• I've created a thread for feedback on the reaction/likes feature Feedback thread

Declining IQ of college grads

We award high school degrees for "special education" students now who cannot compete with average students. There's a lot of money in it. A whole slew of acts direct funding to making sure stupid people, most of all, are awarded degrees.
Cite?

In 1893 the Massachusetts supreme court upheld the expulsion of a student solely due to poor academic ability. My God, have times changed.
Yes, they have - for the better.

Generally the education-industrial complex likes to conflate stupidity with "disabilities", as if a moron was the same thing as Stephen Hawking being in a wheelchair.
Evidence?

When you increase the proportion of people attending school by 250% the education-industrial complex is the primary beneficiary.
In 1870 7 million children were enrolled in elementary schools in the US, and 80,000 (1%) were enrolled in secondary schools. 9,000 college degrees (0.1%) were awarded. In 1990 30 million were enrolled in elementary schools and 11 million (37%) enrolled in secondary schools. Over 1.5 million bachelor's and higher degrees (5%) were awarded.

That's a 3700% increase in the proportion who attended secondary school, and a 5000% increase in the proportion who got degrees. Imagine how much the 'education-industrial complex' benefited from that!

But this is the one place we are to never question economic motivations.
And yet here you are, doing exactly that.
 
...you would call them undergrads?



You probably wouldn't. The point was that I'm saying "undergrad" is not a common term outside of comparing with graduate studies. Others want to act like it is more the norm. It isn't. 'Cause it doesn't get used elsewhere, where it would be expected if it was more common.



I think you missed some stuff. Novaphile actually started this derail saying Americans seem to "graduate" a lot (in scare quotes). Darat also used "graduate" in scare quotes, also as if questioning its meaning. Having heard that before, I took the opportunity to ask about the distinction you are making, which maybe belongs in the Various English thread.

I suppose Darat said it most clearly: UK students graduate from secondary school, but are not thought of as graduates. A graduate, in the UK, means someone who has attained a college degree. So the term "high school graduate", meaning someone who has graduated high school, is not a graduate to you guys. Ok. Just curious why such a teensy usage difference needed mild scorn..

No, they do not graduate from secondary school, they simply leave school.

My school did give out a 'Lower School Certificate', which was individual to them, together with a prize-giving ceremony (a book) but no-one in the UK calls it 'graduating'.
 
That one was, in UK terms, explained in my other post.

Interestingly, it was not. My rhetorical question alluded to your post which was in concurrence, that we don't call grad students undergrads.

Yours was in a progression, so a "post graduate student" would refer to a course of study continuing to higher levels beyond the Bachelor's (or whatever). Zooterkins situation is a separate and unrelated course of study, starting lower than his already-secured graduation.

You bring up a further point of UK idiosyncracies, though: why do you guys assert that you have already explained things that you demonstrably haven't?
 
Last edited:
Returning yet again to the OP and ts currently mute presenter:

The meta-analysis of data in the study talked about in the OP article has been reviewed and rejected multiple times on multiple grounds. At this time, it is not accepted anywhere by any credible body.

Seems an initial validation before submitting to peer review confused the authors into thinking their work was accepted. It was not.

Rather glaring flaws were brought to the attention of Frontiers, including gross overstatements and flawed methodology, among other shortcomings.

Our intrepid OP seems to fancy himself as intellectually superior, and relishes in calling cognitively disabled people "stupid" and "morons".

I look forward to his intellectually robust defense of either the rejected study he holds dear, or perhaps a self reflective cautionary tale about confirmation bias and being suckered by ******* Twitter posts.

I expect a continuation of the embarrassed silence, though.
 
Last edited:
Returning yet again to the OP and ts currently mute presenter:

The meta-analysis of data in the study talked about in the OP article has been reviewed and rejected multiple times on multiple grounds. At this time, it is not accepted anywhere by any credible body.

Seems an initial validation before submitting to peer review confused the authors into thinking their work was accepted. It was not.

Rather glaring flaws were brought to the attention of Frontiers, including gross overstatements and flawed methodology, among other shortcomings.

Our intrepid OP seems to fancy himself as intellectually superior, and relishes in calling cognitively disabled people "stupid" and "morons".

I look forward to his intellectually robust defense of either the rejected study he holds dear, or perhaps a self reflective cautionary tale about confirmation bias and being suckered by ******* Twitter posts.

I expect a continuation of the embarrassed silence, though.

The OP has in other threads bragged about his kids being smart from home-schooling, and this thread appears to be more of the same.
 
The OP has in other threads bragged about his kids being smart from home-schooling, and this thread appears to be more of the same.

He is certainly proud of how well his kids have learned things over the years. I'll be interested in seeing how well they'll do as adults. Based on his postings to date, I suspect they'll be smarter than most of their peers, more willing to try things, and will be successful. If they are hired by a business, I think they'll be promoted quickly. If they start their own businesses, they'll likely succeed.

But then, every parent thinks their kids are the best!
 
He is certainly proud of how well his kids have learned things over the years. I'll be interested in seeing how well they'll do as adults. Based on his postings to date, I suspect they'll be smarter than most of their peers, more willing to try things, and will be successful. If they are hired by a business, I think they'll be promoted quickly. If they start their own businesses, they'll likely succeed.

But then, every parent thinks their kids are the best!

Thanks, that's a more positive attitude to it than I showed earlier.
 
Also how does the USA's strange "athletic" admissions feed into this?

If you're talking about the scandal where non-athletes of rich parents got into selective schools because they bribed (indirectly) the coaches, those kids almost uniformly would have graduated college, just not the prestigious one their parents wanted them to attend.
 
Last edited:
If you're talking about the scandal where non-athletes of rich parents got into selective schools because they bribed (indirectly) the coaches, those kids almost uniformly would have graduated college, just not the prestigious one their parents wanted them to attend.

I was not talking about that.
 
Isn't IQ meant to be inherent rather than something that can be taught?

It's messy, but what you are talking about is called g, some sort of innate intelligence, that we try to measure using IQ and other tests.

There is a strong argument for the heritability of g. But there also remains the tendency towards regression to the mean. All those terrific Bertie Wooster stories illustrate that quite clearly.
 
...But when society demands that everyone get a degree, the only possible result is that the degree becomes increasingly meaningless.

...As the OP noted, this is the inevitable result of a decades long push to give as many people as possible a "university education," in the process watering down its value.

I would come to the opposite conclusion. As our increasingly more complex society requires a higher degree of education and specialized training to function and succeed in, the degree becomes more valuable, if not indispensable. The only thing it loses is it's elitist reputation, which is probably a good thing.

Like, if you don't graduate high school, you're going to be limited in what you can do, barring some very unusual circumstances. I mean, unless you **** in the woods of your hunting and gathering village. You're probably not going to walk into a courtroom and keep up with someone with a law degree. Same same for everything from walking into an operating room to running an actuary program on a PC.

ETA: this thread should be retitled: Increasing Opportunity of a College Education Afforded to the Average Person.
 
Last edited:
It's messy, but what you are talking about is called g, some sort of innate intelligence, that we try to measure using IQ and other tests.

There is a strong argument for the heritability of g. But there also remains the tendency towards regression to the mean. All those terrific Bertie Wooster stories illustrate that quite clearly.

Bertie Wooster is not a real person. However, it remains true that the aristocracy never needed to work so they never bothered with intellectual pursuits, especially the females. For example, 'Queen' Camilla boasts of having just one O-Level and spent six months in a Swiss finishing school. Must middle class people would be embarrassed to even mention a lack of brainpower.

When I were t'lass the percentage of people getting 'distinction' grades in O-level or A-level was around the 5% to 10% mark. Yesterday's A-level results show something like 40% getting an A or an A-star.

But is that a better or worse situation? IMV intelligence is an innate quality that you are born with, rather like hair colour or height, so the idea of trying to make everybody intelligent is pointless. What is good though is the acceptance that everybody is entitled to a decent education, not just the intellectually capable. OTOH not everyone is interested in reading books and learning about history and science. Many adults never open a book once they have left school. This is neither good or bad, it just is.


However, I am glad that the spread of achievement is there because when I were t'lass I was marked down as 'able' and consequently had a huge amount of work placed on my shoulders because people such as myself reflected well on the teachers who were judged by the results of their pupils. They could always rely on me to come up with good results, so there was I with hours of homework every night and huge pressure to undertake ten O-Level subjects, all academic, swotting really hard, whilst my peers got to socialise and take things easy. Looking back, was it really necessary for me to have worked quite so hard? No, I don't think so. Glad that everybody now gets an A grade and not just the nerds and the girly swots.
 
Bertie Wooster is not a real person. However, it remains true that the aristocracy never needed to work so they never bothered with intellectual pursuits, especially the females. For example, 'Queen' Camilla boasts of having just one O-Level and spent six months in a Swiss finishing school. Must middle class people would be embarrassed to even mention a lack of brainpower.

When I were t'lass the percentage of people getting 'distinction' grades in O-level or A-level was around the 5% to 10% mark. Yesterday's A-level results show something like 40% getting an A or an A-star.

,,,snip....

How old are you? "Distinction" was added as a grade in the early 1950s and only lasted for about ten years until the early 1960s when the A-E grades were introduced.

When I did my A levels it was a set percentage for who could get what grade - so only the top 10% got an A grade. There has long been an argument made whether that is the correct way to grade or not, since the late 1980s in England it's been based on a pass mark regardless of the number obtaining that mark.
 
How old are you? "Distinction" was added as a grade in the early 1950s and only lasted for about ten years until the early 1960s when the A-E grades were introduced.

When I did my A levels it was a set percentage for who could get what grade - so only the top 10% got an A grade. There has long been an argument made whether that is the correct way to grade or not, since the late 1980s in England it's been based on a pass mark regardless of the number obtaining that mark.

Your dates cannot be correct*. It was 'pass', 'credit' or 'distinction' for O-Levels and letters for the A-Levels, 1970's. So it changed with the phasing out of the Tripartate system, which included amalgamating CSE's into the GCE's (O -Levels) to become GCSE's that we have today. But certainly not the 'early 60's' as you claim. It would have been post- early- to mid-1970's the changes came into effect.

You are right about the set number of grades being based on a presumed normal distribution rather than actual marks.

*ETA: here we are:

From June 1975 onwards until their withdrawal, O levels were graded on a 5-point scale of A-E, with A being the highest grade and E the lowest. The candidate has reached the standard of the former 'pass' at O level awarded before June 1975.

About O levels | Pearson qualifications

Pearson qualifications
https://qualifications.pearson.com › support-topics › abo...
 
Last edited:
These things change pretty much every time the Minister for Education does. The current system is entirely unlike anything even the youngest poster here went through.

Trying to compare A-levels of yore with A-levels of today is an execise in futility, they may have the same name, but they are not the same thing. It's like trying to equate O-levels with GCSEs (at least they had the good sense not to recycle the name in that instance). Then you've got your NVQs and GNVQs - these are names given to current qualifications that have absolutely zero link to now defunct qualifications that had the same name.

And then there's the abominable T-levels that Gove begat from his putrid coke-encrusted flaps. They still cling on, in some kind of horrific semi-existence, voicelessly begging to be allowed to die.
 
Last edited:
Your dates cannot be correct*. It was 'pass', 'credit' or 'distinction' for O-Levels and letters for the A-Levels, 1970's. So it changed with the phasing out of the Tripartate system, which included amalgamating CSE's into the GCE's (O -Levels) to become GCSE's that we have today. But certainly not the 'early 60's' as you claim. It would have been post- early- to mid-1970's the changes came into effect.

You are right about the set number of grades being based on a presumed normal distribution rather than actual marks.

*ETA: here we are:

The quote mentions O levels not A levels which is what my post talked about.
 
There is a lot of research about IQ levels and the factors which can influence it, here's a quick summary that I've gleaned over the years.

1. Genetics.
2. Nutrition and exposure to toxic substances during pregnancy.
3. A stimulating environment during first five years.
4. Adequate nutrition throughout childhood.
5. Exposure to language.

One that has been particularly fascinating to me, is about parents (and others) babbling 'baby talk' at developing children permanently affecting the child's ability to develop language skills.

This makes sense, to me, as the brain is trying to make language structures around nonsense, and it is doomed to fail.

I still shudder when I encounter adults who still use 'baby talk' in their normal interactions with other adults. (And wonder if they're dealing with permanent brain damage due to childhood language abuse.)
 
There is a lot of research about IQ levels and the factors which can influence it, here's a quick summary that I've gleaned over the years.

1. Genetics.
2. Nutrition and exposure to toxic substances during pregnancy.
3. A stimulating environment during first five years.
4. Adequate nutrition throughout childhood.
5. Exposure to language.

One that has been particularly fascinating to me, is about parents (and others) babbling 'baby talk' at developing children permanently affecting the child's ability to develop language skills.

This makes sense, to me, as the brain is trying to make language structures around nonsense, and it is doomed to fail.

I still shudder when I encounter adults who still use 'baby talk' in their normal interactions with other adults. (And wonder if they're dealing with permanent brain damage due to childhood language abuse.)

There is a competing theory that my wife was telling me about when we had kids: babies can't really make heads or tails of speech at the baby talk stage, and are quite constructively stimulated by the adults mimicking their speech type, as if reaching out for common ground. My wife was very free with baby talk to the babies. One ended up a practicing lawyer, two are in doctoral programs, and all three exceptionally eloquent. Anecdotal, sure, but guided by a mom who dedicated her career to the study of human behavior.

As they develop language skills, it's important to keep challenging them to raise the bar. I made a point of speaking in French and Spanish to them as much as I could. All three speak passable tourist Spanish , and one is school certified as bilingual and biliterate. FWIW.
 
I have been known to complain about a school policy that should be called:

"No child shall be allowed to get ahead."

It was my experience of primary school and high school, that they did their utmost to try and prevent me from getting an education. (They even went so far as to confiscate my books at school).

Fortunately that went away when I started my first degree.

Exactly so.

We took a tremendous amount of verbal abuse from the government school system for even suggesting our kids be enrolled at their academic level instead of their age group.

We visited the schools to show our kids what was going on in the defacto prison system. They told us what horrible parents we were.

This year, the local high school will finally allow our first son to enroll as a freshman.

But he's in his 5th semester of college taking calculus III and engineering. All the college cared about was scoring 100 on the math placement exam.

Our second son would be in 8th grade but he's in his freshman year at the University for the same reason.
 
It just burns like hell fire to see someone outside the government school system doing so well.

:):):):):):):)

No, you're reading that very wrongly. Posters here seem pretty indifferent to the "educational -industrial complex"(lol) and government prison schools, which you suddenly feel are where these alleged geniuses should be.

Also, you have unresponded-to posts criticizing your OP. An intellectually superior man would not continue to shy away from that. Did you want to discuss the thread topic you started, or bail when it was pointed out that you applied no critical thinking to it at all?
 
We took a tremendous amount of verbal abuse from the government school system for even suggesting our kids be enrolled at their academic level instead of their age group.
Verbal abuse, really?

We visited the schools to show our kids what was going on in the defacto prison system. They told us what horrible parents we were.
Schools are not a 'prison system'. Maybe they are right.
 
Back
Top Bottom