This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Mensa workout
- Iq test score interpretation
- I did the IQ test and this is what it said,
- would you rather have 15% higher IQ, or 100% more self discipline?
- Sociology A Level
- Based on 2023 GCSEs, will grade boundaries be higher or lower in 2024?
- uk education system
- delete
- Should British schools be more flexible with skipping years?
- maths - frequency polygon
- London Finsbury Park or Greenwich
- Finding the right accommodation. (LINCOLN)
- Xu Fuyou counted was not epaulets, but beautiful knives
- admission entry test, verbal, non verbal reasoning, yellis test
- How to prepare for bmat?
- What would civilisation look like if the average IQ was 150?
- Preparation for Year 10
- how to cover all of gcse maths content in one month
- IQ student accommodation
- Tests to measure IQ.
MENSA and NAGTY (high IQ)
Scroll to see replies
If you take the tests frequently, i would have thought that your mind would "adapt" to the style of questions (for instance pattern recognition) and so the actual result would be more deceptive as time goes on.
You're not "butting in" to anything - don't apologise!
There IS a practice effect with the IQ tests, and you can definitely get more adept at taking them, but there's probably a limit to how much practicing helps - some questions you just might not be able to do, and that's the end of it. But yes, a bit of looking at the papers helps the result. But it probably plateaus at some point.
13241
You might as well slip it in somewhere as it sort of suggests that you might be intelligent. But I wouldn't actually say that you have a 'high IQ'- that just sounds arrogant and is, in my opinion, very controversial as to whether high IQ = high intelligence.
Also, there has been much research to show that people with high IQs are often low achievers- not that Im saying you are tho, its just that i would make sure to include lots of other of your skills as well.
So basically, theres no reason why you shouldnt include it in a simple sentence.
Good luck!
Also, there has been much research to show that people with high IQs are often low achievers- not that Im saying you are tho, its just that i would make sure to include lots of other of your skills as well.
So basically, theres no reason why you shouldnt include it in a simple sentence.
Good luck!
Philip Todd is a member you know! (not a celebrity, someone we know). Anyways, back to French Lit....
OP: Stick it on if you have room, dont be hellbent on it, make sure you sound reasonably modest too or they might give you a rough ride at interview (the pretentious shall be strucketh)
Drogue
That's like saying someone who took AEAs, which most of the applicants haven't, will stand out for being naive if they mention it. Or if they've taken grade 8 in a musical instrument. Why? Surely any achievement that has any bearing on your intellect is useful, whether it's a maths challenge, GCSEs and A levels, AEAs, STEP papers or IQ tests?
That's like saying someone who took AEAs, which most of the applicants haven't, will stand out for being naive if they mention it. Or if they've taken grade 8 in a musical instrument. Why? Surely any achievement that has any bearing on your intellect is useful, whether it's a maths challenge, GCSEs and A levels, AEAs, STEP papers or IQ tests?
Well, I fail to see how having a high IQ is an achievement; it is nothing like taking Grade 8 in an instrument. It would be like saying 'Well, I don't have any grades in this instrument, but I did a test to show that my innate musicality is through the roof'. Unless you do something with that musicality, it impresses no-one. Same with IQ.
Drogue
The point about associating with like-minded people, well, isn't that why many people apply to Oxbridge? If you come from a background with few people of a high intelligence, it can be hard to have such discussions. I know I felt a little like that at school, and was one of the reasons I've enjoyed Oxford so much - getting to have conversations with very intelligent people. People always associate with people similar to themselves, whether it's a fan club for a sport or anything else. The fact that people with high IQs want to associate together just goes with the same idea - people who have something in common.
The point about associating with like-minded people, well, isn't that why many people apply to Oxbridge? If you come from a background with few people of a high intelligence, it can be hard to have such discussions. I know I felt a little like that at school, and was one of the reasons I've enjoyed Oxford so much - getting to have conversations with very intelligent people. People always associate with people similar to themselves, whether it's a fan club for a sport or anything else. The fact that people with high IQs want to associate together just goes with the same idea - people who have something in common.
That's what I meant. People say they join Mensa to meet like-minded people - well, that's why you 'join' Oxford. I wouldn't expect someone to have a lot in common with me just because we shared a similar IQ number. You can have interesting discussions with intelligent people, sure, but not the kind of people who need to join a club to prove they are intelligent - seems really wanky to me.
Drogue
In short, while I accept that some people do have a bad view of IQ tests and such, I'm asking why? IQ tests have been shown to be good indicators of postgraduate level academic performance, they provide more information for admissions, they've been used over most of the world, they test something different to other standard UK exams and they test something more robust to family background than other educational attainment tests (although still not entirely robust). It seems like they'd be of great benefit to admissions tutors. Hell, almost every investment bank or large graduate employer uses aptitude tests, very similar to IQ tests, for recruitment. It's the bigotry involved in saying that high-IQ people are arrogant that annoys me, and stops us using tests like this.
In short, while I accept that some people do have a bad view of IQ tests and such, I'm asking why? IQ tests have been shown to be good indicators of postgraduate level academic performance, they provide more information for admissions, they've been used over most of the world, they test something different to other standard UK exams and they test something more robust to family background than other educational attainment tests (although still not entirely robust). It seems like they'd be of great benefit to admissions tutors. Hell, almost every investment bank or large graduate employer uses aptitude tests, very similar to IQ tests, for recruitment. It's the bigotry involved in saying that high-IQ people are arrogant that annoys me, and stops us using tests like this.
As I said, they don't always work. I'm not saying high-IQ people are arrogant - most of the people I hang around with I'm sure have very high IQs. The arrogance comes from people who think that having that high IQ is an achievement in itself, that it raises them above other people, and allows them to join super-adventure clubs (South Park reference) with other high-IQ people, who are only like-minded in that all felt the need to sign up, as their reward for being in possession of a number they didn't choose and can't change, a mere accident of the gene pool that says little about who you are and how original your thinking is.
Pernell Whitaker
No, you're wrong. He was one of the ones with a 170 IQ. I'm fairly certain of that.
The novelist boy was the most annoying to me. And, interestingly enough, the only child on the programme whose Mum was an Oxford academic. He ended up having a not so great IQ, not the philosopher one. Another example of what Drogue and I mentioned earlier. Having the best background means you'll probably achieve more, but doesn't mean you're any more naturally intelligent than those from a poorer background. In my opinion, that boy was just a goody two shoes, he didn't seem startlingly bright. His IQ test proved that.
The novelist boy was the most annoying to me. And, interestingly enough, the only child on the programme whose Mum was an Oxford academic. He ended up having a not so great IQ, not the philosopher one. Another example of what Drogue and I mentioned earlier. Having the best background means you'll probably achieve more, but doesn't mean you're any more naturally intelligent than those from a poorer background. In my opinion, that boy was just a goody two shoes, he didn't seem startlingly bright. His IQ test proved that.
Ah fair enough, I was probably getting confused! It was the one who had further interviews with some academic that irritated me; the child was obviously trying to be intelligent and produce philosophical statements but he came across as rather irritating!
Sorry, I think I made the conversation go slightly off-topic there - which kid on the genius programme did we dislike the most!
(Feel free to ignore this post, it's rather irrelevant!)
coren111
Hi I am a member of Mensa and NAGTY (for people with high IQs)
Will this help me when applying for Oxford or Cambridge?
Should I write this information on my personal statement and will they be impressed?
Will this help me when applying for Oxford or Cambridge?
Should I write this information on my personal statement and will they be impressed?
If you have done something as part of either of these (e.g. gone to a summer school related to your subject, organised events, etc.) then mention it. Even with the character limit it seems unlikely that you won't be able to squeeze it in unless you have a huge number of other achievements. Don't expect the names to impress anyone though. Half my year at school got letters saying they qualified for NAGTY. Mensa isn't that exclusive either (plus just having a high IQ doesn't mean that you'll be any good at your course).
Neutral_Tones
Sorry, I think I made the conversation go slightly off-topic there - which kid on the genius programme did we dislike the most!
For anyone who watched but can't remember it very well this link goes over all the people - apart from the family with the four children.
harr
The one I wanted to hit the most was the author (Michael). It's not his fault, but I found he came across as stuck up.
Hear, hear.
The one I liked most was the philosophy one (Dante), he struck me as being genuinely gifted without seeming as pretentious as might be expected.
Hear, hear.
A couple of points come to mind:
- We seem to have a problem with definition: the word intellectual is extremely slippery. I would refer to many professors as academics, but certainly not as intellectuals. What defines an intellectual? Does performing well on IQ tests make one an intellectual? This definition appears incorrect if you compare many people who perform well on IQ tests to the public perception of an intellectual.
- Secondly, a recent article in New Scientist looked at issue of IQ and performance. The article came to the conclusion that those who have the most success are not those with the highest IQ; far more important was the amount of work and practice that the person had done.
- We seem to have a problem with definition: the word intellectual is extremely slippery. I would refer to many professors as academics, but certainly not as intellectuals. What defines an intellectual? Does performing well on IQ tests make one an intellectual? This definition appears incorrect if you compare many people who perform well on IQ tests to the public perception of an intellectual.
- Secondly, a recent article in New Scientist looked at issue of IQ and performance. The article came to the conclusion that those who have the most success are not those with the highest IQ; far more important was the amount of work and practice that the person had done.
Lusus Naturae
- We seem to have a problem with definition: the word intellectual is extremely slippery. I would refer to many professors as academics, but certainly not as intellectuals.
I would call all of them academics, and some of them intellectuals.
What defines an intellectual?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual
Though far from conclusive, this Wiki article provides much insight.
Does performing well on IQ tests make one an intellectual?
No, since being an "intellectual" mainly involves one doing something, other than just being something i.e. clever.
Secondly, a recent article in New Scientist looked at issue of IQ and performance. The article came to the conclusion that those who have the most success are not those with the highest IQ; far more important was the amount of work and practice that the person had done.
A conclusion based upon what? Even so, I'm sceptical of people doing "studies" on IQ vis-a-vis performance. What's the point? Having a high IQ is like a sportsman having loads of athletic talent. Just as Mark Lewis-Francis will never hit the heights he quite clearly should, many of those with high IQs may also never hit the heights that they too should, given their innate ability.
Also, I have concerns about those with ridiculously high IQs. I think, as that programme showed, there can be, and there is much chance of, those children having severe social deficiencies.
Neutral_Tones
Ah fair enough, I was probably getting confused! It was the one who had further interviews with some academic that irritated me; the child was obviously trying to be intelligent and produce philosophical statements but he came across as rather irritating!
Sorry, I think I made the conversation go slightly off-topic there - which kid on the genius programme did we dislike the most!
(Feel free to ignore this post, it's rather irrelevant!)
Sorry, I think I made the conversation go slightly off-topic there - which kid on the genius programme did we dislike the most!
(Feel free to ignore this post, it's rather irrelevant!)
Ah I remember that show! I thought that guy Dante was amazing and really gifted. The 'author' was really dodge though- was no-one suspicous that his mum was an Oxford don?? And what about that wee chinese toddler who could do a level maths but didnt know what an orange was? lol
Reading that article on the child geniuses, an interesting point to note is that the IQ measure seems to be of a different kind to that used for adult testing. There's mention of them hitting a limit and using mental age calculations - which sounds like Ratio IQs to me. According to wiki, that's 100 x (mental age/chronological age).
In which case 170+ or hitting the limit is not all that rare - happened to me as a kid and no doubt there are many, many people in Oxbridge who'd have been similarly far advanced of their peer group at school. I think there's a pretty drastic adjustment when switching to normal IQ calculation methods - iirc Marilyn vos Savant 'lost' roughly 40 points when going from Ratio to Deviation IQ.
Conclusion - lots of people have/had IQs like those kids. Few have achieved what they have. IQ =/= intellectual achievement.
In which case 170+ or hitting the limit is not all that rare - happened to me as a kid and no doubt there are many, many people in Oxbridge who'd have been similarly far advanced of their peer group at school. I think there's a pretty drastic adjustment when switching to normal IQ calculation methods - iirc Marilyn vos Savant 'lost' roughly 40 points when going from Ratio to Deviation IQ.
Conclusion - lots of people have/had IQs like those kids. Few have achieved what they have. IQ =/= intellectual achievement.
The 'author' was really dodge though- was no-one suspicous that his mum was an Oxford don??
Suspicious of what, exactly?! He wasn't a ventriloquist's dummy - the vocabulary coming out of his mouth, and the sense it made, was his alone. The fact that his house is full of books and he has a clever mummy is just lucky for him - but his intelligence is his own, not his mum's.
I'm not going to comment on the co-authorship of their books, though, as NONE of us know who writes what. And there's little point in speculating.
Pernell Whitaker
A conclusion based upon what? Even so, I'm sceptical of people doing "studies" on IQ vis-a-vis performance. What's the point? Having a high IQ is like a sportsman having loads of athletic talent. Just as Mark Lewis-Francis will never hit the heights he quite clearly should, many of those with high IQs may also never hit the heights that they too should, given their innate ability.
This is the article to which I was referring. The main source used is the review collection: Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance.
Hey,
I had this same problem. I joined MENSA when I was quite young because I thought it would be a great opportunity to meet and correspond with people who were more focussed on academic issues and intellectual subjects at a time when I found it quite difficult to be able to talk about that kind of thing at school. I am also a member of NAGTY but I have never got anythign out of that organisation. Anyway I didn't really think it was a good idea to mention them on my personal statement but my parents were convinced I should. I got around it by mentioning what I had done in MENSA, like running a book club feature in the kids magazine when I was younger, without explicitly mentioning MENSA. I think that's the best way and, if you can't say anything like that, your membership probably isn't that significant to your application and you shouldn't bother to mention it. Hope that helps!
X
I had this same problem. I joined MENSA when I was quite young because I thought it would be a great opportunity to meet and correspond with people who were more focussed on academic issues and intellectual subjects at a time when I found it quite difficult to be able to talk about that kind of thing at school. I am also a member of NAGTY but I have never got anythign out of that organisation. Anyway I didn't really think it was a good idea to mention them on my personal statement but my parents were convinced I should. I got around it by mentioning what I had done in MENSA, like running a book club feature in the kids magazine when I was younger, without explicitly mentioning MENSA. I think that's the best way and, if you can't say anything like that, your membership probably isn't that significant to your application and you shouldn't bother to mention it. Hope that helps!
X
coren111
Hi I am a member of Mensa and NAGTY (for people with high IQs)
Will this help me when applying for Oxford or Cambridge?
Should I write this information on my personal statement and will they be impressed?
Will this help me when applying for Oxford or Cambridge?
Should I write this information on my personal statement and will they be impressed?
No, I'm a member of Mensa (or I was when writing my PS, anyway) and was told by my head of sixth form that it was 'a waste of space' to put it down, and it sounded 'too up yourself' - given that it's difficult to make it relevant to your choice of degree.
Interesting discussion.
Might I add that there is an historical element to the value and/or opinions of IQ scores as measures of academic potential.
A few developed countries had accepted it as a predictor of schooling performance around the 50s, but several problems emerged. Some racial groups (e.g. blacks in USA) were consistently underperforming, suggesting either that they had innately lower intelligence (the initial view, used to justify prejudices towards such populations) or that the IQ tests were racially biased (later found to be a sufficient explanation, despite claims that IQ tests measure general intelligence with minimal bias).
Although IQ tests have since been revised to be more culture-neutral, the outcome of those initial problems was IQ testing was scrapped as a method for assessing academic potential, and replaced with more specific evaluators, as used today.
Some of the opinions about the value of IQ scores are thus based in part on its known practical limitations from the past. Nonetheless, some individuals and groups of persons (e.g. MENSA) do focus on the implications of IQ measures, and IQ research.
Might I add that there is an historical element to the value and/or opinions of IQ scores as measures of academic potential.
A few developed countries had accepted it as a predictor of schooling performance around the 50s, but several problems emerged. Some racial groups (e.g. blacks in USA) were consistently underperforming, suggesting either that they had innately lower intelligence (the initial view, used to justify prejudices towards such populations) or that the IQ tests were racially biased (later found to be a sufficient explanation, despite claims that IQ tests measure general intelligence with minimal bias).
Although IQ tests have since been revised to be more culture-neutral, the outcome of those initial problems was IQ testing was scrapped as a method for assessing academic potential, and replaced with more specific evaluators, as used today.
Some of the opinions about the value of IQ scores are thus based in part on its known practical limitations from the past. Nonetheless, some individuals and groups of persons (e.g. MENSA) do focus on the implications of IQ measures, and IQ research.
Just to add some further info. to that above, IQ tests were used in the late 1940s and 50s by English LEAs to place their 11 year old students- generally using Moray House standardised IQ tests. Anyone with an IQ above 114.5 was supposed to be guarenteed a place in a Grammar School, but that never worked as LEAs didn't communicate with each other, and ended up just skimming off the top kids to fill the number of grammar school places, regardless of the IQ test results.
It was also found that Lower Middle and Working class children were underperforming in the tests; as has been pointed out, the questions assumed a certain vocabulary and level of knowledge that they didn't have. Of course W/C kids couldn't form a sentance using the words "Louvre", "vent", and "exhaust" if they didn't know what the words meant in the first place due to dodgy schooling!
It was also found that Lower Middle and Working class children were underperforming in the tests; as has been pointed out, the questions assumed a certain vocabulary and level of knowledge that they didn't have. Of course W/C kids couldn't form a sentance using the words "Louvre", "vent", and "exhaust" if they didn't know what the words meant in the first place due to dodgy schooling!
Related discussions
- Mensa workout
- Iq test score interpretation
- I did the IQ test and this is what it said,
- would you rather have 15% higher IQ, or 100% more self discipline?
- Sociology A Level
- Based on 2023 GCSEs, will grade boundaries be higher or lower in 2024?
- uk education system
- delete
- Should British schools be more flexible with skipping years?
- maths - frequency polygon
- London Finsbury Park or Greenwich
- Finding the right accommodation. (LINCOLN)
- Xu Fuyou counted was not epaulets, but beautiful knives
- admission entry test, verbal, non verbal reasoning, yellis test
- How to prepare for bmat?
- What would civilisation look like if the average IQ was 150?
- Preparation for Year 10
- how to cover all of gcse maths content in one month
- IQ student accommodation
- Tests to measure IQ.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 21 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 day ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 2 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 21 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 day ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 2 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
