College graduates not as intelligent?

While that is an interesting post in and of itself, I would caution readers to take many of his other posts with a grain of salt, as he makes some rather disturbing conclusions from the data sets that seem somewhat like leaps of logic.

Although one can argue if there are meaningful intelligences IQ scores don't touch, I think that even the possibility of such intelligences means that it's a signifcant assumption to say that those with low IQ scores are "dumb" Dumb, to me, implies much worse things about one's common sense than not being able to solve logic puzzles very well. Speaking of common sense, you did not demonstrate much with that last sentence.
Even if we assume low IQ = dumb, and even if we assume that avoiding college is also dumb (which is a flawed assumption)- there are plenty of high IQ, intelligent people who avoid the SAT. Some are going on to colleges that don't require any standardized tests as a matter of principle, and some are going to one of the fantastic midwestern landgrant unis that prefer the ACT.

IQ is not everything you need for college/university. You also need self-discipline and surely some conformism. These are not IQ-related. In fact, if the exams only (or mostly) ask to reproduce memorized data there's no much room for IQ, though it may be of some help by allowing faster and greater understanding.

Uni is not about IQ but about passing exams. Arguably a smart person has better chances but I would not say it's the only factor at all. I've known too many people with great minds failing at uni and loads of people with mediocre minds doing well, or at least well enough out of self-discipline, memory and conformity (and the occasional cheat, I guess).

In rural Kansas in the 80's it was very unusual for anyone to take the SAT -- I believe I was the only one out of my class who did so. All regional schools accepted the ACT, and it was offered locally; you had to travel to take the SAT. I would guess that fewer than 10 percent of the college-bound students took the SAT.

I think I remember reading that SAT scores were still falling even if you controlled for the growth in the number (don't know how they did that).

I am more optimistic about the utility of IQ tests than some of the above posters. Nonetheless, haven't IQ tests become significantly more methodologically refined over the years? Can the results of IQ tests from yesteryear really be compared to those of today in any meaningful way?

BB - well, by definition, the average IQ is hundred. But, I don't know how many people are actually taking legitimate IQ tests.

The interpretation I draw from the data, is that I wider range of students are getting access to college education. This is consistent with the social trends we've been seeing.

Does it take into account re-norming? The absolute university requirement maybe the same - but that value may correspond to a lower present day iq.

One thing to keep in mind that the IQ measure on the GSS is a 10-item vocabulary test. Verbal scores in general (as seen on the SAT) peaked decades ago and have gone down since, while SAT math has gone up.

Folks, IQ is quotient. Razib has reminded you.

When only small portion of population was seleted for college, you got high averge IQ for college graduates.

When large portion of population can go college, you will inevitablly get lower averge IQ for college graduates.

The question is where you draw the line on IQ bell curve.

marijuana + student loans = dumb students.

Renorming would not cause mean IQs to actually drop between 1960 and 2000, unless the 1960 IQ was already above 100 against some earlier norm. (Which is quite possible if there were using Stanford-Binet.)

Sorry, I have noticed the bit about the test used being a 10-item vocab test.