[KPGv2]

> 90%+ of all people in undergrad

I'm not sure if you realize you're basically saying most people with an IQ two standard deviations above the mean should not be pursuing higher education. Currently 40% of young adults are in higher education in the US. (based on a quick google, percent could be wrong, i also saw 60% pursue it at some point)

As a heuristic, let's assume they're the 40% with the highest IQ.

If 90% of them shouldn't be there, then you're effectively saying only the highest 4% IQ individuals should be there.

Two standard deviations cuts out 95% of people. What a very high standard. And I'm not even getting into the mountains of research that higher education makes workers better at their jobs, ceteris paribus.

So you're saying genius-level people don't belong at uni.

[whimblepop]

https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293%2FS...

The average university attendee's IQ is virtually indistinguishable from the average person's IQ.

People don't go to college because they're smart. They predominantly go so they can earn more money and/or work more enjoyable jobs when they graduate. Being smart isn't the main reason that adults encourage teenagers to pursue college either. It's mostly a matter of class reproduction; it's the "default" for anyone whose parents are college graduates.

And failing out once you get to the university isn't generally an IQ issue, either. Mediocre and slightly stupid people graduate from universities with degrees they've earned fair and square every year. You don't have to be smart to finish a degree. You do have to be reasonably prepared, and that's the primary issue.

[cjbgkagh]

It used to be 130, which is two standard deviations above the mean. I think this is the appropriate amount.

[whimblepop]

IQ is about aptitude and credentials on specific topics are about knowledge and skills. It's the wrong thing to optimize for.

Besides, high-IQ students can still underperform for many of the same reasons that average-IQ students often do (e.g., under-preparation, lack of discipline, disorganization, mental illness, financial distress, unstable living situation). We should be better addressing those things before students get to a university no matter what their IQ is.

Beyond that, if you have good competency tests on both ends (i.e., the credentials before a four-year degree are accurate signals, and university degrees effectively prove a high degree of competency), who cares if someone manages to get those credentials by working harder while being dumber? I like working with clever people. I also like working with people who know their shit because they take their time to study and consider things. (When I'm lucky, I get to work with people who are both!)

[godelski]

  > IQ is about aptitude and credentials on specific topics are about knowledge and skills.

Meaning it can be learned. Trained.

I'm not defending the metric. People use it like it is some innate thing that doesn't change over one's lifetime. In fact, a college education is a great way to increase your IQ.

It's also important to note that IQ is normalized. An IQ of 100 today is different than an IQ of 100 20 years ago. Notable, it's been increasing, so someone taking an IQ test in the year 2000 getting an IQ of 100 would have had an IQ of 130 had they taken it in 1950. That's an incredibly important piece of information needed to even do basic comparisons of IQs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

[bmn__]

> > IQ is about aptitude

> Meaning it can be learned. Trained. […] In fact, a college education is a great way to increase your IQ.

You make this argument on the assumption that the effect is causal. But in reality one cannot distinguish whether education raises IQ or whether people with higher IQs stay longer in college.

[godelski]

  > or whether people with higher IQs stay longer in college.

If that were the case a person's IQ wouldn't increase during that time.

It's also pretty well known and well studied that you can train people to score higher on IQ tests. I'm not talking about years of training either

[pclowes]

In short yes. Top 10% is not genius level. You see the outcome of this all the time at the PhD level. Even top 2% often just does not cut it when trying to do novel research. So many PhD’s get stuck in the post-doc adjunct cycle with never a real shot at tenure.

That is fine. Nothing to feel bad about. But also we don’t want our top 10% but not 2% to waste eight plus years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Again, this is all dedicated on the high school diploma being actually hard and valuable. Associates degree replace undergrads, undergrad replace masters, etc.

[KPGv2]

> we don’t want our top 10% but not 2% to waste eight plus years and hundreds of thousands of dollars

Is it really your assertion that university is a waste of time for the most intelligent decile? Do you think four bucks in late fees at the public library remotely resembles a quality university education? I find people who didn't go to university often say things like this, because they've drunk some kind of far-right kool aid.