IQ by religion

[Sliceitup]

Did they use the results in any way that was beneficial to the educational process? Or was it just a different way of doing standardized testing?

I consider the education received in the 1950s/1960s to have been excellent, particularly when compared to today (and GRE scores agree with me, which peaked in 1960). My dad went on to Rice and my mom went on to Franciscan and Purdue for her master's. They were both very well prepared, my dad at a rust belt city school, my mom at a tiny rural school.

But in any case, such testing was also done for the good of the country and to benefit IQ testing research, and also identify if perhaps some regions may have been lagging behind the rest of the country. Back in the 50s/early 60s, people wanted to do things for the good of the country, instead of only beneficial to themselves.That's a rather stark difference compared to today.

I had been thinking in terms of using the results to put kids in the types of classes where they would thrive. That’s usually why we had our children tested, and especially in the one case, it was very helpful. It backed up something I was starting to sense as a parent, and gave us the confidence to make sure the child was getting the education that was right for them. It was a bit of a process, but the way that child thrived after that was very rewarding to see.

[temporal1]

I agree with this statement -

The one who uses all God gave them for God’s glory is the smartest. 

Correct. Jesus did not require certificates+diplomas. Heart+soul in faith are “it.” Matthew 19:30

[Josh]

I had been thinking in terms of using the results to put kids in the types of classes where they would thrive. That’s usually why we had our children tested, and especially in the one case, it was very helpful. It backed up something I was starting to sense as a parent, and gave us the confidence to make sure the child was getting the education that was right for them. It was a bit of a process, but the way that child thrived after that was very rewarding to see.

In my semi-professional opinion, an IQ test is not a good tool to use to slot children into different types of classes, other than children who are on the MRDD end of things who will need special education.

[Sliceitup]

I had been thinking in terms of using the results to put kids in the types of classes where they would thrive. That’s usually why we had our children tested, and especially in the one case, it was very helpful. It backed up something I was starting to sense as a parent, and gave us the confidence to make sure the child was getting the education that was right for them. It was a bit of a process, but the way that child thrived after that was very rewarding to see.

In my semi-professional opinion, an IQ test is not a good tool to use to slot children into different types of classes, other than children who are on the MRDD end of things who will need special education.

I agree that is likely the case, with the exception of those on the far ends of the bell curve.

[Josh]

I agree that is likely the case, with the exception of those on the far ends of the bell curve.

What do you consider the right hand side of the "far ends of the bell curve"?

I have not seen much benefit happening from taking supposedly "smart" kids and putting them in special classes. "Exceptional" people need to learn how to get along with average people, which is what school is mostly about anyway - learning how to get along with others who aren't exactly like you or your family.

[temporal1]

I have not seen much benefit happening from taking supposedly "smart" kids and putting them in special classes. "Exceptional" people need to learn how to get along with average people, which is what school is mostly about anyway - learning how to get along with others who aren't exactly like you or your family.

At least one problem is that TEACHERS have their time consumed by the most needy students, the brighter students get passed over. Sometimes the brighter students become trouble makers, sometimes they act out as Spec Ed. (i had a close family member who was a HS science teacher, then counselor, he descibed this perplexng phenom of high IQ students).

So, efforts to mitigate problems are made.

(i think) public schools were better when ALL students attended. i don’t expect to ever see this happening again.
too much politics in schools. those who can escape, do. there are lots of choices, more seem to be in process.

[Sliceitup]

I agree that is likely the case, with the exception of those on the far ends of the bell curve.

What do you consider the right hand side of the "far ends of the bell curve"?

I have not seen much benefit happening from taking supposedly "smart" kids and putting them in special classes. "Exceptional" people need to learn how to get along with average people, which is what school is mostly about anyway - learning how to get along with others who aren't exactly like you or your family.

I agree

[Sliceitup]

What do you consider the right hand side of the "far ends of the bell curve"?

I think the official cut off for most gifted programs is 130. But three standard deviations would be 145. Personally I suspect 130+ can likely function ok, but not optimally, in an average classroom, but 145+ will be miserable.

[Josh]

What do you consider the right hand side of the "far ends of the bell curve"?

I think the official cut off for most gifted programs is 130. But three standard deviations would be 145. Personally I suspect 130+ can likely function ok, but not optimally, in an average classroom, but 145+ will be miserable.

Out of a group of 100 randomly chosen people, 2 will be 130 or over.

Out of a group of 1,000 randomly chosen people, 1 will be 145 or over. (IQ testing at ranges that high is not very exact and starts to have what is called “unreliability”; a WISC doesn’t go past 155 and a Stanford-Binet doesn’t go past 160, and there is very little data to even study past 145 to make any confident assertions.)

Someone who is in the top 0.1% is not going to be able to find a classroom of peers and would in fact benefit from being in a mainstream classroom around average people, because that’s what the rest of their life is going to seem like. I’m not sure why you would think they would be “miserable”. The main thing they can learn in a classroom is how to socialise well with average people.

I have yet to ever encounter a 145 / +3SD person in real life (or even something close to it). In my type of occupation people who were right about 130 were very common. Most went to regular schools and did just fine.

[Sliceitup]

What do you consider the right hand side of the "far ends of the bell curve"?

I think the official cut off for most gifted programs is 130. But three standard deviations would be 145. Personally I suspect 130+ can likely function ok, but not optimally, in an average classroom, but 145+ will be miserable.

Out of a group of 100 randomly chosen people, 2 will be 130 or over.

Out of a group of 1,000 randomly chosen people, 1 will be 145 or over. (IQ testing at ranges that high is not very exact and starts to have what is called “unreliability”; a WISC doesn’t go past 155 and a Stanford-Binet doesn’t go past 160, and there is very little data to even study past 145 to make any confident assertions.)

Someone who is in the top 0.1% is not going to be able to find a classroom of peers and would in fact benefit from being in a mainstream classroom around average people, because that’s what the rest of their life is going to seem like. I’m not sure why you would think they would be “miserable”. The main thing they can learn in a classroom is how to socialise well with average people.

I have yet to ever encounter a 145 / +3SD person in real life (or even something close to it). In my type of occupation people who were right about 130 were very common. Most went to regular schools and did just fine.

I agree that +3SD will have to learn how to socialize with normal people, but here’s my question: do you not think that many will struggle to relate even with “proper socialization”? Would it not be wise to have them be challenged in some way academically?

We spend all this time having incredibly intelligent people just skating along in school, doing the absolute bare minimum, rarely learning how to really study. And then they become older and suddenly they get in a situation where they have to really try hard, but we wasted 18 years not teaching them the skills to do that.

This may sound like I’m disagreeing with your earlier assertion that it’s not beneficial to have children separated into special classes. But I do that think that is best. I just wish there was a better system to help those who are exceptionally intelligent. Schools have spent a lot of time working with students who need extra help because they are falling behind, and even though I understand why that gets more attention than gifted students, I wish these concerns would be seen as legitimate too.