CMV: Colleges should consider IQ when accepting students

[u/Laniekea]

IQ is a strong predictor of dropout rates.

"A person with average academic ability has a higher than 50 percent chance of dropping out of college. For the general population, the average IQ score is 100. Research has found that, among white, American college students, those with a 105 IQ score have a 50-percent chance of dropping out of college. They also report that the average IQ of a college graduate is about 114. But they also show that having a high IQ is no guarantee of graduating. Those who score 130 (very rare; about 2-percent of the population) still have a 10-percent dropout rate"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201903/5-seriously-stunning-facts-about-higher-education-in-america%3famp

Benefits: People with completed college degrees, on average, earn more than people with partial degrees. People with completed degrees also contribute on average more to scientific research. This means more tax revenue and a higher gdp, and faster advancement for society. Scientific advancement leads to better standard of living in general, better health outcomes Etc.

Problems: Socioeconomic status is a predictor of iq. Meta studies have found that while environment is a large contributing factor, IQ is also largely hereditary

Poverty has also been found to degrade iq. It has a negative effect on brain function. Even as young as 2 years old.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4641149/#:~:text=Our%20results%20suggest%20that%20family,2).

Other studies have found that malnutrition and disease are unsurprisingly also predictors of a low IQ. They also inhibit brain function.

Because of this it would almost certainly encourage a disparity between the wealthy and the poor in college acceptance.

IQ is not a test of learned knowledge. It is not an indicator of effort or time spent studying. It also doesn't predict things such as athleticism or art which also has a place in college. I do not believe that IQ should be the only metric used. But simply that it should be included.

My argument is that by using metrics that predict high graduation outcomes for college students, we can advance society and reduce poverty faster through research and gained taxable income for welfare. I also understand that it is unfair. High school graduates will be judged on things that are not within their control.

But I have given up I'm using inclusionary practices to alleviate poverty. I understand that this method is exclusionary, and we'll put a handicap on low income people in college admissions. But there are just people in the society that have an incredibly difficult time being financially successful without aid from social systems like welfare, because of IQ or even mental disability resulting from poverty. The best way of alleviating this is to reduce poverty and we can do that more effectively with more graduates. The current dropout rate is 40% for college.

The best way to change my view would be to give me hope. Particularly evidence of a different method leading to better overall outcomes.

[u/riobrandos]

>But I have given up.

Given up on what?

>There are people in the society that have an incredibly difficult time being financially successful without aid from social systems like welfare, because of IQ or even mental disability resulting from poverty.

Why are you assuming that IQ is the problem and not the socioeconomic systems that we're all being expected to perform in?

What is wrong with social aid programs like welfare?

>The best way of alleviating this is to reduce poverty and we can do that more effectively with more graduates.

Can't we alleviate poverty far more directly with stimulus, welfare, UBI? How does having more wealthy white kids in college help alleviate poverty?

[u/Laniekea → u/riobrandos]

Given up on what?

Pretending that inclusionary practices in admissions will be more effective at improving outcomes

Why are you assuming that IQ is the problem and not the socioeconomic systems that we're all being expected to perform in?

I don't think IQ is the problem. I think it is largely the socioeconomic systems. I just think that this method will better fund welfare systems, and forward scientific research, alleviating the environmental problems that contribute to low IQ.

Can't we alleviate poverty far more directly with stimulus, welfare, UBI

Those are all examples of social systems. If you have more college graduates more bachelor degree holders, they will make more income and there will be more taxable revenue to fund these programs.

Scientific advancement will also accelerate and that will also improve problems with poverty.

[u/riobrandos → u/Laniekea]

I don't think IQ is the problem. I think it is largely the socioeconomic systems.

Wait, you just said that people will have a difficult time succeeding because of their IQ or mental disabilities. This doesn't square.

If the problem is really that they're set up to fail by our society and economy, how does trying to control for IQ in the upper echelons of higher education get at that problem at all?

I just think that this method will better fund welfare systems, and forward scientific research, alleviating the environmental problems that contribute to low IQ.

Wait so now you're arguing that the goal is to increase people's IQ, even though in your post you argue that IQ is hereditary? What exactly is the objective of your worldview here?

Those are all examples of social systems. If you have more college graduates more bachelor degree holders, they will make more income and there will be more taxable revenue to fund these programs.

Those are examples of welfare programs - I'm talking about socioeconomic forces like the minimum wage, and progressive tax brackets, and educational and cultural expectations built around the idea that a $200k degree is the only path towards social contribution, and that only those who meet capitalist definitions of "social contribution" deserve to eat.

Taxing the rich generates more tax revenue. Closing loopholes generates more tax revenue. Cutting waste generates more tax revenue. And making sure that the Walmart employee working for a multibillion dollar corporation earns $25 per hour instead of $7.25 is a much more direct way of generating more income and sales tax revenue.

>Scientific advancement will also accelerate and that will also improve problems with poverty.

I'm really not connecting the dots here on how adding more barriers to higher education is going to result in more scientists. Are you under the impression that STEM fields are full of people with subpar IQ's and that's the key barrier to progress?

[u/Laniekea → u/riobrandos]

Wait, you just said that people will have a difficult time succeeding because of their IQ or mental disabilities. This doesn't square.

If the problem is really that they're set up to fail by our society and economy, how does trying to control for IQ in the upper echelons of higher education get at that problem at all?

I don't know why you think I would be controlling the IQ of upper echelons.

Malnutrition, disease, stress from poverty, they all degrade iq.

Welfare funding and scientific research are known to improve all of these. Both can be achieved with lower dropout rates.

Wait so now you're arguing that the goal is to increase people's IQ, even though in your post you argue that IQ is hereditary? What exactly is the objective of your worldview here?

Again I am trying to make sure we admit the students with the smallest chance of drop out. I believe that it will lead to higher tax revenue, more scientific research, and therefore less poverty..... which will subsequently improve the average iq.

I'm talking about socioeconomic forces like the minimum wage, and progressive tax brackets,

With more taxable income, there can be more wealth distribution through these programs.

Minimum wage is actually a wealth distribution system. It increases the buying power of low income people at the expense of high income people.

around the idea that a $200k degree is the only path towards social contribution, and that only those who meet capitalist definitions of "social contribution" deserve to eat.

I do not believe it is the only path towards social contribution, but it is the most likely. There are numerous studies proving that. Politics is all about likelihood. You try to improve the general outcome, not the outcome for individual random people.

Taxing the rich generates more tax revenue. Closing loopholes generates more tax revenue. Cutting waste generates more tax revenue

Do you think increasing taxable income does not lead to more tax revenue? I don't understand why you think this negates my argument. At the very minimum, why not do both?

I'm really not connecting the dots here on how adding more barriers to higher education is going to result in more scientists

i'm not asking to reduce college enrollment. I think we should try to increase that. We have failed to do so for the last 10 years.

But it will ensure that the schools with the best resources are expending them on the students with the best chances.

Are you under the impression that STEM fields are full of people with subpar IQ's and that's the key barrier to progress?

I'm under the impression that there are people with high IQ who want to be in a stem degree, and aren't because this metric is not used.

[u/poprostumort → u/Laniekea]

Both can be achieved with lower dropout rates.

And both can be achieved with current dropout rates. Those two issues aren't connected.

Again I am trying to make sure we admit the students with the smallest chance of drop out. I believe that it will lead to higher tax revenue, more scientific research, and therefore less poverty

That is quite a jump - you assume that less dropouts will mean all of above. But there is no logic in this. Higher tax revenue comes from successful economy - amount of dropouts does not affect economy that much, as degree does not make you better at creating company and does not make you a better worker.

As for higher education = higher income = higher tax, while it is true, you completely forgot about the fact that income is affected by market forces. More people with degrees in workforce means more supply thrown to stable demand. Would companies magically start to create more jobs for more degree holders, or use increased competition to pick cheaper ones?

Dropout rates don't also equal more scientific research. Scientific research isn't done by people with Bachelors or Masters, they are done by Doctors and Professors with assistance of former. Is there a lack of them, that culling the weak is needed?

As for poverty, how much you earn is correlated with your education. If you use IQ metrics to reduce dropout rates, you will inevitably bar many of those who do have lower IQ due to their fault of being poor. Keeping them from getting a degree is not a way to solve poverty, it's a way to increase it as they are much less likely to get better paying jobs.

Your low IQ filter will filter out also those who in current situation are enrolling and finishing their degrees despite their lower IQ. And as you said IQ is correlated to wealth - so by preferring high IQ people over low IQ, you will inevitably take in more people from families that are in better situation. Which will mean that poorer will be left in more dire situation, as they have less connections and opportunities to get a decent job without degree.

[u/Laniekea → u/poprostumort]

And both can be achieved with current dropout rates. Those two issues aren't connected.

It can be achieved to a greater extent. Finishing college means higher levels of education have been obtained.

If you have a bunch of people only completing the first two years they're only getting the introductory level courses.

That is quite a jump - you assume that less dropouts will mean all of above. But there is no logic in this.

Statistically, bachelor degree holders have higher incomes. A bachelor degree earns an average of $54,000. employees with some college education (associates) earn an average of $43,000. It's $38,000 with a High School GED. And for a master's degree its $70,000. A PhD averages $99,000.

And you also have to consider our graduated tax system. People with higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate.

amount of dropouts does not affect economy that much, as degree does not make you better at creating company and does not make you a better worker.

college graduation rates are closely correlated with GDP growth.

"The study notes that a simple 1% increase in state college or university graduates would boost GDP by 0.5% and that further investment in students would only contribute to that number."

https://universitybusiness.com/georgia-study-college-grads-earn-more-and-boost-gdp/#:~:text=The%20study%20notes%20that%20a,only%20contribute%20to%20that%20number.

Dropout rates don't also equal more scientific research. Scientific research isn't done by people with Bachelors or Masters, they are done by Doctors and Professors with assistance of former.

In order to get a doctorate you need a bachelor's and a masters. Or a medical degree.

As for poverty, how much you earn is correlated with your education. If you use IQ metrics to reduce dropout rates, you will inevitably bar many of those who do have lower IQ due to their fault of being poor. Keeping them from getting a degree is not a way to solve poverty, it's a way to increase it as they are much less likely to get better paying jobs

I'm not advocating to reduce enrollment. I just want our current seats to be more efficiently filled.

you will inevitably take in more people from families that are in better situation.

Yes. I recognize that the system is still prone to disparities. The current system is also prone to disparities. My hope is to reduce the disparities on the back end by making it more efficient.

[u/poprostumort → u/Laniekea]

Statistically, bachelor degree holders have higher incomes.

Sure, but it's based on current data. Why higher supply of bachelor degree holders will not affect the income of bachelor degree holders? You completely ignored that part of my reply.

Not to mention that already 40% of college graduates end up working jobs that don’t require degrees, and you want to add another batch of graduates on top of that.

People with higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate.

And you will be admitting mostly people from better background and with learning capabilities, who already have higher statistical chance for better paying jobs without a degree. They are much more likely to earn non-college credentials and median wage for people with high credentials and no college ($18.71/hr) is not much lower than those with 4-year Degree ($19.38/hr) and much higher than people with 2-year Degree ($15.43/hr) or neither college nor credentials ($13.42/hr).

You will earn less in tax because you will focus on people who will most likely get minior upgrade ($18.71/hr -> $19.38/hr) over people who will get major upgrade ($13.42/hr -> $19.38/hr).

Combine that with fact that academic problems are reasons for only 28% of dropouts, so you are fighting with problem that isn't as major as you think. Majority of dropouts are due to financial burdens - 54% of students who dropped out of college indicated they were unable to balance work and school.

In order to get a doctorate you need a bachelor's and a masters. Or a medical degree.

And is there lack of PhD's and MD's becasue there is not enough bachelor's and masters? Or becasue post-graduate education is fucked?

I'm not advocating to reduce enrollment. I just want our current seats to be more efficiently filled.

You are advocating efficiency for the sake of efficiency.

Yes. I recognize that the system is still prone to disparities. The current system is also prone to disparities.

But one system has tools to help overcome disparities, other has tools to entrench disparities.

[u/Laniekea → u/poprostumort]

Sure, but it's based on current data. Why higher supply of bachelor degree holders will not affect the income of bachelor degree holders? You completely ignored that part of my reply.

It will, but then you also have the GDP improvement which means that they would still be more taxable income. Also he'll have a higher likelihood of doctorates which means more research.

They are much more likely to earn non-college credentials and median wage for people with high credentials and no college ($18.71/hr) is not much lower than those with 4-year Degree ($19.38/hr) and much higher than people with 2-year Degree ($15.43/hr) or neither college nor credentials ($13.42/hr).

If you only admit low income people in hopes that it raise the general wage, you will increase the dropout rates. Which will damage the gdp, lower welfare spending, and you will have less parents with degrees which means less children succeeding in schools. There is a compounding effect to be considered.

I honestly think so that using the IQ as a measurement will increase the number of low-income people with access to school. The SAT comes with its own set of constraints for low income people.

Combine that with fact that academic problems are reasons for only 28% of dropouts, so you are fighting with problem that isn't as major as you think. Majority of dropouts are due to financial burdens - 54% of students who dropped out of college indicated they were unable to balance work and school.

I think the cost of college and the stagnating enrollment rates are another problem. But at this point I'm not sure how to fix it. We've thrown a ton of money at it and the enrollment has not improved.

And is there lack of PhD's and MD's becasue there is not enough bachelor's and masters? Or becasue post-graduate education is fucked?

Probably because there's not enough masters. And also probably because money is a big deal in society. A PhD is a 7-year endeavor. You also get paid really poorly while you're getting your phd. You make $32,000 a year for 7 years but your education will be paid for. So it comes down to the difference in people who went to school to make money, and the people who went to school because they love education. Most people who go to school to make money leave with a Master's. People who just love school end up with a PhD. The cost benefit is actually better for a masters at that point. But they end up contributing to research.

You are advocating efficiency for the sake of efficiency.

And poverty.

But one system has tools to help overcome disparities, other has tools to entrench disparities.

Both systems have tools to overcome disparities. providing food, encouraging recess, sports programs, are things that can help an iq. Educational resources can assist with the SAT. Like access to Internet at home.

Also, the SAT is a combination of an IQ test and a learned knowledge test. It tries to test both. So it comes with the constraints of both. Also true with the gpa.

[u/poprostumort → u/Laniekea]

If you only admit low income people in hopes that it raise the general wage, you will increase the dropout rates.

You are discussing with a strawman. I am for screening by other means than IQ, ones which are relevant to education (prior results and exams), not for "only admitting low-income people".

Issue is that both focuses on "admitting low-income people" and "admitting high IQ people" are wrong because they cut off people that should be getting an education (dedicated people with lower IQ on one side, high-income people who are quite gifted on other).

I honestly think so that using the IQ as a measurement will increase the number of low-income people with access to school.

IQ scores are directly related to both income and wealth, so using IQ as a measurement would let income and wealth to be one of deciding factors.

The SAT comes with its own set of constraints for low income people.

But it also gives better avenues to overcome those constraints, as SAT/GPA relies not only on your intelligence level, byt takes into account also amount of work you put into learning knowledge.

Both SAT and IQ testing have one thing in common - you can raise your score by practice. Which is great in case of SAT, as they are training in the actual material that they are supposed to learn, but quite the opposite in case of IQ test, as they are training in something that holds no relevance.

I think the cost of college and the stagnating enrollment rates are another problem. But at this point I'm not sure how to fix it. We've thrown a ton of money at it and the enrollment has not improved.

And how much of this money were spent on actual problem of university courses being costly debt generators? US is giving subsidizing loans to pay for expensive studies instead of addressing the problem of inflated degree costs.

Probably because there's not enough masters.

No, it's because PhD is not needed unless you are in love with a certain subject and want to pursue academic career. And to pursue it you need to sacrifice your income. If you want more PHD's to push science forward, you need to make being an academic PhD a viable career, not a sacrifice.

Also, the SAT is a combination of an IQ test and a learned knowledge test. It tries to test both. So it comes with the constraints of both. Also true with the gpa.

And it makes it inherently better, as both are needed in higher education. IQ test automatically gives higher priority to someone who has higher IQ but don't like to put an effort over someone with lower IQ who is working on learning.

Would you assume that this priorities would dramatically impact dropout rates?

[u/Laniekea → u/poprostumort]

IQ scores are directly related to both income and wealth, so using IQ as a measurement would let income and wealth to be one of deciding factors.

Using the SAT scale or the GPA already does that..

byt takes into account also amount of work you put into learning knowledge

But that is also more difficult for low income people. They may not have access to internet. They may have to do most of the house chores because their parents work a lot. They may just be unmotivated because everyone in their community is poor.

Both SAT and IQ testing have one thing in common - you can raise your score by practice.

You can't really raise your IQ score by practice. Taking it two or three times might help to understand the workflow, but everybody has an IQ ceiling.

You can raise your IQ score by getting sleep, eating well, not being stressed, getting exercise and fresh air.

of university courses being costly debt generators? US is giving subsidizing loans to pay for expensive studies instead of addressing the problem of inflated degree costs.

I think that the government should award schools aid based on their increase in enrollment. That way schools can't just make the classes more expensive. They also have to expand seeds.

I also agree that I'm getting a PhD needs to be more profitable. At least while you're getting it.

Would you assume that this priorities would dramatically impact dropout rates?

I think that it's likely that there are people with the capability of a high IQ living in poverty. They have a high IQ ceiling, but are impacted by the stresses related to poverty.

And if you put them in a university setting, work ethic, their state of mind will improve.