Social College students' average IQ has plunged

[kahiljabroni]

What's it even matter? Merit based achievement is dead in the workplace anyway.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Whatever... lol

I had great old professors for my engineering degree.

I got into the water treatment industry and emailed one of my professors about a project I was doing near the campus for a Water Reuse Facility in downtown Denver.

Dude was so excited, he asked if he could bring out his classes for a field trip.

I got to give a tour and it was amazing to catch up with my professor. I could tell he was also proud to see how I ended up.

Nobody said old professors can't be great. Some of them certainly are.

However, I would be willing to bet that, on average, the older a professor gets, the less they give a shit about their job or simply can't do it as well they once could. It's no different than any other profession.

Also, I will guarantee that some of your old professors were definitely dogshit lol. You guys are so quick to make blanket statements that are all or nothing.

Some old professors are there to teach and are genuinely great at what they do. Some old professors are there because they retired from their field, want to show up hungover, and don't give a shit...and that's if they show up at all lol. I had one professor, probably in his early to mid 60s, straight up cancel class for anywhere between half to 3/4 of the semester. He ended up passing everyone in the class. Thankfully, it was a bullshit class that I had to take that really wasn't aimed at my degree anyway.

 

[tenniswhiz]

This really wasn't my experience in a STEM field. The best teachers were usually in their 40-50s while the older professors mailed it in because they were old, hungover, and had been doing the same job for 40 years and didn't care anymore lol.

STEM fields don’t have too many of the younger hip professors he was mentioning. They exist in record numbers in other fields and probably have a lot to do with the thread topic.

 

[Bia]

yeah but those 1940 students would get zeros in todays gender studies examination

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Yeah I blame SoMe and especially TiKToK.
It has made people dumber no doubt.

- Dont forget watching basket after Sha-king retired!

 

[LeonardoBjj]

I have never heard of that University and don't know how long they were shooting vids to accumulate what they got, but some of that, while sad, things on history and geography and stuff I am not surprised about because that usually involves an inquisitive mind and a lot of people don't have those for things that affect them in the here and now.

But the basic math of things like 15 times 3 it very odd to me because that effects people in the here and now so much. How does one function in society being that ignorant of basic math? Like just going to a store and you buy a few things, when you get to the register do you just trust whatever number comes up right if it could be way off the reality of what it should be? Especially when 15 is such a common interval for time. Setting up meetings etc 30 minutes and hour, 45. Or show playtimes and stuff. How does someone do budgeting, savings/investment decisions, understand salaries and taxes etc with such piss-poor numeracy?

That just is mind boggling to me.

- When i go to the local market/grocery store, the kid attending uses a calculator to the more simple equations. So i assume that theres the same. My dad never got a degree in any-thing, but was great on math, because he worket at his dad grocery store since very young.

And when were kids, we used to poke fun at my dad, because he was always calculating alleatory things, like the numbers on car licenses. As a got older i ended with the same habit. It's end it's fun.

But i am not great in math!

 

[lilelvis]

The daycare generations.

 

[PBAC]

wait ... IQ was always preached as one of those stationary forms of intelligence that doesn't increase or decrease. It was meant to be a barometer for potential. I thought that was why IQ tests are always similar but the questions were diversified such as different forms of pattern recognition so you can't truly learn to master the tests.

 

[Seano]

What's it even matter? Merit based achievement is dead in the workplace anyway.

Seems like that would make it even more important to have standards in education to me.

 

[panamaican]

I said it a page ago and I'll repeat here.

The Flynn effect has been raising IQs for decades. An IQ of 100 now is 20+ points higher than an IQ of 100 in 1939.

For a conversation about IQ, it's ironically unintelligent to ignore relevant elements like the Flynn effect.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Seems like that would make it even more important to have standards in education to me.

I'm saying that people aren't hired or promoted based on performance.

 

[dirtypablo]

I said it a page ago and I'll repeat here.

The Flynn effect has been raising IQs for decades. An IQ of 100 now is 20+ points higher than an IQ of 100 in 1939.

For a conversation about IQ, it's ironically unintelligent to ignore relevant elements like the Flynn effect.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't believe the Flynn effect is raising IQ, the Flynn effect is the name for the raise in measured IQ observed in the last 100 or so years. Its just the name for an observed phenomenon, not the cause of that phenomenon.

 

[panamaican]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't believe the Flynn effect is raising IQ, the Flynn effect is the name for the raise in measured IQ observed in the last 100 or so years. Its just the name for an observed phenomenon, not the cause of that phenomenon.

IQ is just a relative measurement of a characteristic. As a result of increases in the measured characteristic, IQ tests are constantly re-normed to set the baseline at 100 (an IQ of 100 means that 50% of the population did better, 50% of the population did worse). What this means in practice is that as the general IQ of society is increased, the tests reset the midpoint, IQ 100, at higher thresholds of performance.

To put it in numerical terms (but completely made up for this example), on an old IQ test, getting 60 questions right would mean an IQ of 100 (50% above, 50% below). But over the years, test creators realize that the midpoint number of questions correct has risen to 62 questions. So they reset the IQ of 100 to 62 questions correct, instead of 60.

That means that someone taking the new test would have to get 62 questions right to earn an IQ of 100 on the test, while older generations only had to get 60 questions. Even though the IQ score is the same number, the new test takers are actually outperforming the old test takers. They are "smarter" than the previous generation even though the IQ score is the same. This is because IQ is relative to the tested population, it's not an absolute number across generations.

Here, we know that test takers are getting more questions right every year to the extent that the midpoint is increasing by 3 points every decade. What that means is that every decade, the population is "smarter". But the tests get recalibrated so that "normal" stays at 100, whether IQ 100 = 60 questions in 1939 or 70 questions in 2019. The population getting 70 questions correct is the "smarter" population but their IQ is the same 100 as the people getting 60 questions right in 1939.

Here, IQ has moved ~24 points in the last 80 years. Which means that the current population has to score the equivalent of a 120 IQ in 1939 to get a 100 IQ on the modern tests.

Or to reverse the numbers, someone with an IQ of 100 in 1939 would only an IQ of 80 on a modern test.

So, the modern college student with an IQ of 100 is still smarter than the 1939 student with an IQ of 117.

And this is essential to understanding why the claim that college students IQ hasn't really plunged in the context of ability.

 

[dirtypablo]

IQ is just a relative measurement of a characteristic. As a result of increases in the measured characteristic, IQ tests are constantly re-normed to set the baseline at 100 (an IQ of 100 means that 50% of the population did better, 50% of the population did worse). What this means in practice is that as the general IQ of society is increased, the tests reset the midpoint, IQ 100, at higher thresholds of performance.

To put it in numerical terms (but completely made up for this example), on an old IQ test, getting 60 questions right would mean an IQ of 100 (50% above, 50% below). But over the years, test creators realize that the midpoint number of questions correct has risen to 62 questions. So they reset the IQ of 100 to 62 questions correct, instead of 60.

That means that someone taking the new test would have to get 62 questions right to earn an IQ of 100 on the test, while older generations only had to get 60 questions. Even though the IQ score is the same number, the new test takers are actually outperforming the old test takers. They are "smarter" than the previous generation even though the IQ score is the same. This is because IQ is relative to the tested population, it's not an absolute number across generations.

Here, we know that test takers are getting more questions right every year to the extent that the midpoint is increasing by 3 points every decade. What that means is that every decade, the population is "smarter". But the tests get recalibrated so that "normal" stays at 100, whether IQ 100 = 60 questions in 1939 or 70 questions in 2019. The population getting 70 questions correct is the "smarter" population but their IQ is the same 100 as the people getting 60 questions right in 1939.

Here, IQ has moved ~24 points in the last 80 years. Which means that the current population has to score the equivalent of a 120 IQ in 1939 to get a 100 IQ on the modern tests.

Or to reverse the numbers, someone with an IQ of 100 in 1939 would only an IQ of 80 on a modern test.

So, the modern college student with an IQ of 100 is still smarter than the 1939 student with an IQ of 117.

And this is essential to understanding why the claim that college students IQ hasn't really plunged in the context of ability.

You didn't really address what I said. You said the Flynn effect was raising IQ scores. Maybe that's not what you meant and I was being overly semantic, but my comment was purely aimed at the statement, 'The Flynn effect has been raising IQ.' The Flynn effect doesn't raise IQ, its just the name for the observed increase in IQ.

I agree that its worth pointing out the fact that measured IQ has pretty consistently trended upwards in a thread about a supposed drop in IQ. The explanation for the drop was clearly stated in the OP, but it didn't stop the usual suspects from declaring that society is going to hell in a handbasket.

 

[panamaican]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't believe the Flynn effect is raising IQ, the Flynn effect is the name for the raise in measured IQ observed in the last 100 or so years. Its just the name for an observed phenomenon, not the cause of that phenomenon.

I should add that what the decrease in IQ scores tells us is that the average college student is no longer smarter than the general population.

But the average college student today is still smarter than the average college student from 80 years ago.

Which actually a good thing. If the general population today is smarter than the college population of 80 years ago then society is better off if we can harness that properly.

 

[panamaican]

You didn't really address what I said. You said the Flynn effect was raising IQ scores. Maybe that's not what you meant and I was being overly semantic, but my comment was purely aimed at the statement, 'The Flynn effect has been raising IQ.' The Flynn effect doesn't raise IQ, its just the name for the observed increase in IQ.

I agree that its worth pointing out the fact that measured IQ has pretty consistently trended upwards in a thread about a supposed drop in IQ. The explanation for the drop was clearly stated in the OP, but it didn't stop the usual suspects from declaring that society is going to hell in a handbasket.

Ok, that's fair. I didn't read my comment the way you interpreted it but it's a fair interpretation.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

Probably because more people are going to college now. Lower admissions standards= more kids = more $

 

[dirtypablo]

Ok, that's fair. I didn't read my comment the way you interpreted it but it's a fair interpretation.

In either case, I agree it should be mentioned in a thread about a supposed drop in IQ. There's a clear reason for the specific drop (a larger percentage of the population going to college), and the overall trend is upwards. Anyone ignoring those two facts is just an old man yelling at clouds.

 

[panamaican]

In either case, I agree it should be mentioned in a thread about a supposed drop in IQ. There's a clear reason for the specific drop (a larger percentage of the population going to college), and the overall trend is upwards. Anyone ignoring those two facts is just an old man yelling at clouds.

I think it's more about the current anti-college narrative being pushed and the desire to devalue higher education because college students tend to view social issues liberally.

That said I do agree with the idea that the standards for admission to college should increase to reflect the higher abilities of the current population. The problem with that is that we have to increase the focus on early education by a significantly higher amount before we start worrying about college and I don't think there's any real desire to do that in a meaningful way.

 

[icemun]

I think it's more about the current anti-college narrative being pushed and the desire to devalue higher education because college students tend to view social issues liberally.

That said I do agree with the idea that the standards for admission to college should increase to reflect the higher abilities of the current population. The problem with that is that we have to increase the focus on early education by a significantly higher amount before we start worrying about college and I don't think there's any real desire to do that in a meaningful way.

Slightly off tangent

With some of the advances in AI, Im curious what benefits higher education are going to have.

Even for the most erudite and professional occupations.