Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

Granted UT Austin is really well ranked, that seems like a terrible move for the kids. Like, great, you got in to this really well regarded school, but your preparation to get there may well be considerably worse than nothing at all.

A key idea here is that being poor makes you do worse at high school relative to how well you would do at university. Being stupid probably doesn't. So being more generous to poorer students may result in getting an academically stronger set of students overall, whereas being more generous to stupider students won't.

(I don't know how true this "key idea" actually is. I can imagine ways in which poverty might disadvantage people that would persist through their time at university. But it seems plausible prima facie.)

It sounds like an award for breaking Goodhart’s law, but it’s amazing how many kids don’t know this one simple trick to getting good grades and getting into a nice university (study for tests using available prep material).

> psychologist prefer individual subtests rather then to assess the whole IQ of the individual, indicating that it is not the IQ it self which is useful, but rather the tests.

This aligns with my experiences during my ADHD diagnostic process.

Perhaps IQ can be useful to some degree at population levels, but I am not even sure about that -- way outside my area of expertise. I do strongly believe IQ falls apart at an individual level. At least, past a certain extent. I imagine IQ might be a decent predictor of outcomes for an individual if his or her IQ is below one standard deviation of average i.e., (IQ Person A has an IQ of 125, and person B hasn't an IQ of 130. Realistically, how much of difference can we expect in life outcomes for these people? How much does each single point actually matter? I've never been able to find a good answer to this either.

Another issue I have is that IQ testing seems to be a snapshot of all of one's particular factors and circumstances at that given time. I liken IQ testing to something like hunger testing. I do not believe intelligence is generally a constant value nor is something like hunger. Both are qualitative by nature anyway.

I'm sure we could create a "Hunger Quotient" and use it to measure hunger the way we measure intelligence. However, wouldn't one's hunger vary depending on prior circumstances and factors like when the last time one ate, how much one ate, how many calories one has burned since his or her last meal, etc.?

I imagine IQ is no different. If I deprived myself of sleep for more than 24 to 48 hours straight and then took an IQ test, then I wouldn't be surprised if my score was significantly lower than taking it when well rested. There are probably damn near infinite amount of factors -- Do you have test anxiety? Do you have any chronic conditions? Any recent, major life stressors? Do you even care about doing well on this IQ test?

My point is that IQ can only tell you how "intelligent" you are at that given point in time when you took that exact test. That makes me question the utility of it even more.

I understand research tries to control for these types of factors, and that the tests seem to have great reliability when retaken. However, in my experiences, it does not seem like there is any attempt to control for variables in a clinical setting where these test are most often administered...

Finally, I would like to mention Lewis Terman's fun experiment which I believe he started in the 1920s where he followed a group of 1500 or so "gifted" children throughout their lives and for the rest of his life. Of the 1500 or so gifted children, while still mostly successfully, apparently none of them went on to become anything noteworthy.

However, two children that were not included in the study due to having too low of an IQ, William Shockley and Luis Alvarez, both went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize separately and in separate fields.

I'm not saying this proves anything, but I do find it rather funny.

Is this a US thing because there has been so much debate on race, equity and etc? I thought this was obvious. Academic excellence arguably requires the least resources, which means the difference in social-economic status matters the least. All one needs is access to excellent books and internet resources, a competent teacher, and optionally a supporting community. And one driven kid can get all of them from libraries and the internet nowadays.

Besides, SAT and ACT are really simple tests. If one gets 1600 for SAT, it does not mean this person will excel in academics, but if one gets 800 for SAT, well, this person statistically is not smart enough to achieve academic excellence. Of course, this person can be smart in many other ways.