concerning other factors ...
IQ may be the single best predictor of future success, but it isn’t a very good predictor by itself. In fact, I suspect that credit score would outperform IQ in a mano a mano test.
If you were restricted to two bits of information, you’d want to know (a) IQ and (b) conscientiousness (one of the BIG 5 personality traits).
Let’s say you’re a college, and you base admissions on SAT (a good proxy for IQ) and GPA (in context, a good proxy for conscientiousness). By taking both into account, you’d separate the high IQs with good conscientiousness from the high IQs with low conscientiousness.
(If you’re allowed three bits of information, I’d suggest participation in team activities, such as sports or band.)
If the better schools skim the high SATs with good GPAs, then the remaining high SATs for mid level and lower schools are low GPAs. Mid level and lower schools shouldn’t put much stock in SAT scores. They should put more stock in GPA.
In a study I did (a long time ago), I found that both formal education and apparent intelligence (as judged by the interviewer after a long interview) were important. So, let’s not knock good old-fashioned common sense. The ability to reasonably assess all kinds of information, in context, and in real time, and to be able to communicate, is different from abstract reasoning ability, and is very important in many occupations, especially those in which you deal with others.
And, I found that height mattered for males but not for females.
Yes, there are other factors. I have a 140+ IQ, but I was still going down the drain due to getting into drugs in college, until I got straightened out.
Then again, an IQ 90 person will not make it as an engineer, no matter how conscientious he is.
At the upper levels, you need multiple things going for you to make it.
(If you’re allowed three bits of information, I’d suggest participation in team activities, such as sports or band.)
If the better schools skim the high SATs with good GPAs, then the remaining high SATs for mid level and lower schools are low GPAs. Mid level and lower schools shouldn’t put much stock in SAT scores. They should put more stock in GPA.
Brilliant analysis and conclusions! I agree whole-heartedly! (Not that I am particularly qualified to do so, however.)
In a study I did (a long time ago), I found that both formal education and apparent intelligence (as judged by the interviewer after a long interview) were important. So, let’s not knock good old-fashioned common sense.
But then, you had better have a very good interviewer!
In my experience (gleaned at Berkeley, JPL, Lawrence Livermore, etc.), the interviewers appointed by, e.g., educational foundations looking for high-potential candidates to whom to give sizable grants / scholarships can be a very mixed bag. Some were genuinely interested in probing the given candidate's potential, while others lacked interpersonal communication skills, social skills, were mired in their own narcissistic personalities, and unable to function outside of their own, narrow fields. Pitiful!
Regards,