and that bubble is going to pop sooner rather than later.
When it does what’s old will become new again.
I’m for a meritocracy why aren’t you?
That doesn’t answer the question - my description of what you think should happen is accurate, right?
Actually I think we’ll see more minorities in higher positions in the private sector because poverty disproportionately effects non-whites.
Alphabet (formerly google) has run an open call for prospective employees in Mensa’s Bulletin for years.
Also, what makes you think that employers want people with higher IQ? It isn’t a good idea to have very smart people in most positions. Smart enough is preferable, which often means less is better.
You have someone too smart for the task in the wrong place and they’ll end up fucking the company up to the tune of like-67.5 million dollars. Like I did.
My IQ is only like 147, which I think is considered about average iirc.
But what do you mean ‘like I did’?
1 Like
Like I did.
The short version- I was already pissed about a few other things at a place I worked. I fanagled myself into position using a machine that requires some esoteric knowledge and technique to make some essential and very difficult parts. Once in that position, I produced enough for a partial fulfillment of the contract (50 out of 150 items). Then I quit. Without anybody to do what I was doing, they lost the contract for the remaining 100 @ 675K per item.
I figured that would fuck’em pretty hard, but not that hard. For their own part, they should have had better people and training in place. Redundancy is only redundant until you need it.
edit: 147 is well above average. I think 140 and up is in the top 2%
And?
Is it really far fetched to you that people in STEM majors are higher IQ on average than most other majors?
Look at this chart and below it is a link to a pdf from NYU prof Wolff. I won’t ask you to read 85 pages, but scroll to charts at end of paper and be amazed. http://appam.confex.com/data/extendedabstract/appam/2012/Paper_2134_extendedabstract_151_0.pdf
I not campaigning for socialism, collectivism, or the like. But the US has nearly the worst wealth distribution in the world, to complement a host of societal ills like % of children in poverty. These make no sense in a country that owns 41% of the world’s wealth.