The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Stanford Tries Not to Think About How It Embodies Lewis Terman's Dream
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Stanford alumni magazine in 2000:

The Vexing Legacy of Lewis Terman

The legendary Stanford psychologist helped hundreds of gifted children and showed America that it’s okay to be smart. But behind his crusade was a disturbing social vision.

By Mitchell Leslie

… Edward’s high score on an IQ test had qualified him for Terman’s pathbreaking Genetic Study of Genius. Terman, who had grown up gifted himself, was gathering evidence to squelch the popular stereotype of brainy, “bookish” children as frail oddballs doomed to social isolation. He wanted to show that most smart kids were robust and well-adjusted — that they were, in fact, born leaders who ought to be identified early and cultivated for their rightful roles in society.

Though the more than 1,000 youngsters enrolled in his study didn’t know it at the time, they were embarking on a lasting relationship. …

Forty-four years after Terman’s death, the study is still going on. About 200 of his “kids” are alive, still completing periodic questionnaires on their health and activities and returning them to Stanford’s psychology department. The Termites, as they’re fondly nicknamed, have been tracked for nearly 80 years now, through nearly all the milestones of life. It’s the longest-running survey ever carried out. And although Terman didn’t conceive it as such, the study established a powerful new research approach: the longitudinal investigation, in which scientists follow a group of people over many years to learn how factors in early life influence later variables such as health and longevity.

… A story of a different kind emerges from Terman’s own writings — a disturbing tale of the beliefs of a pioneer in psychology. Lewis Terman was a loving mentor, yes, but his ardent promotion of the gifted few was grounded in a cold-blooded, elitist ideology.

Thank goodness, Stanford and Silicon Valley aren’t run on cold-blooded, elitist principles these days!

Especially in the early years of his career, he was a proponent of eugenics, a social movement aiming to improve the human “breed” by perpetuating certain allegedly inherited traits and eliminating others. While championing the intelligent, he pushed for the forced sterilization of thousands of “feebleminded” Americans. Later in life, Terman backed away from eugenics, but he never publicly recanted his beliefs.

Looking back, what are we to make of the man and his work? That’s a question Al Hastorf has been grappling with. The former Stanford provost and vice president is the third director of the Terman study (he succeeded psychology professor Robert Sears), overseeing the project from his office in Jordan Hall. An amiable and restless man with a wry sense of humor, Hastorf has been pondering Lewis Terman’s legacy for a chapter he’s writing in a book on pioneering psychologists.

“There’s a certain delicacy about talking about him,” Hastorf begins, “because he was probably one of the first really big names Stanford had.”

To most people at Stanford, the name Terman evokes another person entirely: Fred Terman, ’20, Engr. ’22, the engineering professor, dean and provost who helped launch California’s electronics industry in the 1950s and who was Lewis Terman’s son.

Well, that obviously disproves Lewis Terman’s confidence in the importance of heredity.

But while Fred got his name inscribed on buildings on and off campus, Lewis probably had as much impact on people’s lives, because he almost single-handedly introduced IQ testing in America. …

It’s almost as if the Terman family is the most important in the rise of Silicon Valley.

Eager to measure human minds, Terman plunged into intelligence testing soon after he arrived at Stanford. … Terman and his Stanford colleagues translated Binet’s test, adapted the content for U.S. schools, set new age norms and standardized the distribution of scores so that the mean score would always be 100. Terman called the new version the Stanford-Binet test.

With questions ranging from mathematical problems to vocabulary items, the Americanized test was supposed to capture “general intelligence,” an innate mental capability that Terman felt was as measurable as height and weight. As a hardcore hereditarian, he believed that genetics alone dictated one’s level of general intelligence. … To denote it, he selected the term “intelligence quotient.”

In 1916, Terman sprang his test on America. He released The Measurement of Intelligence, a book that was half instruction manual and IQ test, half manifesto for universal testing. His little exam, which a child could complete in a mere 50 minutes, was about to revolutionize what students learned and how they thought of themselves.

Few American children have passed through the school system in the last 80 years without taking the Stanford-Binet or one of its competitors.

Fewer have gotten into Stanford U. without taking one of its cousins, such as the SAT.

Terman’s test gave U.S. educators the first simple, quick, cheap and seemingly objective way to “track” students, or assign them to different course sequences according to their ability. The following year, when the United States entered World War I, Terman helped design tests to screen Army recruits. More than 1.7 million draftees took his tests, broadening public acceptance of widespread IQ testing.

And the U.S. military continues to intensively use cognitive tests descended from the Stanford-Binet.

… Two-thirds of the Terman men and women earned bachelor’s degrees — that’s 10 times the national rate for their time and all the more impressive because most did so during the Great Depression. The Termites also swarmed to graduate school. “There were 97 PhDs, 57 MDs and, sadly enough, 92 lawyers,” Hastorf says. The women in the group, who reached adulthood in the 1920s and ’30s, foreshadowed later trends. They had fewer children than others of their generation and bore them later in life. More of them went to college and graduate school, more had careers and more remained unmarried.

But of course, everybody at Stanford now knows that intelligence testing is completely discredited. That’s why Stanford admits its freshman class by random lottery.

It does, doesn’t it?

Oh, wait, apparently it turns out that Stanford today runs its admissions system pretty much exactly the way Lewis Terman would have recommended 100 years ago.

Screenshot 2017-03-10 19.59.12

Screenshot 2017-03-10 20.00.24

 
Hide 27 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Remove the name to play the game and keep it same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/stanford-tries-not-to-think-about-how-it-embodies-lewis-term/#comment-1795438
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Deep State is real.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. When should we expect progressives to start sanctimoniously distancing themselves from the legacy of eugenicist Margaret Sanger? Any minute now, I assume?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. RW says:

    OT but of interest to I-Steve readers: 59-year-old white Canadian man deported from Canada after finding out that he is not Canadian after all (immigrated at 8 months of age, mother never applied for citizenship). What is up with this? Aren’t Canadians supposed to be disgusted with Donald Trump for supporting less drastic immigration laws? (Trump has supported DREAMERs in the States.)

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/courtenay-resident-deported-to-netherlands-1.4012844

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    He is a long time criminal, with a long record. I don't care that he was deported. (I'm Canadian).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. To me it’s weird that every time the topic of eugenics comes up, progressives have to express horror at the idea of sterilizing mentally retarded people.

    I’d sterilize crack addicts too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Alas, I was the only person in my office who thought that retarded people shouldn't procreate. Everyone else wondered why I would deny equal rights to the mentally defective.

    No one spared a thought for the unfortunate children that would result. It's hard enough to get through childhood with even 'average' parents. Imagine having retarded role models, discipline, etc etc. I guess this is one reason SJW types are in favor of communal child care.

    Deep down, SJW types know that they themselves are profoundly defective. The rage that results causes them to devote their lives to dragging everyone else down to their level, and to destroying everything of lasting value in the culture at large.

    , @NOTA
    Give the state the power to sterilize people it doesn't like, and that power will be abused.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Harry Baldwin
    To me it's weird that every time the topic of eugenics comes up, progressives have to express horror at the idea of sterilizing mentally retarded people.

    I'd sterilize crack addicts too.

    Alas, I was the only person in my office who thought that retarded people shouldn’t procreate. Everyone else wondered why I would deny equal rights to the mentally defective.

    No one spared a thought for the unfortunate children that would result. It’s hard enough to get through childhood with even ‘average’ parents. Imagine having retarded role models, discipline, etc etc. I guess this is one reason SJW types are in favor of communal child care.

    Deep down, SJW types know that they themselves are profoundly defective. The rage that results causes them to devote their lives to dragging everyone else down to their level, and to destroying everything of lasting value in the culture at large.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    And of course it's all bull on their parts. I'd bet uniformly they'd support aborting a downs baby. Something like 90% of all identified downs babies are aborted.

    They'd rather just kill mentally disabled people.

    Further. I remember a liberal guy who was doing social work in a crummy neighborhood and he said he encouraged a woman to abort her baby. Why? Well, he said, she was basically retarded and didn't really know what she was doing. At that point I started thinking, maybe more sterilization isn't such a bad idea. Nobody expects any sort of sexual self-control anymore so cutting off eggs and sperm may be where we need to go. A fine world we have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Pat Casey says:

    Though the more than 1,000 youngsters enrolled in his study didn’t know it at the time, they were embarking on a lasting relationship. …

    I don’t know anything about the study, if it manipulated any variables, but how different would their lives have been had they not been honored by folks from Stanford who wanted to study them, indeed study them til the end? Do the questionnaires ask about that, do they ask how much space has this “relationship” been renting in the back of your mind recently?

    Here’s a question. How many of the people who herald this study for dispelling the stereotype of “frail oddballs doomed to social isolation” were socially isolated frail oddballs? Sounds like a Jewish complex is being insinuated into what we should be paying attention to.

    I certainly don’t think this study did anything to dispel that stereotype compared to what Catcher in the Rye, The Outsider, and most of all post-Elvis Rock n Roll did to that end. Could adolescent angst sulk defiantly before Holden Caulfield learned us what was phony? Gerry Rafferty told a great story of how Baker Street was inspired by The Outsider. And the Rolling Stones’ occult guru, can’t think of his name, I saw an interview he gave where he basically said his motive all along was to save the frail oddballs from getting bullied.

    I went to a big and diverse public high school for a time, then briefly attended a tiny all-boys Catholic prep you wore a tie and blazer to everyday. That’s when I realized that the stranger in a strange land has no idea, and thinks the strangest things are normal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I don’t know anything about the study, if it manipulated any variables, but how different would their lives have been had they not been honored by folks from Stanford who wanted to study them, indeed study them til the end? Do the questionnaires ask about that, do they ask how much space has this “relationship” been renting in the back of your mind recently?
     
    It was actually worse than that. If you follow Steve's link to the Stanford Magazine article you can read about Terman intervening more directly in the subjects' lives:

    Many who did well in their fields had received no boost from Terman beyond an occasional pat on the back and the knowledge that they'd qualified for his study. For others, like Dmytryk, Terman's intervention was life-changing. We'll never know all that he did for his kids, Hastorf notes. But it's clear that Terman helped several get into Stanford and other universities. He dispatched numerous letters of recommendation mentioning that individuals took part in his project. And one time, early in World War II, he apparently pulled strings on behalf of a family of Japanese-Americans in his study. Fearing they were about to be interned, they wrote to Terman for help. He sent a letter assuring the federal government of their loyalty and arguing against internment. The family remained free.

    From a scientific standpoint, Terman's personal involvement seems foolish because it probably skewed his results. "It's what you'd expect a mentor to do, but it's bad science," Hastorf says. As a conscientious researcher whose work got him elected to the National Academy of Sciences, Terman should have known better -- but he wasn't the first or last to slip. Indeed, the temptation to meddle is an occupational hazard among longitudinal researchers, says Glen Elder Jr., a sociologist at the University of North Carolina. A certain degree of intimacy develops, he explains, because "we're living in their lives and they're living in ours."
     
    More discussion there. All of that said, I imagine the temptation was overwhelming and much of what he accomplished by intervening was "good" IMHO so I have trouble being too critical of that.
    , @Formerly CARealist
    The Outsider? Which book do you mean?

    Your comment seemed pretty interesting but I couldn't quite get at what you meant. How does being an outsider relate to high IQ people doing well or not, especially if they're being studied?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @RW
    OT but of interest to I-Steve readers: 59-year-old white Canadian man deported from Canada after finding out that he is not Canadian after all (immigrated at 8 months of age, mother never applied for citizenship). What is up with this? Aren't Canadians supposed to be disgusted with Donald Trump for supporting less drastic immigration laws? (Trump has supported DREAMERs in the States.)

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/courtenay-resident-deported-to-netherlands-1.4012844

    He is a long time criminal, with a long record. I don’t care that he was deported. (I’m Canadian).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Kyle McKenna
    Alas, I was the only person in my office who thought that retarded people shouldn't procreate. Everyone else wondered why I would deny equal rights to the mentally defective.

    No one spared a thought for the unfortunate children that would result. It's hard enough to get through childhood with even 'average' parents. Imagine having retarded role models, discipline, etc etc. I guess this is one reason SJW types are in favor of communal child care.

    Deep down, SJW types know that they themselves are profoundly defective. The rage that results causes them to devote their lives to dragging everyone else down to their level, and to destroying everything of lasting value in the culture at large.

    And of course it’s all bull on their parts. I’d bet uniformly they’d support aborting a downs baby. Something like 90% of all identified downs babies are aborted.

    They’d rather just kill mentally disabled people.

    Further. I remember a liberal guy who was doing social work in a crummy neighborhood and he said he encouraged a woman to abort her baby. Why? Well, he said, she was basically retarded and didn’t really know what she was doing. At that point I started thinking, maybe more sterilization isn’t such a bad idea. Nobody expects any sort of sexual self-control anymore so cutting off eggs and sperm may be where we need to go. A fine world we have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato

    I’d bet uniformly they’d support aborting a downs baby.
     
    This is repellent but the real world makes you choose. The baby will be in a home for all its babytime then fare miserably. In Real Savannah Life, it would be reaped by Mr. Tiger.

    Nobody expects any sort of sexual self-control anymore
     
    Really, nobody expected it ever.

    My catholic priest, being on the nutty side, pretended that this would be possible for reasons that are completely unclear. Except sadism cunningly disguised as religious dogma. Never trust a guy who dresses up in robes and reaches for the sky inside a taxpayer-built potlatch dome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. jackson says:

    Lars Johnsson, the schlep who got this renaming thing started, is married to a Jamaican.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Back in the 80s days when companies hired trainee software developers rather than comp sci grads (there weren’t enough), an IQ test was (probably the most important) part of the interview day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    IBM had a programmer aptitude test which I took in high school: http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/ProgrammerAptitude.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Men’s acceptance/application ratio : 1083 / 22536. Reported as “5%” (actually 4.8%)
    Women’s accepted/applicant ratio: 1062 / 19631. Reported as “5%” (actually 5.4%)

    I guess the ideal Stanford student is intelligent enough to spot the fact that those estimates are covering up some serious rounding error – and intelligent enough not to ask why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    How is that rounding error serious?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. TheJester says:

    Although it cannot be publically spoken, there is a growing consensus that diversity lowers scholastic performance. The New York school system, for example, is evidently playing the same game as Stanford from kindergarten through high school; that is, where parents insist on their children receiving a good education via a selection process walled off from minority problems.

    Diversity Lags as Students Are Matched With City Schools

    It was decision day for many New York City children on Wednesday, as the Education Department told eighth graders where they had been accepted to high school, and incoming kindergartners where they would start school in the fall.

    Despite a push to increase the number of black and Latino students at the city’s most competitive high schools, the specialized schools, the number of those students who were offered seats for the fall was essentially unchanged from last year, according to the department.

    Entry to eight specialized high schools is based entirely upon a single standardized test, and the schools have long been criticized for the demographic makeup of the students who are admitted. Only about 10 percent of offers from those schools were extended to black and Latino students, though those students make up about 68 percent of the school system.

    Evidently, New York’s selective selection process includes kindergarten. (Am I reading this right? Is this about Japan … or the United States?) Also, in the interest of diversity, the Education Department is are trying to get homeless children to participate in the kindergarten selection process. It’s not working.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/nyregion/high-school-kindergarten-match-diversity.html?action=click&contentCollection=N.Y.%20%2F%20Region&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. pyrrhus says:

    Here’s the Wiki bio of Arizona freshman star and future NBA player, Lauri Markonnen from Finland…

    “He is the son of Pekka (who played NCAA basketball at Kansas)[5] and Riikka Markkanen, and has two brothers, Miikka and professional soccer player, Eero Markkanen.

    Markkanen’s father, Pekka in his career reached the level of the Finnish national basketball team, and his mother Riikka (née Ellonen) reached the basketball championship silver, and also appeared in the national team level.”

    Obviously, this genetic stuff makes no sense………..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. res says:
    @Pat Casey

    Though the more than 1,000 youngsters enrolled in his study didn’t know it at the time, they were embarking on a lasting relationship. …
     
    I don't know anything about the study, if it manipulated any variables, but how different would their lives have been had they not been honored by folks from Stanford who wanted to study them, indeed study them til the end? Do the questionnaires ask about that, do they ask how much space has this "relationship" been renting in the back of your mind recently?

    Here's a question. How many of the people who herald this study for dispelling the stereotype of "frail oddballs doomed to social isolation" were socially isolated frail oddballs? Sounds like a Jewish complex is being insinuated into what we should be paying attention to.

    I certainly don't think this study did anything to dispel that stereotype compared to what Catcher in the Rye, The Outsider, and most of all post-Elvis Rock n Roll did to that end. Could adolescent angst sulk defiantly before Holden Caulfield learned us what was phony? Gerry Rafferty told a great story of how Baker Street was inspired by The Outsider. And the Rolling Stones' occult guru, can't think of his name, I saw an interview he gave where he basically said his motive all along was to save the frail oddballs from getting bullied.

    I went to a big and diverse public high school for a time, then briefly attended a tiny all-boys Catholic prep you wore a tie and blazer to everyday. That's when I realized that the stranger in a strange land has no idea, and thinks the strangest things are normal.

    I don’t know anything about the study, if it manipulated any variables, but how different would their lives have been had they not been honored by folks from Stanford who wanted to study them, indeed study them til the end? Do the questionnaires ask about that, do they ask how much space has this “relationship” been renting in the back of your mind recently?

    It was actually worse than that. If you follow Steve’s link to the Stanford Magazine article you can read about Terman intervening more directly in the subjects’ lives:

    Many who did well in their fields had received no boost from Terman beyond an occasional pat on the back and the knowledge that they’d qualified for his study. For others, like Dmytryk, Terman’s intervention was life-changing. We’ll never know all that he did for his kids, Hastorf notes. But it’s clear that Terman helped several get into Stanford and other universities. He dispatched numerous letters of recommendation mentioning that individuals took part in his project. And one time, early in World War II, he apparently pulled strings on behalf of a family of Japanese-Americans in his study. Fearing they were about to be interned, they wrote to Terman for help. He sent a letter assuring the federal government of their loyalty and arguing against internment. The family remained free.

    From a scientific standpoint, Terman’s personal involvement seems foolish because it probably skewed his results. “It’s what you’d expect a mentor to do, but it’s bad science,” Hastorf says. As a conscientious researcher whose work got him elected to the National Academy of Sciences, Terman should have known better — but he wasn’t the first or last to slip. Indeed, the temptation to meddle is an occupational hazard among longitudinal researchers, says Glen Elder Jr., a sociologist at the University of North Carolina. A certain degree of intimacy develops, he explains, because “we’re living in their lives and they’re living in ours.”

    More discussion there. All of that said, I imagine the temptation was overwhelming and much of what he accomplished by intervening was “good” IMHO so I have trouble being too critical of that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. El Dato says:
    @Formerly CARealist
    And of course it's all bull on their parts. I'd bet uniformly they'd support aborting a downs baby. Something like 90% of all identified downs babies are aborted.

    They'd rather just kill mentally disabled people.

    Further. I remember a liberal guy who was doing social work in a crummy neighborhood and he said he encouraged a woman to abort her baby. Why? Well, he said, she was basically retarded and didn't really know what she was doing. At that point I started thinking, maybe more sterilization isn't such a bad idea. Nobody expects any sort of sexual self-control anymore so cutting off eggs and sperm may be where we need to go. A fine world we have.

    I’d bet uniformly they’d support aborting a downs baby.

    This is repellent but the real world makes you choose. The baby will be in a home for all its babytime then fare miserably. In Real Savannah Life, it would be reaped by Mr. Tiger.

    Nobody expects any sort of sexual self-control anymore

    Really, nobody expected it ever.

    My catholic priest, being on the nutty side, pretended that this would be possible for reasons that are completely unclear. Except sadism cunningly disguised as religious dogma. Never trust a guy who dresses up in robes and reaches for the sky inside a taxpayer-built potlatch dome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. res says:

    Is anyone here familiar with the recent (2016) SAT scoring changes? I was intrigued by a comment in one of the images above about adjusting scores upward for 2016 and went searching for more information. I found this May 9, 2016 concordance: https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/higher-ed-brief-sat-concordance.pdf
    which includes tables for converting the 2005-2015 2400 point scale to the 2016 1600 point scale and the “old” (2004?) 1600 point scale to the new (2016?) 1600 point scale (new/old is the exact same terminology used in 1995 with a different meaning, is it too much to ask for more precision of terminology?!). The conversion factor for the latter is as large as 80 points at the center of the scale with exact equivalence at the extremes (contrast with 1995 which moved the ceiling 110 points).

    I assume that table indicates a significant change in the scoring between 2004 and 2016. The center of the scale changed 80 points compared to a 100 point change at the center with the 1995 recentering. Was 2016 a stealth recentering? Or did 2005 do that in the guise of changing to a 2400 point scale?

    That table contrasts greatly with the 1995 recentering equivalence which was 110 points at the ceiling decreasing to 60 points near 1300 and then increasing to 130 points (!) around 800.

    https://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/equivalence/sat-composites

    I should plot those equivalence tables (and the double mapping cumulative effect) to get a better idea of what the changes were.

    Also interesting is if you look at the SAT wiki showing historical scores it is impossible to discern the 1995 recentering, the 2005 transition to a 2400 point scale, or the 2016 return to a 1600 point scale. I assume this means all scores have been adjusted using the equivalence tables, but I don’t see clear documentation of exactly which adjustments were used. The biggest year to year change I see is 1974-1975 which is around a time major test changes were made (see wiki), but I don’t think those resulted in an official equivalence table. This site treats pre-1974 scores differently, but I don’t see an explanation of why: https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx

    I find it shocking that they adjust the scores to show almost no change since 1976 while publishing two (!) separate equivalence tables showing 80 and 100 point changes at the midrange during that interval. Can anyone give more details or somehow explain what looks like serious statistical chicanery?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Pericles says:

    While Stanford accepts 5% of both male and female applications, it’s 4.7% and 5.4% if you look closer. That’s a 15% difference in favor of women. How convenient.

    We can also see from the absolute numbers that there is a quota system in effect. Perhaps it makes it easier for the students to marry appropriately.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Pericles says:

    Given the competitiveness of the Ivy Leagues, where there are many applicants with basically the same or even better scores than those accepted, it should be fairly easy for an ambitious university to hoover up rejected top students. For instance, waive tuition for such top students. I think that should improve its reputation fairly rapidly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Pat Casey

    Though the more than 1,000 youngsters enrolled in his study didn’t know it at the time, they were embarking on a lasting relationship. …
     
    I don't know anything about the study, if it manipulated any variables, but how different would their lives have been had they not been honored by folks from Stanford who wanted to study them, indeed study them til the end? Do the questionnaires ask about that, do they ask how much space has this "relationship" been renting in the back of your mind recently?

    Here's a question. How many of the people who herald this study for dispelling the stereotype of "frail oddballs doomed to social isolation" were socially isolated frail oddballs? Sounds like a Jewish complex is being insinuated into what we should be paying attention to.

    I certainly don't think this study did anything to dispel that stereotype compared to what Catcher in the Rye, The Outsider, and most of all post-Elvis Rock n Roll did to that end. Could adolescent angst sulk defiantly before Holden Caulfield learned us what was phony? Gerry Rafferty told a great story of how Baker Street was inspired by The Outsider. And the Rolling Stones' occult guru, can't think of his name, I saw an interview he gave where he basically said his motive all along was to save the frail oddballs from getting bullied.

    I went to a big and diverse public high school for a time, then briefly attended a tiny all-boys Catholic prep you wore a tie and blazer to everyday. That's when I realized that the stranger in a strange land has no idea, and thinks the strangest things are normal.

    The Outsider? Which book do you mean?

    Your comment seemed pretty interesting but I couldn’t quite get at what you meant. How does being an outsider relate to high IQ people doing well or not, especially if they’re being studied?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. NOTA says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    To me it's weird that every time the topic of eugenics comes up, progressives have to express horror at the idea of sterilizing mentally retarded people.

    I'd sterilize crack addicts too.

    Give the state the power to sterilize people it doesn’t like, and that power will be abused.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Given the fairly small freshman class coming in, if be interested to know what Stanford’s average test score would be if you backed out the scores for all the scholarship athletes and “special” legacy admints. (Like say…Chelsea Clinton)
    I’m not sure how many of these kids we’d be talking about, but with only ~2100 annual admissions, I could see ten+ percent easlily.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @Anonymous Nephew
    Back in the 80s days when companies hired trainee software developers rather than comp sci grads (there weren't enough), an IQ test was (probably the most important) part of the interview day.

    IBM had a programmer aptitude test which I took in high school: http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/ProgrammerAptitude.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Johan Schmidt
    Men's acceptance/application ratio : 1083 / 22536. Reported as "5%" (actually 4.8%)
    Women's accepted/applicant ratio: 1062 / 19631. Reported as "5%" (actually 5.4%)

    I guess the ideal Stanford student is intelligent enough to spot the fact that those estimates are covering up some serious rounding error - and intelligent enough not to ask why.

    How is that rounding error serious?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. I wish I could answer this. I am Steve’s age and took the SAT in 1975, so I’d be curious about any 1974 – 1975 difference.

    The educational establishment seems to enthusiastically embrace exam modifications/changes at every level so that it’s impossible to see how much worse things have gotten over time.

    I thought it would be fun to collect a run of old College Handbooks to see the changes in each college’s SAT/ACT numbers though all the restructurings and recenterings. I was surprised how difficult these books are to obtain ( or how expensive) for many earlier years. However, I do have editions dated 1993 and 1995 (each copyright the previous year and before recentering). In both, the range for the middle 50% of enrolled students at Stanford was 590-690 V, 660-750 M.

    Just for the sake of comparison, the Harvard/Radcliffe numbers were 620-720V, 650-750M for 1993 and 630–720V, 680-770M for 1995.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I am Steve’s age and took the SAT in 1975, so I’d be curious about any 1974 – 1975 difference.
     
    Here is the SAT wiki about 1974 and 1975 (not sure if you saw this): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#1946_test_and_associated_changes
    Ignore the section heading. It is a weird place to put that info.

    until 1975, students had 75 minutes to answer 90 questions. In 1959 questions on data sufficiency were introduced to the mathematics section, and then replaced with quantitative comparisons in 1974. In 1974 both verbal and math sections were reduced from 75 minutes to 60 minutes each, with changes in test composition compensating for the decreased time.
     
    Wiki reference 44 has some good additional information. For example, Table 1 details changes in the verbal test from 1958-2002. I had not known that the 1995 recentering had decreased the number of questions while increasing the time allowed from 60 to 75 minutes (I did know about elimination of antonym questions). The verbal question composition changed a fair bit in 1974-1975. Table 2 has math test composition changes. There were significant changes in both 1975 and 1995.

    Would the college library or admissions office have a set of college handbooks over the years?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. res says:
    @JustAnotherNerdette
    I wish I could answer this. I am Steve's age and took the SAT in 1975, so I'd be curious about any 1974 - 1975 difference.

    The educational establishment seems to enthusiastically embrace exam modifications/changes at every level so that it's impossible to see how much worse things have gotten over time.

    I thought it would be fun to collect a run of old College Handbooks to see the changes in each college's SAT/ACT numbers though all the restructurings and recenterings. I was surprised how difficult these books are to obtain ( or how expensive) for many earlier years. However, I do have editions dated 1993 and 1995 (each copyright the previous year and before recentering). In both, the range for the middle 50% of enrolled students at Stanford was 590-690 V, 660-750 M.

    Just for the sake of comparison, the Harvard/Radcliffe numbers were 620-720V, 650-750M for 1993 and 630--720V, 680-770M for 1995.

    I am Steve’s age and took the SAT in 1975, so I’d be curious about any 1974 – 1975 difference.

    Here is the SAT wiki about 1974 and 1975 (not sure if you saw this): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#1946_test_and_associated_changes
    Ignore the section heading. It is a weird place to put that info.

    until 1975, students had 75 minutes to answer 90 questions. In 1959 questions on data sufficiency were introduced to the mathematics section, and then replaced with quantitative comparisons in 1974. In 1974 both verbal and math sections were reduced from 75 minutes to 60 minutes each, with changes in test composition compensating for the decreased time.

    Wiki reference 44 has some good additional information. For example, Table 1 details changes in the verbal test from 1958-2002. I had not known that the 1995 recentering had decreased the number of questions while increasing the time allowed from 60 to 75 minutes (I did know about elimination of antonym questions). The verbal question composition changed a fair bit in 1974-1975. Table 2 has math test composition changes. There were significant changes in both 1975 and 1995.

    Would the college library or admissions office have a set of college handbooks over the years?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Seran says:

    Presentism = Judging the past by todays moral standards.

    I wonder if all of those places will be renamed like russian cities after Trump becomes God

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?