Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

files.eric.ed.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#71

Post by Jensson »

oarla wrote: post #70
Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

Are standardized tests an accurate measure of intelligence? IMO, they're more a measure of knowledge and perseverance. Having said that, I don't know what is the best measure of intelligence. There is certainly a genetic component to intelligence, but environmental factors have a big role to play as well.

> Are standardized tests an accurate measure of intelligence? IMO, they're more a measure of knowledge and perseverance.

Depends on the standardized test. Some are designed to test knowledge, others are designed to test more fundamental attributes.

ACT is more knowledge, SAT is more fundamental attributes. SAT is still a significant amount of knowledge, but not as focused on it as ACT.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#72

Post by 2devnull »

silverquiet wrote: post #53
2devnull wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem confused. If people are unequal then equality of outcome is impossible and not worth pursuing[1]. The only possible equality is equal opportunity which as you rightly point out isn’t really equal. But it’s the only possibility. Equality of outcome denies free will. [1] edit to clarify, I mean “not worth pursuing” past the point of equilibrium. We can improve equality of outcome to a point but then will hit a…

Here's my simplified way of thinking about equality at times - let's say you've worked hard all your life and have saved $2.5 million dollars - quite a nice sum. I just looked and Bill Gates stands at $128 billion. So 51,200 times more money. Do you think Bill Gates worked 51,200 times harder? Is he 51,200 times smarter? Better? Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable. I have no specific quarrel…

“Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable.“

Define justifiable. I would agree with “unfair.” Life is not fair. Is life “justifiable” to you? In nature, there are predators and prey, is that “justifiable”?

I like to simplify my thinking too, but your view seems inherently suppose almost superhuman discernment, that you (or other humans individually or collectively) can judge what is justified on a case by case basis without any concrete principals or criteria, and without bias! Doesn’t seem simple to me at all! How to distinguish the bill gateses from the other guys is a problem as old as civilization. There is more law and tax code written on this than you can ever hope to capture in your thinking. Ignoring policy and centuries of human knowledge isn’t “simple” as much as it is ignorance.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#73

Post by davorak »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #34
esotericimpl wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the research doesn't show this at all. However, having wealth provides tutors, better schooling and teachers which lead to better outcomes from having better mentors, opportunities and education which leads to... and so on and so on.

Right, that is step 6. If you go over the research, you realize that they all assume the premise "everyone is born with an identical blank slate". Which leads to conclusions (either said outright or implied) like; "If you give enough resources to any given child, they can grow up to be anything." So we end up with schools that serve low income areas getting enormous amounts of funding to teach admin assistants and ti…

> If you go over the research, you realize that they all assume the premise "everyone is born with an identical blank slate".

From my experience this is a large exaggeration to not true at all. For example the Colorado adoption project has been around has been around for a longer time and was well regarded last I checked.

Are there piles of hard science papers out there that are concluding "everyone is born with an identical blank slate" that I am missing?

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#74

Post by [deleted] »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

[deleted]

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#75

Post by refurb »

RajT88 wrote: post #54
refurb wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is that number 5 is not true, at least not in a direct way. Look at any family of 3+ siblings. Intelligence tends to vary significantly despite having the same parents.

Anecdata, but yes, I am not the smartest sibling in my family, but one of the wealthier ones. The "dumbest" one is potentially the wealthiest. The smartest one (hands down) is the least wealthy. This is besides the point though. Anecdata doesn't get at what happens on average, and that's what his post is about.

> Anecdata doesn't get at what happens on average, and that's what his post is about.

From what I've read, the inheritability of intelligence has a 0.50 correlation. That's not fantastic.

Post reply on HN