Average IQ of students by degree and gender ratio

Data from US universities showing the average IQ by degrees and the gender ratio.

IQs are classified as follows:

130+: Very superior intelligence
120-129: Superior
110-119: Above average
90-109: Average

Breakdown by individual subjects: http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

Reply 1

InOrbit

9

This thread will get messy, but I'll just say - correlation does not equal causation.

Reply 2

Doones

21

Is that an attempt to show a correlation between IQ and Gender...using college degree as a proxy?

Looks like a classic case of correlation <> causation.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 3

Attercop

10

Thank you for making my head bigger than it already is. :smile:

Reply 4

Doones

21

Original post by ubisoft

Data from US universities showing the average IQ by degrees and the gender ratio.

Ok, so presenting that chart in isolation is a very bad idea. The guy that originally produced the chart even says "A naive reader may look at this graph and conclude that men are smarter than women, but it is vital to note that, on average, men and women have about the same IQ."

Lot's more interesting background stuff here:
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/

Reply 5

ubisoft

OP

3

Original post by Alex:

This thread will get messy, but I'll just say - correlation does not equal causation.

That's why I posted it :colone:

And yeah, I just copied the title of the article like it was. I am not suggesting that.
[URL=http:/
/www.thestudentroom.co.uk/app]Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6

ubisoft

OP

3

Original post by jneill

Is that an attempt to show a correlation between IQ and Gender...using college degree as a proxy? Looks like a classic case of correlation <> causation.

It's an attempt to start a ****storm because I'm bored :biggrin:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7

Plagioclase

21

Original post by ubisoft

It's an attempt to start a ****storm because I'm bored :biggrin:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought this was.

Reply 8

username937760

16

Hold up, let me grab the popcorn.

Reply 9

math42

20

Aww Maths got beaten by physics and astronomy. </3
Like how most of the posts so far are people being like "****'s gonna kick off" rather than **** actually kicking off.

Reply 10

ubisoft

OP

3

Original post by 1 8 13 20 42

Aww Maths got beaten by physics and astronomy. </3
Like how most of the posts so far are people being like "****'s gonna kick off" rather than **** actually kicking off.

Yeah I would've guessed maths would be on top too.

Here is a post I read on the matter. Don't know to how much extent it's true:

"Generally, physics folks seem "sharper" and seem to solve problems quicker, but the math folks are better at thinking about deep and abstract problems. In addition, I've noticed that most physicists tend to be very "well-rounded", at least with respect to math / science / engineering; most physicists tend to know a lot about other disciplines, and are pretty good at electronics and programming. Mathematicians, in my experience, are more focused - for example, I've noticed that mathematicians don't seem to know much about areas of math other than their own, whereas almost any good grad student or prof in physics can talk to you about string theory, CERN, quantum computers, semiconductors - whatever you'd be interested in.

I think this means that physicists generally come off as "smarter" to a layman than mathematicians, because they're very quick at solving easy problems (thus immediately demonstrating intelligence), because they know a lot of stuff that's outside their area of specialization, and because they have a lot of other skills that signal smartness (being good at programming, mental math, etc.)."

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 11

Serine Soul

18

Such an anticlimatic ****storm :/

Nice to know TSR's stats skills are on point

Reply 12

math42

20

Original post by ubisoft

Yeah I would've guessed maths would be on top too.

Here is a post I read on the matter. Don't know to how much extent it's true:

"Generally, physics folks seem "sharper" and seem to solve problems quicker, but the math folks are better at thinking about deep and abstract problems. In addition, I've noticed that most physicists tend to be very "well-rounded", at least with respect to math / science / engineering; most physicists tend to know a lot about other disciplines, and are pretty good at electronics and programming. Mathematicians, in my experience, are more focused - for example, I've noticed that mathematicians don't seem to know much about areas of math other than their own, whereas almost any good grad student or prof in physics can talk to you about string theory, CERN, quantum computers, semiconductors - whatever you'd be interested in.

I think this means that physicists generally come off as "smarter" to a layman than mathematicians, because they're very quick at solving easy problems (thus immediately demonstrating intelligence), because they know a lot of stuff that's outside their area of specialization, and because they have a lot of other skills that signal smartness (being good at programming, mental math, etc.)."

Posted from TSR Mobile

I wasn't really sure to be honest; I expected it to be near the top but I was more commenting in a jokey fashion as I'll be doing Maths. That description describes my physics teacher pretty accurately; though somewhat lacking in teaching skills he was easily the smartest and most knowledgeable person, as far as I could tell, in the school. And to be honest I always found Physics more intellectually challenging than Maths, so it isn't too surprising to me that its students have generally higher IQs. I'd like to see more in that post discussing how the maths students are better at "deep and abstract problems" rather than being almost entirely devoted to complimenting the physics ones but oh well. :colonhash:

Reply 13

xenophile

1

Imo, these types of 'studies' have zero value. However, I can't help noticing that the three majors at the bottom are arguably the most useful/important fields for society and the three at the top are... definitely not.

Reply 14

math42

20

Original post by xenophile

Imo, these types of 'studies' have zero value. However, I can't help noticing that the three majors at the bottom are arguably the most useful/important fields for society and the three at the top are... definitely not.

Ikr Maths and Physics are so useless :rolleyes:

Reply 15

ubisoft

OP

3

Original post by xenophile

Imo, these types of 'studies' have zero value. However, I can't help noticing that the three majors at the bottom are arguably the most useful/important fields for society and the three at the top are... definitely not.

Why do they have 0 value?

And did you really just say maths, physics and engineering are "definitely not" useful for society? I don't even know where to begin.

Posted from TSR Mobile