i notice that compared to an older post, you have now modified "academic achievement" to "intellectually challenging settings", a smaller subset of college programs: such as med school, grad school, theoretical physics. would you consider this modification as your answer to my earlier post (in response to you) where i pointed out that data seem to suggest that SAT test results (which i used as a substitute for IQ tests) do not correlate well with college performance at all. i am enclosing the last message in that thread, below.
i would appreciate pointers from you for the data and analysis that backs up your claim above.
here's one relevant section from msn encarta:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570026/Intelligence.html
> Validity is the extent to which a test predicts what it is designed
> to predict. Intelligence tests were designed to predict school
> achievement, and they do that better than they do anything else. For
> example, IQ scores of elementary school students correlate moderately
> with their class grades and highly with achievement test scores. IQ
> tests also predict well the number of years of education that a
> person completes. The SAT is somewhat less predictive of academic
> performance in college. Educators note that success in school depends
> on many other factors besides intelligence, including encouragement
> from parents and peers, interest, and motivation.
of course a lot more analysis is needed to show that IQ test results and academic performance, even when they correlate, are not tracking variables (perhaps of a trait like aggression). there is also the trivial danger that one or the other result (more probably performance in intellectually challenging areas) is manipulated or ill-deserved.
--ravi
> Miles Jackson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, ravi wrote:
>>
>>>>> if one were to use entrance testing as a substitute for IQ,
>>>>> then even the above may not be the case: boys do better than
>>>>> girls (iirc) in these tests, but girls do better at college.
>>>>> is it because girls are book-smarter? or because they don't
>>>>> spend so much time in frat parties?
>>
>>> Do you mean the SAT? As you might expect, SAT is strongly
>>> correlated with IQ score (they both measure the same kind of
>>> academic smarts). For both men and women, SAT (like IQ) is a
>>> reasonable predictor of academic achievement.
>
> from various sources (PBS had a recent show, for instance, on the
> SAT), i had gained quite the opposite impression i.e., boys do better
> than girls at SAT, but girls do better in college (in terms of %
> graduation, average GPA too i would guess, etc).
>
> see for instance:
>
> http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satvalidity.html
>
>>> The poor predictive ability of the SAT I becomes particularly
>>> apparent when considering the college performance of females.
>>> Longstanding gaps in scores between males and females of all
>>> races show that females on average score 35-40 points lower than
>>> males on the SAT I, but receive better high school and college
>>> grades. In other words, the test consistently under-predicts the
>>> performance of females in college while over-predicting that of
>>> males.
>
>
> http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm
>
>>> The SAT consistently underpredicts the performance of females in
>>> college and overpredicts the performance of males. Although
>>> females earn higher grades in high school and college, their SAT
>>> I scores were 39 points lower in 20002 (34 on the SAT-Math and 5
>>> on SAT-Verbal). College Board research has shown that both the
>>> Verbal and Math portions of the test underpredict girls' college
>>> performance. A 1994 ETS study found that, on average, males
>>> scored 33 points higher on the SAT-Math than females who earn the
>>> same grades in the same college math courses. Analyses of SAT
>>> gender bias cite several causes including the test's emphasis on
>>> speed over sustained reasoning and its multiple-choice format.
>>> Mathematics tests in other countries that require solutions to
>>> long problems appeared unbiased with respect to gender.
>
>
>>> Several studies show that female and minority students who are
>>> aware of racial and gender stereotypes score lower on tests such
>>> as the SAT that purport to measure academic aptitude. One study
>>> defined this extra burden borne by some test-takers as
>>> "stereotype vulnerability," and warned that these findings
>>> "underscore the danger of relying too heavily on standardized
>>> test results in college admissions or otherwise."
>
>
> http://www.princetonreview.com/footer/companyinfo_beliefs_tests.asp
>
>>> the test's advocates claim it predicts college success. In fact,
>>> the correlation between college performance and SAT scores is
>>> weaker than that indicated by high school transcripts and not
>>> much better than family income and other purely socioeconomic
>>> indicators.
>
>
>>> High-stakes tests should be unbiased. That doesn't mean that
>>> every demographic group should score equally well; it simply
>>> means that similar students should achieve similar scores. Women
>>> score 40 to 50 points lower on the SAT, for example, than do men,
>>> though they have better grades in both high school and college.
>>> Since SAT scores determine both admissions and
>>> scholarship/financial aid awards, women are doubly penalized.
>
>
>
> (though there is also this, which i found a difficult to follow:
> http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/newsat/newsat_pred_val.pdf)
>
>
> (also, i have never taken undergrad level american tests, so i am not
> quite uptospeed on SAT 1, SAT 2, etc)
>
> of course there is the other issue that the SAT and academic tests
> might measure the same thing (and therefore correlate well) but
> neither may measure the actual usefulness of the education the
> individual received and their fitness for the workforce. that, i
> admit, is a different debate.
>
> --ravi
>