Do High School Results Reflect IQ?

Answered on Quora.
I do not think so.
Actually a better answer is that they often do but not always. High IQ people can get low grades and test scores but low IQ people cannot get high grades and test scores.
I have a genius level IQ (147 – anything over 140 qualifies as genius level), but my SAT score was only 1100. But I was a screw-off pot-smoking semi-juvenile delinquent. That’s not considered a particularly high score. There is a conversion where you can convert an SAT score to IQ. It’s probably correct for the high and very high scores, but maybe not as you descend downwards. For instance, my 1100 SAT score converts to a significantly lower IQ than 147.
I will tell you what though. Slow people (lower IQ people are de facto slower as IQ mostly tests raw brain speed) don’t get straight A’s. And straight A star students do not tend to have average IQ’s.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

21 thoughts on “Do High School Results Reflect IQ?”

  1. Since I’m only 15 and scored 95th-98th percentile on oractice SAT, does it mean that I at least have a 115-120 IQ (I know I’ve stated before that I had a 122 IQ, but I’m still trying to figure it out, because I’m unsure about some subtests- I also don’t feel I operate as a 122, since I can’t go on long tangents about things).
    The problem is, the WAIS doesn’t have math! On the arithmetic subtest I got a 140, on my spatial things I got a 97 overall! 130 IQ on SAT math vs 97 Spatial IQ.

    1. Well, 122 IQ is 92nd percentile anyway, so you are not too far off.
      Are you in the US?
      Check out some of the people around your IQ on here like Tulio. You are not that different from him. You are young. You will get smarter as you get older.

      1. Yes. My writing is shit however.
        That’s nice to here that I’m not that far off from Tulio. He seems like an absolute intellectual giant.

      2. Also, when you say I’m not that different from Tulio, do you mean based on the number, or qualitatively (as in my comments and that stuff)?

    2. HEEEEEEY 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 !!!!!!!
      Im 16, bigger than you homie.
      Cool that someone around my age shares interest in somewhat similar things to me, it gets a little lonely.
      I love math even though im only above avarage on it.
      What do you like about Tulio?

  2. Also, a lot of shit you do in high school is dumb. We had an assignement in which we had to identify teen like behaviors in ROMEO AND FUCKING JULIET! Really!? Couldn’t you use a more practical book, The Catcher in the Rye. I mean, even that wouldn’t be fully accurate at all, since the science we used was late 20th early 21st century.
    I mean this teen shit doesn’t even properly apply to your generation, it starts from the generation below you. How are we supposed to use that and compare it to 16th century behavior?

      1. I disagree. Circumstances have a lot to do with how one acts.
        A dude at the time would be out finding a job, and working as an apprentice. A guy during this time period will get fucked by pretty much everyone if he argued with his parents.
        A dudett is a slave to society. She’d get married by this time, be expected to have some children within a year. A teen mom today vs a regular teen is quite different. The teen mom has a lot more maturity. There’s no chance of arguing here, because she’d be considered unladylike.
        The tech we have now didn’t exist back then.
        I kind of get what you’re saying, yeah, teens back then probably do crave love from the hot dude or dudett, from their parents. I wouldn’t be all too surprised if mental illness was common (if not more common due to the fucked up society of then).
        Still, teens back then would definitely be much much more mature then the teens today. They had to be, or society would fuck them straight in the ass.

  3. I feel like the SAT scores are skewed towards people better at math.
    You can have a very high SAT but a lowish IQ, because you’re good at math but have shit spatial reasoning skills.

  4. “I will tell you what though. Slow people (lower IQ people are de facto slower as IQ mostly tests raw brain speed) don’t get straight A’s. And straight A star students do not tend to have average IQ’s.”
    This is why IQ isnt that nescessary for societies development, as other proxies not only messure an persons ability, but also meassures their other traits making the ability most usefull.
    And its covariance with education, social-class and its susceptability to training makes you wonder how much of an independent factor it is.
    Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics inpractical, if there ever would be an eugenics program, it would have to be cloning as epigenetics can be controled for in cloning chimpanzees, which are similar to humans.
    I guess this is interesting and related:
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2006/10/black-iq-estimates-by-state.html

      1. By “relevant for society” i meant relevant for economics. IQ can matter for many reasons, like for example just being interessted in any form of scientific rigor in understand behaviour could make it relevant to an indivudual as the person would seek for all (or atleast most) alternatives in models.
        But lets investigate some of the potencial usage of intelligence meassurments and see how IQ tests meassure up.
        Meassuring potencial school performance:
        Some small amount of years in school will already give the teachers or parents ample information about their prospects, but also traits that make IQ more productive in synthesis:
        https://books.google.se/books?id=SCyEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Layzer+(1973:+238)&source=bl&ots=9Rf9sy0Jd6&sig=WjWMXZsLTGLGy7SS7JSZQ9RLmNE&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl0q7t78fdAhUQpIsKHXb7AFsQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Layzer%20(1973%3A%20238)&f=false
        Job performance:
        Well, IQ correlates around 0.3 with job performance, but the meassurment is subjective so it might capture some things that correlate with social-class and therefore IQ.
        Eugenics:
        Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics by swapping SNPs inpractical. Breeding programs can only do so much without further molecular biology knowledge. Twin studies seem kinda ridicolous:
        https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/28/twin-studies-adoption-studies-and-fallacious-reasoning/
        And i also agree with:
        https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/03/18/behavior-genetics-and-the-fallacy-of-nature-vs-nurture/
        and (which is what GWAS interested behavioral geneticists like Steven Hsu agree on):
        https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/29/height-and-iq-genes/
        making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind
        (I know you banned this dude for being an crazy Republican, but the thing with this dude is that he needs to be informed about stuff in very elaborate syllogisms and also isnt that interested in politics. Im not begrudging you for banning him as he doesnt really belong here but his arguments in this posts within his areas of interest are very well versed.)
        Testing mental health:
        This is actually the best use of IQ, as decreasing IQ is indicative of loss in brain stuff.
        Criterion validity and Correlation:
        I also think that IQ´s criterion validity lies on shaky grounds when its founded on correlations that are only tested in narrow environments, essentially just creating the same correlation again and again withouht testsing the methedological validity by testing the correlation appropriately. to test correlation appropriately would find anomalies in the pure environmentalist approach (or any level of conviction to environmental explanations) or finding causial IQ relationships (which Environmentalists have done).
        Im not really an IQ denier though, i think there probably is an range of IQ that any given person can inhabit, but the fact of individuals sticking around the mean makes it hard to know who could be where, especially in such large and genetically similar groups like economic classes and races. Some people are obviously extreme, but as previously stated, we dont need IQ tests to know that.
        And whats to say that smart people have high IQ? IQ is contingent on G, but all of my criticisms on IQ are pretty much equally (for better or worse) valid against G.
        I see no use in IQ if not for future developments. Its an unfinished project at best.

  5. (continuing sentence):making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind brain functions making artificial alterations might just be superior as non biological transistors can be super small.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *