[7589200]

Personally I would accept 1-3, 4 if it was something quite specialist...not just 'used to black tie dinners' and obviously not 5!

[goussberry]

(Original post by Roger Mexico)
Because the 60s and 70s are in any way relevant to current politics, right? Nice going, champ.

Unnecessary, "champ". & yes they are, "champ". Ignorance is obviously your best friend because if what you said was right then history would not matter to our modern society at all. And it DOES. History from the 40s is relevant to today - namely the NHS & welfare state. So go get educated. Nice going, "champ."

[llys]

Interesting topic.

What I associate with the word elitism is = exclusive with respect to background rather than ability. It can be used in other ways but that's how I interpret the word unless it is made clear that something else is meant.

In that context I would say
1 is not elitist (because they measure IQ, not background)
2 is not elitist (because any smart person can get a 1 or 2.1 regardless of where they are from)
3 is borderline elitist (unless they have clear evidence that someone with a 1 or 2.1 from a uni not on their list is always less able than someone with a 2.1 from a uni on their list)
4 is elitist (because it measures background more than anything else, even more than you suggest - based on what you write they would probably not accept just anyone from the universities on their list, only well-off people who understand their rich clients)
5 is elitist (it is racist but also elitist because again it is about background)

Note that all of them are exclusive (with respect to ability), but only some are elitist (exclusive with respect to background).

Oh and as for "when is it ok?" - I'd be fine with 1-3 and borderline 4. (I think 3-5 limit themselves but that's their problem. I don't really care because I wouldn't really want to work for them anyway.)

[barnetbuzzzz]

Can somebody explain to me what exactly is wrong with elitism?
Employers want to hire those best at doing the job - those people are likely to be the ones who have had a better education.
I fail to see what is wrong with this.

[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by Blutooth)
Don't go to sleep :P. It also used to be the case that girls scored higher in IQ tests than boys but then iq tests were changed to redress this bias. Now you might argue that the Iq tests were unfairly suited to girls' strengths or you might say that girls are cleverer than boys. But the difficulties inherent in designing iq tests when there is a spectrum of different intelligence seems to render IQ tests as a limited indicator.

Coming back to the redesigned IQ tests for toddlers, I might again ask the question, how do I know that you are just not fiddling with the tests to suit your preconceived conclusion that iq is immutable over the years? Is this not similar to the case above where iq tests were redesigned so that they would fit the bias of the day ie. that boys were as smart or smarter than girls?

It seems like in designing Iq tests, to an extent, we already have to second-guess the conclusions of the test.

i think youll find that boys used to score higher on those tests as they were suited to their particular strengths. hence why more boys than girls got into grammar schools.

Iq tests for children are adapted to their levels of cognitive understanding and not based on second guesses. They're obviously not going to have the same cognitive ability as adults.

I'm not going to be rude to you as I can see where you are coming from, but you seriously need to revise the concept of an iq and how they are constructed before you can debate properly about it.

[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by M1011)
Sigh. So then you agree with me in saying a candidate with a higher IQ or better education etc (strengths) can be favoured over one without those attributes?

I think you've run out of things to say.

Again it appears that you do not know what equality of opportunity means. Not everyone has an equal opportunity of having a high IQ or getting a better education, that's my point.

[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by goussberry)
Unnecessary, "champ". & yes they are, "champ". Ignorance is obviously your best friend because if what you said was right then history would not matter to our modern society at all. And it DOES. History from the 40s is relevant to today - namely the NHS & welfare state. So go get educated. Nice going, "champ."

I think what he was trying to say is that the overwhelimg majority of PM's and other high end politicians are Oxbridge educated old Etonians.

[Blutooth]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
i think youll find that boys used to score higher on those tests as they were suited to their particular strengths. hence why more boys than girls got into grammar schools.

Iq tests for children are adapted to their levels of cognitive understanding and not based on second guesses. They're obviously not going to have the same cognitive ability as adults.

I'm not going to be rude to you as I can see where you are coming from, but you seriously need to revise the concept of an iq and how they are constructed before you can debate properly about it.

You are wrong on the first point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and...y#Intelligence

"When standardized IQ tests were first developed in the early 20th century, girls typically scored higher than boys up to age 14.[37] As testing methodology was revised, efforts were made to equalize gender performance.[37][38][39]"


I think there is no such thing as static intelligence and that intelligence can vary over time, so I disagree with the whole concept of IQ. Here is another link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15369851. --Don't ignore it; check this link out. Also this one if you've got time:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13156817

If kids can change their IQ, I think adults can too, but it is obviously harder because the brain is less plastic and the neurones are less likely to change their configurations. Also, we get stuck into habits as adults and do much less learning than when we were kids...so this all culminates with IQ tending to stay at the same level in most people.

[Peel]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
Again it appears that you do not know what equality of opportunity means. Not everyone has an equal opportunity of having a high IQ or getting a better education, that's my point.

Don't really want to get involved with in petty arguements online, but this is one of the most bizzare interpretations of equal opportunity I've heard. Surely it's within many companies interest to have the smartest and most educated employees (granted some job roles require soft skills more than these). Why should a company, driven by profits and stakeholders, have any interest in those with an education or abilities lower than that which they require?

Another thing, IQ isn't a very good indicator of anything. It shows potential, yes, but it's absolutely meaningless unless you do something with it. There are lots of intelligent people I'd imagine have very high IQs in my class, but actually you tend to find they peform in the bottom half of the year because they're not as driven as other, or take their education a bit for granted. Diligence and ambition equip you far better to be 'smart' than IQ I would say.

The questions I'd pose to you are: what proportion of jobs out there really require people to be that smart that you think IQ differences significantly impacts job performance? What do you understand to be a "better education"? And how would you adjust for inherent differences in IQ / some candidates not having access to "better educations"?

Also I would add that to me, equal opportunity means having the opportunity regardless of any background, to apply for any job / opportunity; I don't on the other hand interpret this to mean that I will get equal consideration regardless of my background. Interviews are by nature discriminatory, their purpose is to find inequality.

[M1011]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
Again it appears that you do not know what equality of opportunity means. Not everyone has an equal opportunity of having a high IQ or getting a better education, that's my point.

I assure you I do. You're incredibly frustrating... It seems you don't believe jobs should go to the most suitable candidate? You've taken equality out of context to suit your own goal.

How should we decide who is ideal for a role then? What method of elimination is acceptable to you when 10 applicants apply to 1 position? God forbid we look at intelligence or education.. What can we look at? Or should it be pot luck?

[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by M1011)
I assure you I do. You're incredibly frustrating... It seems you don't believe jobs should go to the most suitable candidate? You've taken equality out of context to suit your own goal.

How should we decide who is ideal for a role then? What method of elimination is acceptable to you when 10 applicants apply to 1 position? God forbid we look at intelligence or education.. What can we look at? Or should it be pot luck?

And again, this is not what equality of opportunity means.

Do your research or stop quoting me.

[M1011]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
And again, this is not what equality of opportunity means.

Do your research or stop quoting me.

Sigh. I believe it is you that doesn't understand what equality of opportunity means. I have not in any way attempted to define equality in my previous posts, yet as you seem to keep retorting with 'that is not what it means' BS then see the quote below. As the below quote demonstrates, the idea of people competing for jobs based on their IQ or education is absolutely fine and is the essence of equality of opportunity. Everyone has the opportunity to perform well on aptitude tests, there results are purely based on their ability, this is entirely equal and the essence of equality. The fact that everyone doesn't score the same has nothing to do with equality, everyone has the same opportunity. Similarly anyone can go to university, it's up to you to get the grades. Everyone has that equal chance at A-Levels. These are fair grounds to compete on, as you are competing on what you can do not where you come from etc. This stupid notion of yours that people can't be divided in this way is completely contrary to what equality actually means.

Equality becomes an issue if we're saying we'll only employ people from certain areas, or from certain races, or with certain parents, or with certain amounts of money etc. But none of those kind of things were mentioned or supported by myself.

Do your own research next time


Quotes: (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/)

The ideal of a society in which people do not suffer disadvantage from discrimination on grounds of supposed race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation...

Equality of opportunity is a political ideal that is opposed to caste hierarchy but not to hierarchy per se. The background assumption is that a society contains a hierarchy of more and less desirable, superior and inferior positions. Or there may be several such hierarchies. In a caste society, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is fixed by birth. The child acquires the social status of his or her parents at least if their union is socially sanctioned. Social mobility may be possible in a caste society, but the process whereby one is admitted to a different level of the hierarchy is open only to some individuals depending on their initial ascriptive social status. In contrast, when equality of opportunity prevails, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is determined by some form of competitive process, and all members of society are eligible to compete on equal terms. Different conceptions of equality of opportunity construe this idea of competing on equal terms variously.

[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by M1011)
Sigh. I believe it is you that doesn't understand what equality of opportunity means. I have not in any way attempted to define equality in my previous posts, yet as you seem to keep retorting with 'that is not what it means' BS then see the quote below. As the below quote demonstrates, the idea of people competing for jobs based on their IQ or education is absolutely fine and is the essence of equality of opportunity. Everyone has the opportunity to perform well on aptitude tests, there results are purely based on their ability, this is entirely equal and the essence of equality. The fact that everyone doesn't score the same has nothing to do with equality, everyone has the same opportunity. Similarly anyone can go to university, it's up to you to get the grades. Everyone has that equal chance at A-Levels. These are fair grounds to compete on, as you are competing on what you can do not where you come from etc. This stupid notion of yours that people can't be divided in this way is completely contrary to what equality actually means.

Equality becomes an issue if we're saying we'll only employ people from certain areas, or from certain races, or with certain parents, or with certain amounts of money etc. But none of those kind of things were mentioned or supported by myself.

Do your own research next time


Quotes: (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/)

The ideal of a society in which people do not suffer disadvantage from discrimination on grounds of supposed race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation...

Equality of opportunity is a political ideal that is opposed to caste hierarchy but not to hierarchy per se. The background assumption is that a society contains a hierarchy of more and less desirable, superior and inferior positions. Or there may be several such hierarchies. In a caste society, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is fixed by birth. The child acquires the social status of his or her parents at least if their union is socially sanctioned. Social mobility may be possible in a caste society, but the process whereby one is admitted to a different level of the hierarchy is open only to some individuals depending on their initial ascriptive social status. In contrast, when equality of opportunity prevails, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is determined by some form of competitive process, and all members of society are eligible to compete on equal terms. Different conceptions of equality of opportunity construe this idea of competing on equal terms variously.

No not everyone has the opportunity to score well on an IQ test since intelligence is inherited and even if it can be learned, the working class will have less of an opportunity to do so than the middle class. So it is essentially an indirect way of recruiting someone based on their parents.

[Blutooth]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
No not everyone has the opportunity to score well on an IQ test since intelligence is inherited and even if it can be learned, the working class will have less of an opportunity to do so than the middle class. So it is essentially an indirect way of recruiting someone based on their parents.

No it isn't. That part is purely accidental.

[Minotauro]

So what's the point the point of working hard at A levels to get into a good uni

[M1011]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
No not everyone has the opportunity to score well on an IQ test since intelligence is inherited and even if it can be learned, the working class will have less of an opportunity to do so than the middle class. So it is essentially an indirect way of recruiting someone based on their parents.

You're really not getting this are you. Everyone has the same opportunity to sit at a desk, take the test and do their best. Scoring highly isn't a crime, everyone had the same opportunity to take the damn test. Equality of opportunity by definition means everyone has the same chance in a competitive process, SOMEBODY HAS TO WIN! We aren't all the same person, you could put absolutely anything down to some far reaching unequal genetic process if you really wanted to, what exactly do you think we can compete on in a equal opportunity society?

Here's a basic example. Lets say both of us want to join a football team. We both train hard and prepare equally for the try outs, but when we get there you are better than me at playing the sport. Did I not have an equal opportunity? The fact that you might be physically superior at a genetic level and therefore can play better doesn't make the coach a damn elitist for picking you over me does it?! However if he based his decision on you being a certain race (i.e. you're Spanish so he presumes you're better) then that would be unequal.

I hope you're actually trying to understand what I'm saying as opposed to sitting there ignoring the obvious in order to continue under your misconceptions. Hard headedness is not a good trait IMO.

Also, who on earth learns an IQ test? Have you done an IQ test? If you wanted to 'learn' one the few thing you could do would be to look at past papers through Google, hardly elitist.

[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by M1011)
You're really not getting this are you. Everyone has the same opportunity to sit at a desk, take the test and do their best. Scoring highly isn't a crime, everyone had the same opportunity to take the damn test. Equality of opportunity by definition means everyone has the same chance in a competitive process, SOMEBODY HAS TO WIN! We aren't all the same person, you could put absolutely anything down to some far reaching unequal genetic process if you really wanted to, what exactly do you think we can compete on in a equal opportunity society?

Here's a basic example. Lets say both of us want to join a football team. We both train hard and prepare equally for the try outs, but when we get there you are better than me at playing the sport. Did I not have an equal opportunity? The fact that you might be physically superior at a genetic level and therefore can play better doesn't make the coach a damn elitist for picking you over me does it?! However if he based his decision on you being a certain race (i.e. you're Spanish so he presumes you're better) then that would be unequal.

I hope you're actually trying to understand what I'm saying as opposed to sitting there ignoring the obvious in order to continue under your misconceptions. Hard headedness is not a good trait IMO.

Also, who on earth learns an IQ test? Have you done an IQ test? If you wanted to 'learn' one the few thing you could do would be to look at past papers through Google, hardly elitist.

ok before you said that everyone has the same chance to do well. that's not the same thing as having the same chance to take the test, don't be naive.
You're confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. They are two separate things.
i cba to read the rest.

[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by Blutooth)
No it isn't. That part is purely accidental.

Not if IQ is in part inherited in which case you also have smarter parents.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

Why is IQ important?

there was a story of a 4 year old, some user posted on this forum... she had an IQ of 159.... 1 less than stephen hawking, 4 more than some champion mathematician...
does that mean she can get employed right there and now?if she got 161, are you people going to say shes pwns hawking? problem solving skills are one thing, but to base your employment on it is stupid... High IQ =/= being knowledgeable in your field i.e. Intelligent Corp

[Blutooth]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
Not if IQ is in part inherited in which case you also have smarter parents.

Year but no but yerr but no but the employers aren't hiring the people because they had smarter/ wealther parents, they just want smarter workers so that kind of discrimination is accidental. You know that.