Well yes, I always knew that Ann Coulter was a bitch. And that someday she would "turn on me. "
But you say bitch that like that's a bad thing. Hey, I'm a bitch too. And I'm a Sexy Republican Babe too. Although my legs are normal length and I don't have long, flowing blonde tresses.
Here's the thing. I believe that just because a school is Ivy doesn't mean it's better. It simply means that it's ten times colder, has ten times more endowment, and ten times better connections with the "right" people.
Ann has apparently caught some flack from her readers, to wit:
The average LSAT score at SMU Law School is 155. The average LSAT at Harvard is 170. That's a difference of approximately 1 1/2 standard deviations, a differential IQ experts routinely refer to as "big-ass" or "humongous." Whatever else you think of them, the average Harvard Law School student is very smart. I gather I have just committed a hate crime by saying so.
I was so curious about this that I spent a large part of the evening googling "LSAT" "SAT" and "IQ". I was genuinely trying to discern if respected scholars felt that the SAT or the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) correlated with intelligence, and indeed, if the traditional IQ tests were felt to be a genuine measure of intelligence.
Let's see what Ann is saying here:
1. High LSAT scores=High IQ
2. High IQ=Successful attorney, judge, etc.
Ok. On the first point I did not find anything that I could point to as proof. The developers of the SAT, LSAT, etc. apparently took pains to point out that the tests were not supposed to measure intelligence.
According to this link, the founder of the Princeton Review says this:
Is the SAT an IQ test?
No.
Why isn't it an IQ test?
Because it doesn't measure IQ. It is used that way. And it was developed from the army IQ test. But even the College Board will refuse to say that this is an intelligence test. And I'd love to see them say it. I'd love to see them say anything because then you can attack it. But there's this kind of mushy response that when you work your way through it, there's sort of nothing left--'Well, it has a slight predictive validity to freshman year grades in college.' We spend a 100 million dollars a year for that? You know--your grades in high school predict college grades better than this and we didn't have to spend anything.
So is it an IQ test?
It's a variant of an IQ-like test. It is set up somewhat differently. It begs the question of, what is an IQ test measuring? What is intelligence? And you talk to test makers. And intelligence is what their test makes. And that's a circular definition. So to the extent that it's measuring the same that an intelligence test is measuring--then, yes it is. But there's three fallacies there: That there is such a thing as intelligence--that it can be measured. And that you can put the measurements on a linear scale. And other, even people who believe that there is such a construct as intelligence believes that intelligencee is not one thing but seven or eight or possibly nine different things. Robert Sternberg at Yale says it's three different things.
At best, the SAT is badly measuring one of those parts of what goes into intelligence.
I can only offer my opinion on 2.
First of all, I think it's disingenous to state that Harriet Miers!!! (hilarious parody blog) does not have the intellectual skills to be a Supreme Court justice. I do not believe that one needs a genius IQ to be a tremendously successful judge or attorney.
Practicing law certainly demands some level of knowledge, intelligence and reasoning. Duh. But sucessful attorneys are much more than simply a high IQ. A good attorney must be able to understand people. She must be able to express herself eloquently in both one-on-one negotiations and addressing crowds. She must know...eh..how do I put this...zee big picture. How to deal. How to plan. How to...interact with the real world. Not the world of Prosser. But the real world. How people behave.
And I do not believe that the Constitution is an inpenetrable document able to be interpreted and understood by only the mega genius types. huh? Free speech. No crool & unusual punishment. The right to bear arms. The state can't try you twice for the same crime. Freedom of religion. Simple, straightforward principles. Hmm, wonder what the people who wrote it would have scored on their SAT?
Posts
6 comments:
The last paragraph is pretty convincing.
My experience has been that the predictive exams (GMAT, GRE, etc.) have limited predictive power for graduate school performance --- even at doing the course work itself--- after some minimum grade is reached. That minimum is not 99 percentile, either. The tests are all too one-dimensional. And I work in a technical academic field.
I never really paid Anne Coulter any attention after she showed up in the Sunday NY Times style section But your last post reminded me of her. I saw her new paperback book cover at the airport. Based on that book title ('How to talk to a liberal' or something) it looks to me like she is marketing herself to people who already agree with her.
Which is why I now view your last post as even more informative about the Harriet Miers nomination.
I always thought I was too dumb to go to law school---only really smart people became lawyers. But I ended up with a PhD anyhow. I went to a quite low ranked school as an undergrad; was barely accepted into the master's program of a (slightly) better school; and got a PhD at a good school. I now work at a high ranked university.
The (non) correlation of LSAT and IQ scores works from the other direction, too. Law is a specialty. I never studied law. I would flunk an LSAT miserably. Does that mean I have a low IQ? I would certainly hope not.
And another thing. "Standard deviation" is a statistical tool. What it means for IQ tests has nothing to do with what it means for other tests. You have to study the deviations WITHIN the area you are studying. If there is some research correlating LSAT scores with IQ scores, that research should be cited before generalizing about a school's success.
I think Ann is looking for something to fight about.. thats her job, after all. Harriet Miers will stand or fall on her own, regardless of whatever school population she inhabited many years ago.
On the other hand, Mensa does accept SAT, GRE, and LSAT scores in lieu of an IQ test for membership--that's certainly how I got in. Although, apparently, I had the LSAT scores to go Harvard, which is surprising.
(maudler)
Hi Maudler,
Oh definitely. Saying the tests are worthless is as wrong as saying that they are 100% accurate. The truth is out there. I don't know what it is.
I figured that everyone knew that the only advantage to going to some place like Harvard is the connections you make with other people who can manage to go to Harvard. They pick people not so much based on their test scores or even grades but based on some weird predictions about who will be the movers and shakers (and whose parents went to Harvard). Once in you don't even have to work that hard.
Post a Comment