National Merit Semifinalist 2023 (Plano, Allen, Frisco: income, educational, health)

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by BLDSoon

I also find the comments about IQ laughable because these assume that intelligence grows in an vaccum, impenetrable to outside forces like poverty/affluence, motivation, exposure/education quality, culture, and opportunity or lack thereof. If only it were that simple. Many studies have been done about this and yet this thinking persists.

You are correct that many studies have been done, but the outcome of those studies has overwhelmingly supported the idea that half or more of the differences in IQ are attributable to genetics, with many studies falling closer to 3/4 than 1/2. And even the environmental component is very tough to pin down -- IQ is largely set by age eight, and it isn't yet known what environmental changes in childhood, aside from health and nutrition, lead to smarter adults.

These discussions inevitably become more about the way we want the world to be than the way it is.

[BLDSoon]

Originally Posted by EDS_

I'm probably the biggest IQ proponent here.........as descriptor of abstract intellectual ability and predictor of top college, grad and professional school success there is nothing close.

Literally no one who pays attention to IQ believes, "intelligence grows in a vacuum." The pros tell us that IQ is between .55 and .65 heritable and the rest environmental.

You may not.

But many do, at least in practice. And my private school experience might be showing here but the hyper focus on testing potential by parents and educators alike does a lot of indirect damage to many kids flowing through the system.

In my opinion there’s not enough emphasis on effort, motivation, practice and general environment (culture, opportunity, exposure etc) in these discussions. We are quick to say group A tends to have a lower IQ and then completely ignore the fact that any group would have that same outcome if all things were made equal. A lot of focus is put into improving group A’s testing outcomes with no changes in mitigating factors. When those efforts fail, it serves to some, as confirmation of group A’s inborn ineptitude. But is it really? That question will never be answered due to morality concerns with the kind of testing that would be necessary to come to a final conclusion.

I’d be interested in a study that compares the career trajectory of former NMSF semi-finalists (or finalists) to their non-NMSF college attending peers (with some controls) and have a real comparison on what difference, if any, that designation makes to outcomes over time. I suspect not much when controlled for certain factors.

[BLDSoon]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

You are correct that many studies have been done, but the outcome of those studies has overwhelmingly supported the idea that half or more of the differences in IQ are attributable to genetics, with many studies falling closer to 3/4 than 1/2. And even the environmental component is very tough to pin down -- IQ is largely set by age eight, and it isn't yet known what environmental changes in childhood, aside from health and nutrition, lead to smarter adults.

These discussions inevitably become more about the way we want the world to be than the way it is.

I personally think the environmental factors are downplayed more than a little in most of these arguments. If one considers environment the basis for evolution or at least agrees with that general notion, its dishonest to then ignore that same factor to when it comes to something as intrinsic as how quickly one can process academic information. Because that’s all we are testing here. Processing of a very specific type of information. The role environment plays in cultivating academic potential cannot be discounted.

I guess what I’m saying is the kind of kids that make NMSF semi finalist are probably kids that would do well with academics anyway, with or without that designation and they shouldn’t be the standard bearers of whether a certain school/district/teacher is doing well or not. NMSF more accurately predicts the demographics of a school than any of those other things.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by BLDSoon

I personally think the environmental factors are downplayed more than a little in most of these arguments. If one considers environment the basis for evolution or at least agrees with that general notion, its dishonest to then ignore that same factor to when it comes to something as intrinsic as how quickly one can process academic information. Because that’s all we are testing here. Processing of a very specific type of information. The role environment plays in cultivating academic potential cannot be discounted.

Environment is the arena in which evolution has played out, but the fact that environment shaped evolutionary forces over millions of years doesn't imply that it is doing the work within the scope of a single human's life. For example, IQ has a direct relationship with cold weather environments. It took novel skills to survive in those environments, and intelligence was useful. But that doesn't mean that a single person can move to a cold place and become smarter.

Originally Posted by BLDSoon

I guess what I’m saying is the kind of kids that make NMSF semi finalist are probably kids that would do well with academics anyway, with or without that designation and they shouldn’t be the standard bearers of whether a certain school/district/teacher is doing well or not. NMSF more accurately predicts the demographics of a school than any of those other things.

I agree with this. I just don't see how it relates to IQ. I think the fact that smart kids would do well regardless of school is an argument for the relevance of IQ, not against it.

[BLDSoon]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Environment is the arena in which evolution has played out, but the fact that environment shaped evolutionary forces over millions of years doesn't imply that it is doing the work within the scope of a single human's life. For example, IQ has a direct relationship with cold weather environments. It took novel skills to survive in those environments, and intelligence was useful. But that doesn't mean that a single person can move to a cold place and become smarter.

Well of course not. My citing evolution was a big picture/ small picture comparison not an apples to apples one.

[BLDSoon]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I agree with this. I just don't see how it relates to IQ. I think the fact that smart kids would do well regardless of school is an argument for the relevance of IQ, not against it.

I think it shows that the measurement of raw potential to determine outcomes is misplaced in situations where the environment is not equal. It doesn’t predict outcomes, the environment does.

(Btw by environment I dont mean earth, air, sea, hope that much is obvious.)

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by BLDSoon

I think it shows that the measurement of raw potential to determine outcomes is misplaced in situations where the environment is not equal. It doesn’t predict outcomes, the environment does.

(Btw by environment I dont mean earth, air, sea, hope that much is obvious.)

Why are you assuming that the student's set potential is a matter of environment rather than genetics? Saying NMSF-caliber kids will do great things doesn't illustrate that their environment is the reason for their success. In fact, it would seem to be an argument against environment because you're saying that the future educational opportunities they might get due to their NMSF status doesn't play a causal role in their success.

[BLDSoon]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Why are you assuming that the student's set potential is a matter of environment rather than genetics? Saying NMSF-caliber kids will do great things doesn't illustrate that their environment is the reason for their success. In fact, it would seem to be an argument against environment because you're saying that the future educational opportunities they might get due to their NMSF status doesn't play a causal role in their success.

I’m saying that the NMSF kids’ environments are factor for their succes. I’m also saying those same kids with in a different environment would still do well. Because NMSF kids are the 1% intelligence-wise, both of these statements can exist together.


What I’m mostly saying is that for the vast majority of the remaining 99%, environment will greatly affect their degree of success, regardless of IQ. For this reason the abilities and outcomes of the 1% should not be used to frame/gauge expected outcomes for the remaining 99%. (E.g Frisco had 1000 NMSF ergo, Frisco is a great school district)

Maybe I wasn’t clear.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by BLDSoon

I’m saying that the NMSF kids’ environments are factor for their succes. I’m also saying those same kids with in a different environment would still do well. Because NMSF kids are the 1% intelligence-wise, both of these statements can exist together.


What I’m mostly saying is that for the vast majority of the remaining 99%, environment will greatly affect their degree of success, regardless of IQ. For this reason the abilities and outcomes of the 1% should not be used to frame/gauge expected outcomes for the remaining 99%. (E.g Frisco had 1000 NMSF ergo, Frisco is a great school district)

Maybe I wasn’t clear.

I certainly agree that people should stop using NMSF numbers as a proxy for school quality. IMO, much of this is determined by school demographics. Has Frisco really upped its academic game that much in recent years, or has it simply had a lot more wealthy, successful (and smart) Indians move there who are extremely motivated? The second seems more likely to me.

If you have a smart kid, you should probably want them around other smart kids. But that's about the end of the usefulness here.

[CMC_TX]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I certainly agree that people should stop using NMSF numbers as a proxy for school quality. IMO, much of this is determined by school demographics. Has Frisco really upped its academic game that much in recent years, or has it simply had a lot more wealthy, successful (and smart) Indians move there who are extremely motivated? The second seems more likely to me.

If you have a smart kid, you should probably want them around other smart kids. But that's about the end of the usefulness here.

Agree. To this exact point, it’s interesting to see how few Plano Sr. has nowadays compared to how it used to be. I don’t think anything about the academic rigor at Plano Sr. changed, but what has changed is shifting demographics feeding into Plano Sr. East has the IB program and West draws from Uber-competitive Jasper.

Similarly, Frisco didn’t up their academic game, they simply benefitted from an expanding pool of students pushed to extreme high achievement.