Make Trump Sit A Mensa Entrance Test -Then We'll See What A "Stable Genius" He Is

"Doh! I'm a very stable genius!  So I don't believe that stupid book! And I'll even take the Mensa test to prove it!"


The soon to be released book by Trump niece, Mary Trump ('Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man') ,  includes some real blockbuster revelations, many of which haven't appeared in earlier  Trump expose books  such as: 'Fire and Fury', by Michael Wolff,  'FEAR: Trump In The White House', by Bob Woodward,  'A Warning' by Anonymous, and 'The Room Where It Happened' by John Bolton.

Of particular interest to me was Trump having to hire a substitute kid (a Joe Shapiro) to sit the SAT for him.   This was necessary because as a HS kid Trump had visions of "the best school in the world" and that was UPenn's Wharton School of Business. Trouble was, his less than stellar academic grades (according to Mary Trump) would not have enabled him entry on their own merits.  

The high score  (over 1400) the chosen proxy earned, assured Trump of an acceptance he'd otherwise never have had.   In the wake of the release of the book to journalists, some have debated whether the account is true.  But I have no doubt it is, first because I trust Mary Trump's word - and certainly over anything Trump or his retinue of liars says. And secondly because it fits in with his abysmal character traits as a narcissistic, compulsory cheat (who even cheats at games like golf) and a general moral reprobate.  A reprobate with no moral compass, period.  So why wouldn't he cheat?  It makes perfect, logical sense, especially for a crook and traitor who's already racked up over 5,000 lies. Oh, and sought sundry ways to enlist the help of other nations (like Ukraine, Russia) to help him win re-election.

Cheating by hiring a proxy to sit the SAT for him? A no brainer.  Here  are also some other explosive reveals about the maggot fouling the highest office:

1) Trump’s niece revealed how she leaked hordes of confidential Trump family financial documents to the New York Times in an effort to expose her uncle, whom she portrays as a dangerous sociopath,” This, according to Rachel Maddow's reporting on the book last night.  Maddow also reported that when  NY Times reporter Susanne Craig showed up at her door, Mary Trump “initially turned Craig away, telling her that she didn’t talk to reporters.” But she reconsidered,  especially after seeing how her uncle was "shredding every norm" and being enabled at every step.  So she decided to work with the Times, which directed her to the likely venue for Trump's tax records, and she hauled out 19 boxes worth.  from the law firm, Farrell Fritz,” Swan notes.

2) Trump’s world view was shaped by a desire to avoid his father’s disapproval. Here, Mary Trump paints a damning picture of Fred Trump, Sr., saying that he came to envy his son’s “confidence and brazenness.”   In the Washington Post, reporters Shane Harris and Michael Kranish explain that Donald Trump’s “view of the world was shaped by his desire during childhood to avoid his father’s disapproval, according to the niece, Mary L. Trump.”

Trump still claims,  despite his obvious mental -cognitive infirmities,  that he's a stable genius.  Well, let's see how he does on the Mensa entrance test, for which he will not be able to hire a substitute to try to gain admittance.  Of course, Mensa entry, i.e.  at the upper 2%  of IQ level, or roughly 132 on the Stanford -Binet scale, is "gifted" - but not genius.  That  level is at least 15 points higher.   

In any case, given Trump's severe mental deficiencies,  it is as likely he'd make either cut  (gifted or genius) as it is he sat that SAT himself ca. 1964. 

See Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqBIQhh927M

https://mymodernmet.com/mensa-iq-test/

This is what a Mensa IQ test looks like - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h36cpwlslHk

How NOT To Write A Blog Comment

Dr. Abbie Salny - interviewed several years ago. She was responsible for the decision to no longer accept the SAT as an aptitude test and hence as an alternative entry test for Mensa.

This post could be put under the banner of educational, mainly for the benefit of anyone who wishes to render an extended comment expressing a point of view in response to a post. In this case the (recent) comment in question is in response to an August 11, 2013 post regarding Mensa ceasing to use the SAT (and other tests) for entry because they were no longer deemed aptitude tests but achievement.

The commenter's first problem is posting with no profile, as "Unknown" which undermines the cogency of his or her POV from the outset. Despite that, I am ok with posting an unknown's (no profile) comment but do expect the person to then make the case and with such clarity there is no wiggle room for misinterpretation.  But this was not done. Below I give the comment and my criticisms of each section, which others may want to note for future reference:

----------------

Am I the only one who's even looked up the changes? In case you haven't, here's what they did to make it test "exclusively what has been taught in school:"

-Removed antonyms (because they relied too much on prior knowledge)
-Changed the number of verbal questions from 85 to 78
-Replaced the TSWE with two 15-minute math and verbal sections at the end of the test
-Added ten "open-response" math problems
-Allowed calculators for the math sections
-Increased the amount of reading comprehension questions to compose ~50% of the verbal.

-----------

The intro is all wrong. As if the writer was never taught how to make his or her case in representing a  clear point of view when staking out a position or opinion. Instead of initiating the comment with a clear position he immediately asks a question about "looking up the changes" to the SAT. This makes one suspect that the topic or argument concerns the changes, which are then stated.

But where is it all leading?

The writer goes on:

As you can see, that totally makes the SAT cover absolutely NOTHING but learned material. Literally just learned material.

Actually, we don't know that because no reasoning  has been offered showing that these changes constitute only "learned material".  The reader is expected to just assume they do, i.e. removing antonyms because "they rely too much on prior knowledge". How so? He has not explained. In what way do  antonyms do this and for what kind of prior knowledge? (For reference, the GRE aptitude test - so designated by Mensa- that I took had a significant section on antonyms. *) All we have then is a veritable vacuum when one would like to see justification. Even by this point, if I was marking him on an essay I'd have him at D-minus.

More to come:

Oh, and with the ACT?

-Recentered the English and Math scores
-Replaced the SOCIAL STUDIES and NATURAL SCIENCES sections with general reading and scientific reasoning sections.
-Made the English less grammar-based and put more emphasis on writing skills (once again changing it to exclusively learn-able stuff)

You know, you cannot learn the causes fall of the Roman Empire, or scientific facts.

Remember in history class, when before tests the teacher told you that he didn't actually teach anything and it was all up to your innate mental abilities to know about events such as the Dark Ages and the Incans? Studying history is completely pointless.

--------------------------

Here s/he jumps completely from the basis of the English-Math part of the ACT to history ("causes of the fall of the Roman Empire") and "scientific facts" - which we are informed "you cannot learn".. Again, no explanation of why.   He then rails against putting more emphasis on writing skills (which it is evident he needs) and claims this is tantamount to "exclusively learnable stuff", but with no explanation or argument how he goes from A to B.  He either assumes here the reader is privy to some inside knowledge, or is simply going to take his word.

The diversion to "the fall of the Roman empire" is itself distracting and displays a lack of coherent thought or argument, not to mention historical insight.  He also makes an unsupported, ridiculous claim that one "cannot learn the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire" or scientific facts - which is nonsense. Of course one can learn the putative reason for the Roman Empire's fall which is largely attributed to military overstretch. As for scientific facts, last I taught a calculus physics class I knew not one student who hadn't learned already that all objects fall freely  (at the acceleration g)  in Earth's gravitational field .   Though g can vary from place to place because the Earth's radius slightly varies place to place. SO what the hell is he talking about?


The "unknown" would have done better by confining attention to why the changes in the English -Math parts of the ACT he lists were off base, but doesn't. We are just dragged along in this nebulous aside and with no idea what the writer's central point is.

Then there's the further diversion to some innominate  "history class", and the rapid conclusion "it's completely pointless" - again, without making a clear, cogent case for claiming this.  We are merely expected to accept the "pointless" assertion without a single reason or even example.

Then we read this:

And what's even philosophical about changing a test from aptitude to achievement? "We need to sound smart."

At this point the writer has me scratching my head. Is he with Mensa's change  vis-a-vis the SAT or against it?  He seems to be with it, in asking why the change from aptitude to achievement, but it is not clear again because his argumentation and presentation is too weak and incoherent.  One is also led to inquire the insertion of the "philosophical"  attribute - as if the change is ultimately reduced to one of testing philosophy - which it isn't.   It is based on specific test parameters that distinguish the set of aptitude type questions from those of achievement only.

For example, a physics achievement question might be: Describe the principle of operation of a basic, glass-enclosed greenhouse.

But an aptitude type problem would be:

Describe the nature of the thermal insulation you'd require on Mars (solar constant  =  539  Wm^-2 )and how you would assemble it to be equivalent to a 1000 m^-3  greenhouse  on Earth. Indicate the thickness of the material needed.

Lastly, we read:

And when changing it, the College Board actually said that the SAT was never supposed to be something unable to be learned. They said they were making it better-aligned with school material. Therefore, the pre-1994 tests are also 100% achievement-based because they said so. After-all, corporations never lie.

TL;DR: No one in Mensa even bothered to look up the content changes.

----------------

In my response to his remarks I agreed with his take about the College Board in the top paragraph, but not with his take in his last line.

How does he KNOW Mensa "never bothered to look up the content changes"?  He makes the statement baldly without any evidence, only assuming such because my original post did not mention any particulars.  But Dr. Salny did make it clear in the Mensa Research Journal that this was done and she showed the parameters considered.  Just because "Unknown" didn't see it in my post doesn't mean it wasn't done.

In my response comment I pointed out that Mensa had indeed done its duty in regard to the initial content changes of the SAT, which is why they ceased classifying it as an aptitude test. But Mensa did not keep track of content changes to achievement tests thereafter. Why would they have?

A snarky reply was offered: "Let me just say that you're lucky the SAT didn't have many reading comprehension questions back in the day. "

To which I responded:

Actually, I don't believe I am the one with the reading comprehension issues. I believe it is you, Mr. or Miss "Unknown". Part of the problem is also your vague writing, in being unable to make a strong and coherent argument. Is your primary case or issue with looking up the changes, or the changes themselves? Are you trying to argue that aptitude tests don't really make the cut any more than achievement tests? Or are you just arguing that Mensa failed to take each into account?

Try to focus your mind more and present a case for or against whatever it is you are arguing - pro or con. You presented the stats applicable to the changes, now make the argument and form a solid conclusion with a minimum of distracted prose and nebulosity.

All of which is substantiated by reference to my preceding criticisms.

The takeaway here is if you have a comment to make which is concerning a post, and is representing a specific point of view in response, then you are obliged to make that POV clear. The comment in question did not, but we shall hope that at least something in the way of more coherent writing is learned from it.

---------------------

* Some of the GRE antonym questions from 1985 Verbal Section:

Each question contains a word in capital letters then five lettered choices. Choose the one that is most nearly opposite in meaning to the word in capitals:

1. SATURNINE:

(A) genial (B) devout   (C) distinguished  (D) quick-witted  (E) heavy-handed


2. ABEYANCE:

(A) fulfillment  (B) activity  (C) renascence (D) resistance  (E) continuance


3. MUNIFICENCE:

(A) appreciation (B) deception  (C) modesty (D) stinginess  (E) anxiety


4. JUDICIOUS:

(A) insecure  (B) unwise  (C) inept  (D) lacking consequence  (E) without probability


5. DISSEMINATE:

(A) deceive  (B) garner  (C)  constrain ( D) confirm ( E) conjoin

Is It Time To Ditch The SAT?

Back in August last year, I explained how and why the SAT can no longer be regarded as a qualifying test for entry into Mensa, or any of the other high I.Q. societies, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-so-many-past-aptitude-tests-are-no.html

This quoted Dr. Abby Salny, Mensa psychometrician - who responded to a question in the 1994 March Mensa Bulletin, pointing out the SAT had ceased to be an aptitude test, and had become instead an achievement test. The latter's basis being merely to test knowledge accumulated as opposed to one's aptitude for acquiring new knowledge and applying it in different ways.

This is critical and bears on why the SAT is even needed anymore, given that "achievement" is essentially mostly coincident with one's scholastic attainments in high school, i.e. GPA. Hence, if one goes to a creditable high school (no basket weaving or dance courses!) one ought to be able to be judged able to enter college based on GPA alone. To demand also an SAT appears to be redundant.

Reinforcing the take that the SAT has become superfluous as a key criterion for college admission  has been the news that a major overhaul is in the works (Denver Post, Mar. 6, 'SAT to Undergo Major Overhaul', p. 15A).  This is scheduled to go into effect when today's high school freshmen take it in 2016. According to College Board officials, quoted in the Denver Post account, they:

"want to make the SAT more accessible, straightforward and grounded in what is taught in high school".

Commendable, except for the fact colleges want to know - or should - how these kids will potentially perform at the college level - which ought to be much more demanding than high school!

Has everyone missed the memo that college was never intended to be for everyone, nor should it be? (As reflected in recurring stats showing how few of those attending actually graduate from college after 5 years.)  College perhaps is not exclusively for an elite minority, but it will never be for the majority either - hence the need for more technical, vocational schools as in Germany. (See the excellent account in the Sunday Denver Post on how the need for more vo-tech grows in this state every year - more electricians, plumbers, and auto mechanics - as well as airplane mechanics - are desperately needed.)

Anyway, why I bring this up is that Wake Forest University  (North  Carolina) is now among the first to no longer require the SAT for admission, e.g. in addition to the high school academic record. In fact, according to a CBS News report last night, some 800 schools already allow students to apply without it. This is terrific given the fact scoring high on the test is often a matter of mastering "tricks" to cut the time consumed. Hence, those students who think too much are often penalized the most. (This applies less to the AP versions of the SAT and hence, doing AP SATs is more defensible, especially if a student plans to attend a school like MIT or Caltech. Thus, admissions would want to know how good you are at calculus and physics.)

Back to Wake Forest: According to Martha Allman, Dean of Admissions, interviewed on the news spot:

"We see many students who simply don't test well. They have intellectual curiosity and drive and all the tools to be successful college students but that Saturday morning test is their nemesis."

As reported, however, the College Board begs to differ, calling the test "essential" and that it needs to be used in tandem with high school grades. But I call bollocks on that, since again - no longer being an aptitude test, it loses utility in the wider picture. Okay, I do concede that on rare occasions it might be needed if the particular college admissions office suspects grade inflation is endemic at a high school. Also, let's bear in mind that taking the test entails $$$ and the College Board may not wish to lose a piece of its existing testing "pie". (Another reason they may have dumbed the test down some more - to lure more HS students to take it.)

This take is supported by Wake Forest's Allman who went on to point out that:

"There's no statistical difference in grade point average or in graduation rate between (SAT) submitters and non-submitters."

The news report also cited a study by the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) which backs up that thesis of optional testing. Again, it found "no significant differences in graduation rates or GPAs between the two groups."

 Which ought to be welcome news to all those who always suspected the SAT was more about helping to create a specialized niche industry (e.g.  to prep hordes of students for it), not to mention financing perennial testing itself. Both of which, we now see, impose unnecessary burdens on students and their parents.

Salman Rushdie Is Wrong! Multiple Choice Tests Are NOT 'Stupid'!

Last night, on a segment of  HBOs' Real Time on which the new changes in the SAT were being discussed, I was confounded to see and hear Salman Rushdie blurt out: "The SAT is a stupid test because multiple choice questions are stupid!"

While Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher tried to steer him into a more sober perspective, it was clear it was a hopeless task. The SAT was mostly multiple choice, hence was 'stupid'. I have news for Rushdie: for making such a remark he is stupid.

We are talking of a test that in many cases is needed as a discriminator, given relatively few places are available in relation to the tens of thousands of applications received. This was also the point made in a New York Times magazine piece on the SAT last Sunday, but from the more comprehensive perspective that we cannot just shelve the test as some universities, i.e. Wake Forest, have done.  As one administrator noted, you can say what you will, but with limited spaces you still need a way to differentiate by outside independent testing, and hence the process is called 'differentiation'.

The basis here is analogous to discerning the quality of college grads (using the GRE, say for eligibility for grad school), only now we are looking at high school grads wanting to attend an 'elite' college. How do I know (say as an admissions officer), that an "honor roll"  HS grad from Podunk High in Mayberry, NC is in the same league as one from Stuyvesant High in NYC? They both show a 97% average, but are they really the same and do both deserve entrance into Yale?  The only way to really tell is to apply an independent assessment, and this is exactly where the SAT comes in. In a similar way, one of the only ways to differentiate the college grads is to use the GRE- since many may have attended schools that are mired in grade inflation.

Next: the best way to achieve this differentiating, given one is assessing MILLIONS, is the multiple choice aptitude test (or achievement test, as is generally the case now).  It is simply impractical and infeasible to do painstaking evaluation for actual worked out "solutions",  say to math problems, given the inefficiency and laborious,  time intensive nature of such a task.  In addition, the MC test lends itself to machine marking which means the results are obtained in an expeditious manner and the potential college attendees aren't kept in limbo for months.

My point here is that Rushdie is way off base, and indeed, multiple choice tests can be excellent if prepared using intelligent parameters, criteria. To therefore write off all such tests as 'stupid' is not only ignorant but discloses an alarming lack of awareness in a person whose writings I had long respected.

Obviously, however, multiple choice testing is not appropriate for all conditions! For example, when I taught space physics and calculus physics I NEVER ever used such tests. The student was required to work out a given problem in detail, say:

 A proton moves in a uniform electric and magnetic field, with fields given by:

E = 10 V/m (x^)

B = 0.0001 T (z^)

where '^' denotes vector direction.

a) Find the gyrofrequency and the gyro-radius

b) Find the proton's E X B drift speed

The student would then hand in roughly one and a half pages to show his approaches, techniques, how he (or she) obtained the respective solutions, and I would award marks accordingly.  But though the marking was time consuming, I'd only be grading perhaps 20 papers.  Meanwhile, an SAT patterned along an analogous format would require vastly more human labor. Machines wouldn't be able to parse subjective types of response, say if the student wrote:

a = (-r^) (v_perp^)^2/ r

as a "centrifugal" acceleration instead of a centripetal one. And so, there'd have to be extended discussions on what to allow and what not to allow in the scoring regimen.  Based on such vast manpower needs, I could see the ETS going bankrupt after just one examination cycle.

Sullivan also pointed out the 11-plus, or "common entrance examination" which btw, is still used in Barbados. Given the island only has a relatively small number of places to offer in its elite secondary schools, then the five thousand or so primary school students who take the test each year are differentiated based upon multiple choice tests, though yes there is an essay section. Manpower for marking those is generally achieved by having all the secondary school teachers come in and mark the required papers using a defined marking scheme issued by the Ministry of Education. However, somehow I don't see the ETS having millions of secondary school teachers come in and mark any kind of long form SATs, apart from the security issues.

The fact then is irrespective of whatever changes are made to the SAT they won't remove the multiple choice basis, which would be ludicrous and counterproductive. Rushdie ought to have thought that out more.  Having said that, what can be done is to remove the need to apply 'tricks' to save time and gain a higher score. In this regard, all MC questions or problems ought to have such criteria applicable that there are NO short cuts one can take apart from say using plain old common sense.

In this way the advantage of SAT prep tutorials can be removed, or at least one hopes! (Though some amount of practice is always beneficial and as I noted in an earlier post, the ETS plans to provide that with online practice tests.)

The multiple choice format then is here to stay, certainly at the level of assessing students coming out of high schools (or colleges, for the GRE). We need objective ways to ensure educational attainment that can be easily compared - 'apples to apples'. Like it or not, the multiple choice format is the best we have now given the numbers entering college, or grad school, say after the first degree.

WHY Dumb Down the SAT Even More Than It Is?

Back in August last year, I explained how and why the SAT can no longer be regarded as a qualifying test for entry into Mensa, or any of the other high I.Q. societies, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-so-many-past-aptitude-tests-are-no.html

This quoted Dr. Abby Salny, Mensa psychometrician - who responded to a question in the 1994 March Mensa Bulletin, pointing out the SAT had ceased to be an aptitude test, and had become instead an achievement test. The latter's basis being merely to test knowledge accumulated as opposed to one's aptitude for acquiring new knowledge and applying it in different ways. In the words of Dr. Salny:

"Mensa's Constitution says 'IQ test or equivalent'. This means we can take a test that measures learning aptitude, but not a test that measures exclusively what has been taught in school. The whole purpose of Mensa was not to reward high scholastic achievement but to recognize intellectual giftedness. The two are not synonymous.

--- In short, any test that we have rejected, or that we will reject in the future, has changed content from IQ or equivalent to content mastery. Our Constitution mandates this and we are trying to follow our Constitution."


In effect, and in a literal sense, the SAT had been "dumbed down".   I define any test as having been altered from aptitude to achievement - including the GRE since 2001 - as having been 'dumbed down', since that attribute most linked to intelligence is no longer needed - say to score an 800 on a verbal or quantitative section.

Now, it appears, another dumbing down change is in the works (Denver Post, Mar. 6, 'SAT to Undergo Major Overhaul', p. 15A).  This is scheduled to go into effect when today's high school freshmen take it in 2016. According to College Board officials, quoted in the Denver Post account, "they want to make the SAT more accessible, straightforward and grounded in what is taught in high school". Commendable, except for the fact colleges want to know - or should - how these kids will potentially perform at the college level - which ought to be much more demanding than high school! Has everyone missed the memo that college was never intended to be for everyone, nor should it be? (As reflected in recurring stats showing how few of those attending actually graduate from college after 5 years.)  College perhaps is not exclusively for an elite minority, but it will never be for the majority either - hence the need for more technical, vocational schools as in Germany.

 A further objective of the SAT re-do (ibid.):

"It aims to strip many of the tricks out of a test administered to more than 1.5 million high school students graduating every year."

The 'tricks' refers to short cuts that can be taken to arrive at solutions, for example in the quantitative section, and often in the verbal. Since the SAT (like the GRE) is a timed test, one doesn't have unlimited time to work out problems, or resolve verbal conundrums or essays - you have to be able to deliver rapid responses....or do poorly. The 'tricks' helped in getting the higher scores and were even evident in the 'old' days when the SAT was still an aptitude test.

Often too, these tricks would be coached or taught if one could afford to attend pricey SAT prep classes, Not surprisingly, most of those were only available to affluent upper crust kids - who could afford to splurge. The rest of us, say from lower middle -class homes, had to just get a good night's sleep and hope for the best. Usually, the clock operated against us because we weren't au fait with the numerous tricks, strategies to shave off precious minutes.  One could first take the PSAT then the actual SAT, of course, but usually the enhancement in score wasn't even half of a standard deviation.

In the new version offered what is being called  a do-over of the SAT, there will be "test preparation tutorials for free online" - which is a good thing and with which I have no quibble.  My quibble in terms of 'dumbing down' comes with the decision, for example, to replace difficult vocabulary words (say like 'phlegmatic', 'punctilious' and 'occlusion') with words widely used in college and careers, say like "empirical" and "hardware". WOW! That's a big challenge! Let me think now, um...uh....hardware....doh!

The fact is the original verbal aptitude requirements really did show if the student was ready to enter college. But you know, maybe in today's dumbed down college- university world, i.e. where 60% of all Harvard students can get As, it doesn't matter. The environment is so dumbed down from the overuse of teachers' evaluations and grade inflation, that profs will grants As or Bs for just submitting an essay or a lab report, never mind the poor grammar or incorrect use of words - or errors of fact and measurement (in labs).

When I entered Loyola, I discovered just how challenging advanced English Lit was despite performing in the verbal SATs at the 89th percentile level. It was all I could to keep up, including delivering essays and literature analyses every week.  I imagined that had I performed much lower, say in the 60th percentile, I'd have really been hard put to keep up. (Though at that level, often students entered basic English classes, as opposed to advance.)

Sam Blumenfeld in his 'Education Letter' confirms much of this, noting:

The latest verbal scores for the class of 2011 are the lowest on record. Indeed, the combined reading and math scores have fallen to their lowest level since 1995. No surprise when you consider that No Child Left Behind has just about left every child in the government schools very far behind.

There is actually no better evidence documenting the dumbing-down process than the SAT scores. For example, in 1972, 2,817 students achieved a verbal score of 750 to 800, the highest possible score. In 1987, only 1,363 students achieved that score. In 1994, it was up slightly to 1,438. In other words, over a thousand smarties became dumber.

He goes on to reinforce this:

In 1994, the verbal “average” was 423, some 77 points below the 500 average, and the math “average” of 479 was 21 points below the 500 average.

Which meant that even the 469 average verbal score made by independent school test takers was well below the 1941 average of 500! And yet those same test takers scored 54 points above the 1994 average of 423. In other words, in 1994 the average student was a lot dumber than the average student of 1941, and the smarter students in 1994 were dumber than the average students of 1941.

He then quoted the College Board explanation, to wit:

Beginning with the high school class of 1996, the College Board will recenter the scales, based on a more contemporary reference group. This means that the average score will once again be at or about the center of the scale — 500 — for a new reference group from the 1990s....

Setting the average verbal and math scores at 500 means that most students’ scores will be higher. So if a student scored a verbal score of about 430 and a math score of about 470 before recentering, the score would be about 500 for both verbal and math when the test is recentered.

But, as Blumenfeld points out, this re-centering is largely a gimmick, a statistical device to make scores appear higher than they are.  As he puts it:

Now you see it, now you don’t. It reminded me of a shell game, using numbers to deceive the public. Everyone’s score will suddenly go up.

This trend is something to be aware of and I am sure the College Board has also been aware of it. Another reason perhaps to lower the demands of the test.  Could there be a monetary or profit motive behind it, given students have to cough up $$$ to take the test? According to the Post (ibid.):

"The initiative comes as the 88-year old test in recent years has slipped behind the rival ACT - a shorter exam with an optional essay - in total student customers."

So there you have it! The College Board is losing "total student customers", i.e. money!  So the same consumption aspect that explains why colleges dumb down, i.e. to keep their student customers (awarding As like free popcorn, and dumping the 'hard' courses)  also  accounts for why the test makers do likewise. If they don't do it, the students race off to take the easier test, the ACT!

Sadly, this shows our educational system-  at both the high school and the college levels-  is really becoming less and less imbued with quality - as it strives to go for quantity, including quantity of those dollars flowing into the coffers.

Why So Many Past Aptitude Tests Are No Longer Accepted by Mensa

Well, not only by Mensa, but other high I.Q. societies, as well, including Intertel and the Poetic Genius Society. The sad bottom line fact for most wannabe Mensans (and Ilians, etc.) is that if they wish to join these societies today they had better have taken the SAT, GRE, PSAT, ACT tests before they became inapplicable. If their past test evidence doesn't make the cut then they will have to sit the official Mensa test in order to qualify.

The question of no longer accepting the SAT actually was answered at some length by Abby F.Salny (Ed. D.) in the March, 1994 issue of the Mensa Bulletin (p. 9) in response to a reader's question. The letter writer asked:

"Please tell me why Mensa will not accept the new SAT results as evidence for admission to Mensa. Is there some new aspect of the SAT test that makes it invalid for Mensa use?"

Dr. Salny responded:

"Many Mensans have asked why we do not accept the 'new' SAT scores or the 'new' MCAT scores. This is not only an explanation but a possible philosophical explanation of the changes in the test.

The ACT went to content mastery testing some time ago. That means they were measuring learned knowledge and achievement. The SAT has not only changed to content achievement but has even changed its name from the Scholastic Aptitude Test to the Scholastic Achievement Test. The Medical College test has also gone content-oriented with two major sections, Physical Sciences and Biology.

Mensa's Constitution says 'IQ test or equivalent'. This means we can take a test that measures learning aptitude, but not a test that measures exclusively what has been taught in school. The whole purpose of Mensa was not to reward high scholastic achievement but to recognize intellectual giftedness. The two are not synonymous.

--- In short, any test that we have rejected, or that we will reject in the future, has changed content from IQ or equivalent to content mastery. Our Constitution mandates this and we are trying to follow our Constitution."

This means that now even the GRE (since Oct., 2001) cannot be considered a true aptitude test and a valid basis for evidence to qualify for Mensa membership. The American Mensa, Ltd. website makes it clear what past tests are still accepted as evidence for qualifying and which are now content -dominated so no longer are. These include:

ACT Composite	prior to 9/89  (29)	29
	effective 9/89 ( N/A)	N/A

GMAT (Percentile rank of verbal + quantitative)** (95)

95

GRE	prior to 5/94 (V+ Q = 1250)	1250
	scored from 5/94 to 9/01 (math + verbal + analytic = 1875)	1875
	effective 10/01 (N/A)	N/A

Henmon-Nelson   (132)

132

LSAT***	prior to 1982 (662)	662
	1982 through 5/91 (39)	39
	effective 6/91 (163)	163

Miller Analogies Test (MAT)	prior to 10/04 (raw score 66)	66
	scored after 10/04 (total group percentile score 98)	98

PSAT (taken in junior year)	prior to 5/93 (180)	180
	effective 5/93 (N/A)	N/A

PSAT (taken in senior year)	prior to 5/93 (195)	195
	effective 5/93 (N/A)	N/A

SAT or CEEB	scored prior to 9/30/74 (1300)	1300
	scored from 9/30/74 - 1/31/94 (1250)	1250
	scored after 1/31/94 (N/A)	N/A

So, if you have SATs from 1974 through 1/31/94 you can qualify if your Verbal-Math total is 1250 (if before 1974, it needs to be 1300). If you are using the GRE (Graduate Record exam)  prior to May, 1994, the total needs to be 1250. If after that date but before 10/01 then the verbal, quantitative and analytic total must come to 1875. After 10/01 it's no go, you will either have to bring up an earlier SAT test, or take the Mensa test.

The point is that prospective candidates can't blame Mensa or the other organizations which are just following their own prescribed rules. If they must blame anyone it's the ETS (Educational Testing Service) or other test manufacturers. But before you do, be mindful they are not beholden to providing any IQ equivalent aptitude tests, but rather  to satisfying the demands of colleges own evolving admission standards and requirements. The point is that the priorities of universities and colleges need in no way conform with those of Mensa, Intertel et al.

Oh, one other thing, you can't submit "blended" scores, i.e. from multiple test sittings, nor can you submit a "re-sit" score, e.g. for SATs. For those who wish to take the Mensa test (if no prior evidence test is allowable) you can obtain a practice test from American Mensa.  For those who are curious as to how their prior SAT or GRE scores translate into I.Q. check out: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/greiq.aspx



Side note: It's interesting that the yen for content mastery has even invaded previous military aptitude tests, i.e.

Army GCT****	prior to 10/80 (136)	136
	effective 10/80 (N/A)	N/A

Navy GCT****	prior to 10/80 (68)	68
	effective 10/80  (N/A)	N/A

Heritage Foundation Exposes its Racist Underbelly With "Paper" from a HahVahd Numbnut

The Heritage Foundation, a conservo think tank (and I use that term liberally)  has always harbored an odious brew of vile crypto-facsists, Libertarian assholes and right wing screw jobs. They are also known for concocting refuse published in assorted academic "papers" - which term I also use loosely.  Most people of sense and acumen knew that once Jim DeMint - Demented Tea Bagger got the top job there- the place would slide down at an accelerated rate.

Well, we didn't have long to wait. As Rachel Maddow exposed last night, this bunch of troglydytes are now at the center of a storm that threatens to engulf them. It concerns an academic paper to do with the intelligence of immigrants. It claims, and I shit you not, that their I.Q.s are substantially lower than whites and moreover they will add $6.3 trillion to the deficit if wide-open immigration legislation is passed.

All of this is based on the numbers "crunching" of a former Harvard Ph.D. grad - a Jason Redwine-  who actually wrote in his dissertation (making one wonder how the quality of Harvard Ph.D. dissertations has descended):

"The average I.Q. of Immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population. And the difference is likely to persist over several generations."

In other words, this bozo with three letters after his name (which don't mean diddly) is claiming that "immigrants" (no distinctions, just one general category) will become poverty-stricken "takers" that will have to go on whatever dole is available, and their year-by-year taking (from gov't) will bring us all much further into debt.

Well, it doesn't take much exposure to his claptrap (and btw, ANY thesis adviser at Harvard that allowed the quoted rot to pass muster  for a Ph.D. ought to be fired forthwith.) to see the similarities to bollocks produced by another Heritage alumnus, Charles Murray. Readers may recall Murray was the author of The Bell Curve in which he attempted to tie IQ to racial genetics, with African-Americans and Latinos at the lower end of "the Bell Curve"- a Gaussian distribution.

Murray followed this up with a knock-off  book, (Coming Apart)  that extended his poverty -taker paradigm to poor whites. He basically took 300 odd pages to "document" how working class whites were detaching from the "four founding virtues of industriousness, honesty, marriage and religion".  Because of this profound moral laxity, these poor whites were damaging the white brand, and also ramping up deficits because of their entitlement mentality. They ranged from middle age working whites just fired from white collar jobs, who refused to flip burgers, to younger Gen Y types who refused to respect "the Man" and put their asses to work without whining. HIs worst diatribes were reserved for those who grabbed benefits, whether Social Security or Veterans disability, and these were tagged as "parasites".

 In any case, he attributed the Whiteys' grafting ways and laziness to their collective failure to hold up the four props as explaining why they are perhaps now embracing government "entitlements" and in the process reducing their collective IQ. For example, we learn that in blue-collar America (in contrast to the white upper class in which divorce rates hav declined) divorce has soared since the 1980s, and nonmarital child-bering is skyrocketing Worse and worse, 40% of white females with just a high school diploma have children outside of marriage, compared to 5% with college degrees.


Murray's suggestion? That the poor white's wealthier class betters teach them morals!

Now, anyone who's read Murrary's codswallop cannot fail to see the extension of the same statistical errors and nonsense to Jason Redwine's pseudo-science. (Btw, where do these crackpot "Jasons" come from anyway? Recall my earlier exposure of the Ph.D. moron Jason Lisle, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-jason-lisle-is-wrong-in-his-solar.html )

In the case of Redwine, statistical errors are evident merely from reading his statement-quote above from his dissertation, using the catch all "immigrants". Has he never observed or studied Asian immigrants, for example, who have some of the most industrious habits and actually display higher I.Q. s than Caucasians? Obviously not!   This means he's using the blanket term "immigrants" to pin the blame mainly on Mexican immigrants. But this doesn't wash nor are his skewed numbers worth much.

Right now, for example, the census figures show net zero immigration between the U.S. and Mexico. That means the numbers coming and going are balanced at about 1.4 million each way. This hardly can be used to make the case that we will see milions more Mexican Takers and then they're ramping up deficits by another $6.3 trillion. Where does he get that figure anyway?

That's another case of bogus use of stats, which we call selection effect. In this case, Redwine never bothered to factor in the immigrants' contributions, via their labor and paid tax dollars (amounting to $11.2 billion a year). In other words, Redwine - genius that he is- left out one whole side of the ledger projected over a generation (40 yrs.). 

This is as bad as not distinguishing between the economics of the assorted immigrant groups, or their educations, etc. Worse, he makes a typical error of many naifs in not appreciating several things about I.Q. itself: 1) that I.Q. can change over time, it's not some fixed number that follows you the rest of your life, and 2) I.Q. measurements and tests themselves vary and are highly subjective relative to a population's aptitude and skill set.

I mean really! Does this turkey believe that an I.Q. test - say devised in by Pygmies in Africa- would be expected to be the same as one for the U.S. and Canada?  Does he think a related rates  math item  or vocabulary item - like 'write the synonymn for derelict' would appear on a Pygmy I.Q. test.?

Is he even aware of the fact that the SAT, for example, has not been used by Mensa since the mid-90s as an alternative I.Q. entry determinant? (Only the SATs taken before about 1994 qualify, else one must sit Mensa's own test). Why the change? Because the College Board that administers it no longer was convinced the SATs met the basic requirements of an I.Q. format aptitude test.  This means that if Redwine used SAT scores, say, to assess Mexican or any immigrants' I.Q. scores, he'd be off base. They results would have to be tossed into the dumpster.

While Redwine and Heritage seek to clean themselves up from this fiasco, one thing is clear: The Repukes still haven't learned - even after the last election- that when they spit on immigrants (especially including all those who are also naturalized citizens) they will never get their votes.