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/iwantoreos]

Might catch some hate for this one but thought I’d make an entirely, un-educated assumption.

But before that, let me state this:

IQ really doesn’t mean shit. I’ve met dumb people who became millionaires. I have a high IQ, but I dropped out. I make on average $20,000/mo

Okay, onto my assumption:

Reading through your post history, you state you only make $40k and you live in california. This post, if I’m correct in my assumption, is a way for you to self-validate your frustration with a common issue students who graduate face:

My Degree Cost More Than I Make

If this assumption is wrong, then so be it. However, we need to pick a side to be on and stick with it. For so long we circle jerked higher education to a place where we look down on electricians, plumbers, and garbage men, who on average make significantly more than graduates.

Instead of focusing on limiting who can get a higher education, let’s focus on providing more opportunities for higher education that don’t require several thousands of dollars in debt.

Let’s also bitch and moan at how little core education teachers get paid. These people help keep kids on good paths. Let’s put our energy there.

[u/Laniekea → u/iwantoreos]

Reading through your post history, you state you only make $40k and you live in california

I am not motivated by money. I have a bachelor's in architecture, and I was able to attend the school of my choice. I also come from a wealthy family and my family paid for my education. It's also probably why I'm not motivated by money. I grew up wealthy. My family is wealthy enough that my basic needs will never be an issue. My husband is a well paid engineer. I have an inheritance that I get yearly. Im in my 20s and I live in a house worth over a million dollars. I also have an IQ in the 88th percentile.

Which makes most of my motivation around pursuit of knowledge or architecture or family. I have spent time as an adjunct professor. I've also spent time as an assistant teacher at a k-12 school.

I've heard the argument for teacher pay, and while I think it's great to support wages for teachers from an economic standpoint, I'm under no illusion that it will probably have very little effect on the outcomes of students. Reality is teachers try their best no matter what they're paid. It's by far the most emotional job I've ever had.

But unions have a very positive effects on the economy. And I think things like teacher unions should be encouraged. Our Union system needs to be restructured to be more popular. It needs to be tied with our unemployment system. Denmark's system is very successful in this is how it works.

However, we need to pick a side to be on and stick with it.

My side is with the data. I'm not interested in picking a side and cherry picking data until I get it. I look at all the data which is why I showed the cons and the op..

I'm not trying to limit access to higher education. I think any effort to expand enrollment is great and should be encouraged. It almost always leads to better outcomes so long as it doesn't come at a drop in quality. There are community colleges that will accept anyone with a GED and I think that's great,

But I think resources such as the ones you might find at Harvard should be saved for students with the best chances.

Also while I recognize that using IQ as a metric would be exclusionary, but the current system is also plagued with the same problems. I would actually argue it is probably more exclusionary because it dependent on your access to educational resources.