[anatolia3]

Do you know or believe that a very good IQ score can favour somebody even if he or she doesn't have top grades or went to a top uni?Does it give a competitive advantage when applying to jobs or unis?

[Swanbow]

Nope. IQ tests are quite controversial and subjective. Intelligence is a lot of things, and IQ tests aren't good at measuring most of it. A university might be willing to accept you to a foundation or access course without formal qualifications as long as you demonstrate capability. As for jobs, employers employ the person most capable for the job and unfortunately a high IQ without relevant qualifications isn't likely to get you a job.

[anatolia3]

(Original post by Swanbow)
Nope. IQ tests are quite controversial and subjective. Intelligence is a lot of things, and IQ tests aren't good at measuring most of it. A university might be willing to accept you to a foundation or access course without formal qualifications as long as you demonstrate capability. As for jobs, employers employ the person most capable for the job and unfortunately a high IQ without relevant qualifications isn't likely to get you a job.

I don't mean in cases that somebody doesn't have any relevant qualifications.For example if somebody applies to a law firm or an investment bank or any graduate scheme with a mid-tier uni degree but has a high IQ score, is he likely to get called for an interview?

[Swanbow]

(Original post by anatolia3)
I don't mean in cases that somebody doesn't have any relevant qualifications.For example if somebody applies to a law firm or an investment bank or any graduate scheme with a mid-tier uni degree but has a high IQ score, is he likely to get called for an interview?

I don't think the high IQ would really help, it's not something employers really ask for or look at it. If you have a good enough application for the firm and show potential however it's likely you might get called for an interview.

[Brit_Miller]

(Original post by anatolia3)
I don't mean in cases that somebody doesn't have any relevant qualifications.For example if somebody applies to a law firm or an investment bank or any graduate scheme with a mid-tier uni degree but has a high IQ score, is he likely to get called for an interview?

No! You wouldn't put an IQ score on your CV. They're highly subjective tests and it's quite easy to learn techniques to get great scores in them.

[anatolia3]

(Original post by Brit_Miller)
No! You wouldn't put an IQ score on your CV. They're highly subjective tests and it's quite easy to learn techniques to get great scores in them.

I know two people that put it on their CV(for uni applications) and they got accepted from Oxbridge, but they had high grades also

[Brit_Miller]

(Original post by anatolia3)
I know two people that put it on their CV(for uni applications) and they got accepted from Oxbridge, but they had high grades also

They would go on grades, not IQ IMO.

[zaliack]

Maybe in America

[bishbash72]

Well firstly, everyone who says they don't measure anything is wrong. They measure intelligence very well.

However, most firms don't bother with them, though I know some tech firms do. It's more of a thing that they'll request of you, rather than something that you can put on your CV speculatively. Makes you look arrogant.

[Emor]

(Original post by Callum828)
Well firstly, everyone who says they don't measure anything is wrong. They measure intelligence very well.

However, most firms don't bother with them, though I know some tech firms do. It's more of a thing that they'll request of you, rather than something that you can put on your CV speculatively. Makes you look arrogant.

That in it self is a subjective claim, what one employer may look for in intelligence(i.e good arithmetic skills[which IQ may measure]) another may look for something completely unrelated(i.e good hand-eye coordination).

It may seem like a semantics issue, but in my opinion it's a very close-minded outlook towards intelligence, it's not even designed to measure intelligence on such levels, AFAIK it was designed initially to pick out children that possibly have special needs. Beyond 120 IMO it's starts to get progressively more irrelevant and subjective when it comes to measuring, 'intelligence'.

Though I can see why a tech firm or some sort of mathematically and scientifically orientated firm may place emphasis on it or deem it as a reliable indicator, because in that respect it is.

Sorry if you already thought this and just worded it in a way that lead me to misinterpret your post, it just irritates me when people overestimate how reliable IQ is. It goes both ways too, I know some people with IQ's of 80 and akin that are clearly not mentally retarded when you engage in conversation with them and I know people with extremely high I.Q's(i.e >170) that really don't come across as very intelligent at all. I know that's anecdotal but yeah.

EMZ.

EDIT: plus I'd agree that putting I.Q on your C.V could possibly be misconstrued as arrogance.

[JimmiesArentRustle]

(Original post by Swanbow)
Nope. IQ tests are quite controversial and subjective. Intelligence is a lot of things, and IQ tests aren't good at measuring most of it. A university might be willing to accept you to a foundation or access course without formal qualifications as long as you demonstrate capability. As for jobs, employers employ the person most capable for the job and unfortunately a high IQ without relevant qualifications isn't likely to get you a job.

That's simply not true, and simply propaganda by liberals who want to pretend that everyone can be as intelligent as they want.
Here is the American Psychological Association:

The findings of the task force state that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual (but not necessarily population) differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual (again, not necessarily population) differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics.
They state there is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. They agree that there are no significant differences between the average IQ scores of males and females. The task force agrees that large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction. While they admit there is no empirical evidence supporting it, the APA task force suggests that explanations based on social status and cultural differences may be possible. Regarding genetic causes, they noted that there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.

But obviously, a high IQ score will get you nowhere except for potential. A recruiter would simply laugh if you told them that they should recruit you because you have a high IQ.

[JimmiesArentRustle]

(Original post by Emor)
That in it self is a subjective claim, what one employer may look for in intelligence(i.e good arithmetic skills[which IQ may measure]) another may look for something completely unrelated(i.e good hand-eye coordination).

It may seem like a semantics issue, but in my opinion it's a very close-minded outlook towards intelligence, it's not even designed to measure intelligence on such levels, AFAIK it was designed initially to pick out children that possibly have special needs. Beyond 120 IMO it's starts to get progressively more irrelevant and subjective when it comes to measuring, 'intelligence'.

Though I can see why a tech firm or some sort of mathematically and scientifically orientated firm may place emphasis on it or deem it as a reliable indicator, because in that respect it is.

Sorry if you already thought this and just worded it in a way that lead me to misinterpret your post, it just irritates me when people overestimate how reliable IQ is. It goes both ways too, I know some people with IQ's of 80 and akin that are clearly not mentally retarded when you engage in conversation with them and I know people with extremely high I.Q's(i.e >170) that really don't come across as very intelligent at all. I know that's anecdotal but yeah.

EMZ.

EDIT: plus I'd agree that putting I.Q on your C.V could possibly be misconstrued as arrogance.

There are two types of mental retards. Mental retards who have a genetic defect, hence your typical mental retard who drools, looks stupid... etc and you have mental retards who have just inherited their natural unintelligence. These people will act just like normal people and speak normally, the only difference being that they will have trouble putting 2 and 2 together.

[anatolia3]

IQ is an indicator of a certain type of intelligence.Certainly people are not only that.Social skills and EQ are also highly important and personality traits of course.I'm just saying that it may be a plus, given that you have other skills as well.I don't think it is irrelevant, given that many job aps require you take a numerical test and other kinds of tests, which are not very different from IQ tests

[Profesh]

(Original post by JimmiesArentRustle)
They agree that individual (again, not necessarily population) differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics.

Regarding genetic causes, they noted that there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.

...

[Bimbleby]

(Original post by Swanbow)
Nope. IQ tests are quite controversial and subjective. Intelligence is a lot of things, and IQ tests aren't good at measuring most of it. A university might be willing to accept you to a foundation or access course without formal qualifications as long as you demonstrate capability. As for jobs, employers employ the person most capable for the job and unfortunately a high IQ without relevant qualifications isn't likely to get you a job.

They're not perfect, but if they're useless why do they use IQ-style tests for application to some top firms and for jobs with MI5? IQ tests have been shown to be good predictors of future performance. I don't really know what you mean by subjective, either. They're multiple choice. There are right and wrong answers. How are they subjective? Unless you mean that some people don't think they're a good indicator of intelligence, in which case you could have just said 'controversial' and left it there.

That said, I wouldn't put it. If it's very high you'll look arrogant. If not, why put it? If you have a high IQ but haven't attained high results or such, I'd say that makes you look, if anything, worse. Why haven't you used your potential? I don't know, but if it were me reading that application, I'd think you must be someone who thinks they can get by on aptitude alone, which ok up to a point, but not really someone you want to employ. It smacks a bit of laziness and arrogance (I'm not saying you're either of those things, just that it could come across like that).

[Swanbow]

(Original post by Bimbleby)
They're not perfect, but if they're useless why do they use IQ-style tests for application to some top firms and for jobs with MI5? IQ tests have been shown to be good predictors of future performance. I don't really know what you mean by subjective, either. They're multiple choice. There are right and wrong answers. How are they subjective? Unless you mean that some people don't think they're a good indicator of intelligence, in which case you could have just said 'controversial' and left it there.

The IQ test does it's job, however I don't believe it's the be all and end all of intelligence. With reference to MI5 a person with a high IQ could be great as an information analyst however someone with a lower IQ but who is much more street wise and sociable will better at human intelligence such as espionage. And I meant subjective as in people argue whether they are an indicator of intelligence, my use of controversial was actually more focusing on the side of it being used to determine racial superiority and what not due to supposed differences in races.

[RyanT]

Very few jobs are intellectually demanding.

Employers are interested in you as an individual and how you will fit in a team.

Not some meaningless statistic. Doing well in an IQ test means you're good at IQ tests.

[JimmiesArentRustle]

(Original post by Profesh)
...

Do you have a point to make or are you just wasting my time?
They see a very strong correlation but have no direct evidence yet because we are not very advanced in the understanding of genes related to intelligence.
Maybe you should go back to grade school to learn statistics.

[Profesh]

(Original post by JimmiesArentRustle)
Do you have a point to make or are you just wasting my time?

My point, unlike yours, should warrant no clarification.

They see a very strong correlation but have no direct evidence yet because we are not very advanced in the understanding of genes related to intelligence.
Maybe you should go back to grade school to learn statistics.

How can they purport a 'substantial genetic influence' if empirical data are either non-existent or, worse still, indicative of the contrary? Perhaps you should 'go back to grade school' and re-acquaint yourself with the difference between substantive analysis (of a sort that might prove useful here), weak conjecture (of the sort that TSR users endlessly propagate in lieu), and outright divination (which, for lack of citation, is what you appear to espouse).