Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>

This thread is closed

MENSA and NAGTY (high IQ)

Scroll to see replies

the_alba

Most academics? Are you serious? Yes, probably, you are. The tutors I know choke on their coffee at the thought of Mensa and its members' self-congratulatory, back-slapping attitude. Of course, the friends I have who are tutors are all in English and Modern Languages, so they are 'intellectuals' in the real sense, not the 'a) is to b) as c) is to [?]?' sense.
Remember in the US they use SATs and the GRE, which are very much more like an IQ test than any othe type.

the_alba

Applicants who score highly on things like AEA papers, STEP and so on, and do well at interview, are highly intelligent and have potential.
Surely they're people who have ability, not potential? If they've done well at AEA and STEPs, they've shown they don't just have the potential to do well, they are doing well.

the_alba

And finally: the tutors I know who interview for Oxford are not members of Mensa. If an applicant is boasting about it, it implies to them that this applicant thinks Mensa is an important and definitive measure of intellectual ability.
So if someone mentions being captain of their football team, and the tutor didn't play football, are they assuming that's an important and definitive measure of intellectual ability? How is mentioning something presuming it's the most important thing?

No one thing is the most important thing, but surely the fact that IQ tests something different from A levels, using both together adds something that using A levels alone doesn't? Plus the precident from the US where SAT and GRE tests seem to work pretty well. It's not about it being the most important thing at all, it's about it being another indicator, alongside A levels, GCSEs, the interview, any interview test or written work, etc. The reason we already have many indicators is because none of them are perfect. Given that, surely anything else that has been shown to be useful could be a good addition? I agree, most academics in the UK would scoff at it, and I think it's a shame, since it can give them another whether someone thinks logically. Perhaps less use for English, but for economics, the interview is all about seeing whether the person thinks logically about something they haven't seen before. My interview questions revolved around a couple of relatively simple logic problems, more like a maths challenge than an A level.

Reply 61

Drogue

the_alba

Well, as so many studies have shown, children from disadvantaged backgrounds score significantly lower on IQ tests by the time they are three or four than their financially and / or educationally better-off peers, and this gap generally widens as they grow older. Of course success on an IQ test is, for all but a few exceptions, a reflection of how your parents taught you from an early age. If there are books in your house and your parents are well-educated, you will do better on these tests, regardless of innate intelligence. But this is OT.

Actually, the correlation between family background and IQ is far lower, although still there, than the correlation between family background and educational attainment. I specifically acknowledged the bias, but as I said, it's less than for other educational measures.

Success on an IQ test is far more robust to, for example, the type of school you went to, than GCSE or A level grades are. It's still correlated, but less strongly. Actually, I've heard it plausibly explained not by early tuition from parents (although that clearly helps) but by inate ability too, in terms of IQ of parents being correlated strongly with IQ of children, moreso than any other measure of family background.

IQ isn't robust to family background, but it's far less biased than other measures of educational attainment are, which is why it's useful to consider it alongside it. It's also why schools use CAT tests to try and test if students are over or underperforming.

Reply 62

epitome

Hi epitome. I assure you, at least three of them had IQs of 170. I'm 100% certain.

Okie doke, Pernell - happy to go with that! Clever buggers, the lot of them!

I disagree that a 4-9 year old with a 160+ IQ at their age could wipe the floor with an Oxbridge student.

Drogue, I think the novel-writing dude could probably smash me in Tripos even now! (And my IQ, officially, is somewhat more than a potato...) :wink:

More seriously, the age-dependency of IQ scores is quite interesting. It is, however, very possible for this score to drop.

It would be good to see what those kids in the C4 prog are doing in, say 10 or 20 years. I'd also like to know the IQ of most Oxbridge students, just out of curiosity!

Reply 63

the_alba

Drogue

So if someone mentions being captain of their football team, and the tutor didn't play football, are they assuming that's an important and definitive measure of intellectual ability? How is mentioning something presuming it's the most important thing?

Well no, because they are not applying to a football degree, and the interviewer is not a football coach. If however the course was Football-playing Studies, and the interviewer was a football coach but had never been captain of a team, the applicant might seem to be implying that because he WAS captain of a team, he is a better footballer than the interviewer. I didn't say it's the most important thing, but any applicant wanting to mention Mensa in his or her PS should consider the fact that whoever reads it probably won't be a member of Mensa, and may not even think very highly of such a society; and whether this means that because the applicant is a member and the tutor is not, the applicant is in fact more intelligent, or thinks more highly of intelligence, or craves the company of intellectuals, more than the interviewers are and do. And if the answer to those things is no, no, and no, which it is, then why mention it? In a competitive pool of applicants, all will be intelligent, but a minority will be Mensa members or will have even bothered to take IQ tests. The fact that the OP has will not put him at any advantage, and if he stands out it will only be for looking pretentious and intellectually naive.

Chances are the interviewer will have a pretty high IQ, but that is not an achievement, nor is it an indicator of whether the book they have just written will make it into a second edition. It's the same with applicants: having a high IQ does not mean the student will be able to write first class essays. Having a high IQ is one thing, but feeling the need to join Mensa, ostensibly to associate with 'like-minded people', smacks of ego-inflation and a very narrow sense of what intelligence actually is. I accept that for a subject like Maths or Economics, a high IQ might not be quite as meaningless as it is for English and languages applicants, but there are planty of famous scientists with fairly average IQs. My favourite example of this is the great Richard Feynman.

Reply 64

AdamTJ

If I were a tutor and saw that somebody had advertised the fact that they were a member of Mensa on their personal statement, then I'd give them a right going over during the interview so that they could back up their claims of apparent brilliance.

So no, I personally wouldn't put it down.

Reply 65

the_alba

AdamTJ

And if IQ is a measure of brilliance (which it's clearly not), you don't even have to be that brilliant to get in anyway, needing a score in the mid-130s. I mean, that's about the requirement for selective grammar schools (or was when I was young) - but not everyone from these schools gets into Oxford.

Reply 66

Posh Portia Kabine

Even when working on the premise that being a Mensan is indicative of intellectual brilliance; what would be the best way to demonstrate that?

(a) Advertise the fact you are a member and then your interviewers will "expect" you to perform accordingly (if they believe in such societies); and/or might interpret it as arrogance/pretentiousness/insert un-likeable quality.

(b) Not mention it at all; and then wow your interviewers your innate intellectual abilities according to their method of testing without having to presuppose what they may or may not think of you, for having mentioned your membership?

Reply 67

AdamTJ

I think IQ does denote a certain type of of intelligence (although a comparatively average IQ does not mean that you cannot be brilliant in other ways). However, given the fact that you have an entire interview to impress upon a tutor your innate potential to succeed at Oxbridge, I'd rather dedicate the line or two I would waste on mentioning the fact I was a Mensan (I'm not, I'm just hypothetically saying) to further conveying my passion for my chosen subject, or possibly describing further relevant work experience. I would not waste my time talking about Mensa when almost all the candidates probably have the necessary IQ requirements to join anyway.

Reply 68

Neutral_Tones

epitome

Okie doke, Pernell - happy to go with that! Clever buggers, the lot of them!

Drogue, I think the novel-writing dude could probably smash me in Tripos even now! (And my IQ, officially, is somewhat more than a potato...) :wink:

I saw that programme too - I remember the little novel-writing kid was nice, but I didn't like the philosophy kid. Precocious little so-and-so (no offence if anyone here is him/ is related to him.) I think that at the end his IQ turned out to be about 130ish, nowhere near the 170+ he was estimated (hehehe :rolleyes:

) Sorry, I'm laughing at a child...and I want to be a teacher :redface:

It'd be quite amusing if in 10 years or so, they're sitting here debating exactly the same issue: whether putting MENSA on their PS for Oxbridge well make them look arrogant!

Reply 69

epitome

I didn't like the philosophy kid. Precocious little so-and-so

He annoyed me a bit too. But in his defence, what must it be like to have that complexity of thought going round in your head when you're 13 (or whatever age he was)? Fairly difficult - wasn't he suffering from depression & behavioural-related problems too? He's thinking adult thoughts, with the world-experience of a kid...nasty. I just felt sorry for him, and really hope he is able to have a normal life after he 'grows up'. Hopefully bing in touch with the nice Oxford philosophy chappie will help, somehow.

Reply 70

Alan Smithee

Neutral_Tones

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.

Reply 71

epitome

He might not have been naturally a "genius" (of 170+), but he WAS manifestly one of the best. The way he expressed himself wasn't just big words - he really knew what they meant. He annoyed me for his apparent pretentiousness at the beginning, but by the end I was won over. He really *did* manipulate his knowledge intelligently, which, really, is more beneficial overall than just being "naturally bright". Have to do something with that natural ability for it to be interesting intelligence. I think that kid is one to watch...

...though if I ever end up teaching him I might have to hide. Because it would be embarrassing. For me. :wink:

Reply 72

Posh Portia Kabine

I saw it too. After watching that programme I'd totally changed my mind about child prodigies. I naively thought how wonderful it'd be to have a child like that! Then I realised how they are actually afflicted by their genius. I mean, a lot of them being home-schooled etc (the Maths prodigy and the one whose only company was his dad and grandad), just seemed so unfair to me - OK so they might be getting a better education, but that isn't necessarily a better standard of life and/or the sort of experience a child should have.

The novelist boy was like a little adult; it was very strange. He didn't seem too interested in the company of other children - just adults. I don't think that's too healthy either.

By the end of it I'd decided that I'd actually prefer a "normal" child, as it were. Their whole lives were disrupted by their children, having to move house, having to give up their job to home tutor them... Just a complete nightmare.

Reply 73

epitome

The novelist boy was like a little adult; it was very strange. He didn't seem too interested in the company of other children - just adults. I don't think that's too healthy either.

Thing is, his mum treated him like an adult. Which in one way is cool - he clearly understands stuff. But on the other hand there must be aspects of him that ARE childlike, and it must be difficult to reconcile that in the parenting. A nightmare, yes. Hopefully when he's an adult he'll be okay in the company of adults. Or just books. Either way, I thought he was one of the more well-adjusted kids featured.

But yes, VB, I agree - nightmare. Though there are worse situations, obviously.

Reply 74

El Stevo

If you do stuff with NAGTY or MENSA then write what you do.

Reply 75

Drogue

the_alba

So if someone mentions that they were captain of the maths olympiad, and their interviewer isn't, it's a bad thing to mention because the interviewer will automatically assume that the candidate thinks they're better than the interviewer? That's ludicrous! Saying that you did something is just that, it's not making any judgement about whether or not it makes you better than the tutor.

the_alba

I didn't say it's the most important thing, but any applicant wanting to mention Mensa in his or her PS should consider the fact that whoever reads it probably won't be a member of Mensa, and may not even think very highly of such a society;

You see, this is entirely true, and a point I made earlier. Lots of people don't react well when learning that someone has a high IQ. However:

the_alba

and whether this means that because the applicant is a member and the tutor is not, the applicant is in fact more intelligent, or thinks more highly of intelligence, or craves the company of intellectuals, more than the interviewers are and do.

Is entirely stupid! Why does saying you're a member of something mean you're automatically assuming you're more intelligent because of it? You could apply that to anything - if you say you got 12A*s as GCSE and your interviewer didn't, they might feel that you think you're better than them. It's a ludicrous idea.

the_alba

And if the answer to those things is no, no, and no, which it is, then why mention it? In a competitive pool of applicants, all will be intelligent, but a minority will be Mensa members or will have even bothered to take IQ tests. The fact that the OP has will not put him at any advantage, and if he stands out it will only be for looking pretentious and intellectually naive.

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?

I'm not saying people don't think badly of IQ tests, I know they do. I'm just arguing that they shouldn't. An IQ test is no different from the US SAT or GRE, which are well used, and are useful, because they test something else that isn't apparent in A levels or GCSE. They're a useful addition. The fact that putting it down could be a bad thing seems silly, though it's obviously true. For postgrad, even in the UK they say if you happen to have takent he GRE, put down your score, as it helps.

the_alba

Chances are the interviewer will have a pretty high IQ, but that is not an achievement, nor is it an indicator of whether the book they have just written will make it into a second edition. It's the same with applicants: having a high IQ does not mean the student will be able to write first class essays. Having a high IQ is one thing, but feeling the need to join Mensa, ostensibly to associate with 'like-minded people', smacks of ego-inflation and a very narrow sense of what intelligence actually is. I accept that for a subject like Maths or Economics, a high IQ might not be quite as meaningless as it is for English and languages applicants, but there are planty of famous scientists with fairly average IQs. My favourite example of this is the great Richard Feynman.

Firstly, having a high IQ has been shown, in the US (with the GRE test, which is a recognised IQ test) to be strongly correlated with achievement at postgrad, which is why it's so widely used around the world. So really, the ability of IQ tests to distinguish between students for admission isn't a discussion in almost any other country in the world.

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.

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.

Reply 76

Drogue

epitome

Drogue, I think the novel-writing dude could probably smash me in Tripos even now! (And my IQ, officially, is somewhat more than a potato...) :wink:

More seriously, the age-dependency of IQ scores is quite interesting. It is, however, very possible for this score to drop.
Yes, but an 11 year old won't get a high IQ on a test designed for adults. Scores can go up or down as time goes on, because people get brighter and the tests get harder. The test I took when I was 13 was very different to the one I took when I was 17.

Reply 77

epitome

Should I be worried that I'm doing an English degree, despite the fact that my 'mathematical' IQ has always been consistently much higher than anything relating to language? :wink:

Reply 78

Alan Smithee

Nah. I think that's a good thing.

Reply 79

Whiternoise

Sorry to butt in (this conversation has been fascinating by the way) but would IQ tests be less relevant as you get older? 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.

I think if i was a member of MENSA or NAGTY (to be honest my personal opinion is that i don't have to be a member of a society to be or show taht i'm intelligent) i wouldn't put it on a PS. I would put it on a CV or if there was another section to an application form such as, oh i don't know, other interests. But as the general consensus seems to have shown, i doubt there would be much point in putting it on a PS if you haven't got something subject relevant out of it. I think my other opinion would be that it would take more than a sentence to say that you were a member and that you had been to summer schools, etc, it would need more justification. For instance, i went to CERN with my physics department early this year and it's taken up more than one sentence for sure - having first stated the fact and then gone into slightly more detail about what we actually did there, relevance to my Physics education, etcetera. Whether this is just my style of writing (or whatever you want to call it) it would take me more than one sentence, which i could have put to better use.

(sorry if that rambled a bit :P)

MENSA and NAGTY (high IQ)

Related discussions

Trending

Latest