The point is that as an intelligent person you have a choice, an unintelligent person does not, so, anecdotes notwithstanding, there is a one-way tendency for more intelligent people to get better paid jobs, which is more or less evident dependent on which Google link you cherry

Link please to your journal articles that support your view, before you accuse me of cherry picking. That data was from a decent journal originally.

I think some of you mistook heritability as a fixed number as well, we aren’t even sure how socio economic factors effect heritability.

Heritability and socioeconomic status
The APA report “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns” (1995) also stated that:

“We should note, however, that low-income and non-white families are poorly represented in existing adoption studies as well as in most twin samples. Thus it is not yet clear whether these studies apply to the population as a whole. It remains possible that, across the full range of income and ethnicity, between-family differences have more lasting consequences for psychometric intelligence.”[7]

A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children’s IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family’s socioeconomic status. “Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98.”[17][24]

Stoolmiller (1999) argued that the range of environments in previous adoption studies were restricted. Adopting families tend to be more similar on, for example, socio-economic status than the general population, which suggests a possible underestimation of the role of the shared family environment in previous studies. Corrections for range restriction to adoption studies indicated that socio-economic status could account for as much as 50% of the variance in IQ.[25]

On the other hand, the effect of this was examined by Matt McGue and colleagues (2007), who wrote that “restriction in range in parent disinhibitory psychopathology and family socio-economic status had no effect on adoptive-sibling correlations [in] IQ”[26]

Turkheimer and colleagues (2003) argued that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary with socioeconomic status. They found that in a study on seven-year-old twins, in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in early childhood IQ was accounted for by the shared family environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse.[5]

In contrast to Turkheimer (2003), a study by Nagoshi and Johnson (2005) concluded that the heritability of IQ did not vary as a function of parental socioeconomic status in the 949 families of Caucasian and 400 families of Japanese ancestry who took part in the Hawaii Family Study of Cognition.[27]

Asbury and colleagues (2005) studied the effect of environmental risk factors on verbal and non-verbal ability in a nationally representative sample of 4-year-old British twins. There was not any statistically significant interaction for non-verbal ability, but the heritability of verbal ability was found to be higher in low-SES and high-risk environments.[28]

Harden and colleagues (2007) investigated adolescents, most 17 years old, and found that, among higher income families, genetic influences accounted for approximately 55% of the variance in cognitive aptitude and shared environmental influences about 35%. Among lower income families, the proportions were in the reverse direction, 39% genetic and 45% shared environment.”[29]

Rushton and Jensen (2010) criticized many of these studies for being done on children or adolescents. They argued that heritability increases during childhood and adolescence, and even increases greatly between 16–20 years of age and adulthood, so one should be cautious drawing conclusions regarding the role of genetics from studies where the participants are not adults. Furthermore, the studies typically did not examine if IQ gains due to adoption were on the general intelligence factor (g). When the studies by Capron and Duyme were re-examined, IQ gains from being adopted into high SES homes were on non-g factors. By contrast, the adopted children’s g mainly depended on their biological parents SES, which implied that g is more difficult to environmentally change.[14]

A 2011 study by Tucker-Drob and colleagues reported that at age 2 years, genes accounted for approximately 50% of the variation in mental ability for children being raised in high socioeconomic status families, but genes accounted for negligible variation in mental ability for children being raised in low socioeconomic status families. This gene-environment interaction was not apparent at age 10 months, suggesting that the effect emerges over the course of early development.[30]

A 2012 study based on a representative sample of twins from the United Kingdom, with longitudinal data on IQ from age two to age fourteen, did not find evidence for lower heritability in low-SES families. However, the study indicated that the effects of shared family environment on IQ were generally greater in low-SES families than in high-SES families, resulting in greater variance in IQ in low-SES families. The authors noted that previous research had produced inconsistent results on whether or not SES moderates the heritability of IQ. They suggested three explanations for the inconsistency. First, some studies may have lacked statistical power to detect interactions. Second, the age range investigated has varied between studies. Third, the effect of SES may vary in different demographics and different countries

I think you are failing to see the big **** obvious picture here. Privately educated kids are coached much better in many many things and that doesnt just bring exam success. State schools do not have the funds to compete on exam grades or life skills.

This is what I paid private school fees for for my kids. This is what we should be increasing funding to state schools to do.

EDIT: my concern is that additional funding to education goes the same way as the significant extra funding made available to the NHS by Labour which was disproportionately spent on more money for GPS. I appreciate salaries could be raised in education but if the majority of extra money goes that way it doesn’t achieve the objective.

Except Tories don’t want to pay more tax to help the oiks.

Except Tories don’t want to pay more tax to help the oiks.

So raise taxes for everyone then, an extra 1% on VAT for example.

many schools struggle to give decent UCAS support let alone interview coaching

@Northwind, agreed and this is where your family/social group makes a huge difference as this is done outside school at home.

The trouble with this whole situation of access to Oxbridge (and the massive opportunities that conveys) is that it’s all part of the wider picture of the ironically titled ‘social mobility’ in the UK. There isn’t any. Full stop! In fact, it’s accelerating backwards! And who’d expect any different?

All the main political parties are now stuffed full with privately educated career politicians* And then there’s the issue of access to jobs, whatever your education. With more and more positions in politics, media and business accessed exclusively through unpaid internships, totally closed off to the trust-fund-free working classes, for those from privileged backgrounds to walk into courtesy of daddy’s contacts.

So where will change come from? When those benefitting represent a completely closed system that their own pampered offspring will follow them in benefitting from? The increase in division of society by wealth, rather than ability, and the complete eradication of any form of social mobility continues apace.

And ultimately, everyone loses. How do you create a competitive global economy when ALL positions if power are closed off to everyone but a tiny minority, getting there by a pre-ordained route that at no point considers whether they’re actually best suited to it, or even contemplates any actual merit in the decision.

* I went to school with Andy Burnham, a rare example of a comprehensive educated career politician, who’s probably the most effective member of the Labour Party, and ten times more competent than Dwayne Dibbly, presently at the helm

That still = more Tories voting UKIP. Can you imagine a VAT rise as an election campaign?

Salaries in education dont need to be raised much. Its class size and work load that needs looking at.

jambalaya – Member

So raise taxes for everyone then, an extra 1% on VAT for example.

Eh, should probably start by saying, up til now I’ve been pretty fact based in this thread, this next one’s just opinion…

Anyway- thing is, even if you have a stack more money in state schools, spending that on priming students for university selection interviews is probably still not a priority. Spending it on improving standards and teaching and facilities will help but realistically it’ll never close the gap. And the general social advantages that make it easier for a kid from a wealthier background to confidently go into an interview and make their case aren’t really duplicable.

So personally, I reckon the problem is the actual selection process, and treating the symptoms isn’t the answer. Especially when the sticking plaster would be this expensive. But I can’t think of a better fix than strict proportionality or banded competition, which I know a lot of people disagree with and for good reasons.

I’m talking off the top of my head here but…

Is there a question about Universities recognising and building potential,? So bright kids that are capable of much, but haven’t got the honed academic skills of those who went to better schools should be able to develop those while at Uni?

I know that Universities don’t necessarily have funding for this, but the inclusion of foundation academic skills would seem a way of bridging the gap. I lot of the much maligned new Universities do this – but I have a feeling that it isn’t something the top Unis see as their role.

Maybe a role for a bridging year for kids who need it and a sympathetic view from the “top” universities for people coming through that route.

Worth mentioning that university selection interviews don’t mean anything for a lot of subjects, in terms of ‘selection’. The sciences are not significantly over-subscribed, in general, so interviews are really an opportunity for the student to see the place and speak to a faculty member. Selection is just done by setting an A-level offer at the tier you want.

Doubt there’s a physical or life science degree in the UK outside of Oxbridge that has a real interview selection process. Maybe some niche areas that are confined to a handful of universities, but if you want to do biology, say, at a Russell group uni, then the interview is just a formality – get the A level grades and you’re in.

Link please to your journal articles that support your view

Quite a few links here.

There is so much wrong with that link DrJ that I don’t even know where to begin. Firstly that article talks about school achievement, not IQ. It then goes on to make claims about the link between IQ and achievement in school.

Household wealth is associated with IQ and school achievement

What it fails to mention is that self-discipline is a far the better indicator of a child’s educational success than IQ.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/images/PsychologicalScienceDec2005.pdf

School as we know it and keep it reflects IQ, IQ is pretty fixed, so school cannot ever make much of a difference. (This is pretty much the Murray thesis from 20 years ago. Seems excessively fatalistic, and naïve about IQ vs. the particulars of school).

The next one and by no means the last is the fact that IQ is not fixed, it’s only really fixed by the time you are about 20 and that children who are fostered in more affluent homes end up having higher average IQs.

I posted a link to a long article which itself referenced a dozen other articles – I don’t really see the point of pulling out one sentence and taking issue with it. People can read the whole article, follow links, consider the arguments and make their minds up if it’s more convincing than the graph you cut and pasted.

My point is, is that it’s a ridiculously biased and ignorant article that pulls together a variety of perfectly good sources.

Went to Imperial from a state school. My offer was BBC. Current offers for my course are 3xA*. I don’t think my son’s genration have improved intelligence.

Parental valuation of education is probably as big a factor in hereditary intelligence. Nature and nurture, innit.

Well, you claimed I had no evidence to support my views, and asked for links. I supplied them, along with a brief sketch of how such a correlation could arise. As I said, people can make their own minds up – indeed, I’m happy to change my mind if I see a convincing argument to do so. Your opinion on what’s “ridiculous” doesn’t quite fit that category.

I had a look at the link and saw no evidence just conjecture.

@binners Oxford/Cambridge are more than 50% state school (appreciate that’s under representation vs private schools) but it’s hardly the exclusive habitat of the elite. Of course Westminster is full of career politicians as most business people are not interested in politics.

@Northwind as you well know proportionality and banded competition just reduces standards and it won’t be long before employers start assuming state school graduates from Oxbridge must have been “let in easy”

@Tom, sadly people want improved standards, more social mobility and a better health service but they want someone else to pay for it, ie the “rich” or “tax dodging corporations”

Well to that DrJ, I would say that what bothers me is that you even hold an opinion on the subject before you have even seen a convincing argument.

Besides, I think the bigger question is, do we really want to live in a true meritocracy? If wealth ends up becoming correlated to IQ then I can see all sorts of problems arising from the direction in which the evolution of humanity will take. We will end up with a race of troll looking 5 foot retarded serfs and 7 foot wealthy geniuses. I get the feeling that conservative types would consider that bliss.

Did you look at the correct link? The one I posted had 2 references to studies, plus a graph, in the first paragraph.

Well to that DrJ, I would say that what bothers me is that you even hold an opinion on the subject before you have even seen a convincing argument.

That doesn’t follow logically from what I said. I said that I was open to my mind being changed if I see a convincing argument to do so. That isn’t the same as saying that I haven’t seen an argument that convinces me to hold my present views.

As for your second point – that is an entirely different issue.

There’s no convincing argument for your point of view, so why even hold it? Why have that cognitive distortion clouding your judgement of people?

you look at the correct link? The one I posted had 2 references to studies, plus a graph, in the first paragraph.

A GRAPH, IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OMG, I’M CONVINCED

There’s no convincing argument for your point of view, so why even hold it?

Is that what you think I said?

A GRAPH, IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OMG, I’M CONVINCED

Convinced or not, is up to you. But you claimed you saw no evidence, which you now seem to admit was incorrect.

Here’s a quote by you.

I think we’ve been here before. Poorer people are, in general, less intelligent. Which is sort of why they have less money. Of course there are exceptions – people who take lower paid jobs out of love of their work – but the majority of poorer people have low income because they are not equipped to get better ones. Which is not to say they are worth less as human beings.

You haven’t posted anything that even remotely backs up this assertion. Sorry, I go all Ben Goldacre when people make statements like this. There’s no conclusive evidence to suggest that the majority of people on lower incomes are incapable of doing better because of their genes.

Aaah – well done – you found an ill-chosen word and went “all Ben Goldacre”.

Whatever, I’m an obnoxious jerk but at least I don’t tend to make sweeping statements about groups of people without knowing what I’m talking about.

So…. When do we start the culling of the poor then?

It’s for their own benefit. The simpletons. Sparing them, as it does, from their desperately unfulfilling miserable little lives, devoid as they are of the ability to be educated….

No, your speciality seems to be baseless ad hominem.

(And commando editing).

Well at least he hasn’t come over a bit…. well ….. you know….. a bit……. Mein Kampf-ish

is up to you. But you claimed you saw no evidence, which you now seem to admit was incorrect.

A random graph showing a correlation between some test scores and wealth isnt evidence that wealth is linked to genes

What about black people? They are also under-represented in Oxbridge

Why? Smaller foreheads, you know?

Have we even started on how some research has shown that IQ is only weakly correlated or even uncorrelated to rational thinking? 😆

It would explain a whole host of hilarity in this thread and why academics will often defend untenable positions to the point of ruining their careers, if true, of course.

A random graph showing a correlation between some test scores and wealth isnt evidence that wealth is linked to genes

“genes” – where did that straw man come from?

My IQ puts me on the far right of that graph,

Have we even started on how some research has shown that IQ is only weakly correlated or even uncorrelated to rational thinking?

Hmmm… 🙂

genes” – where did that straw man come from?

Came from earlier in the thread go take a look.
So if that isnt your point what is it?

Came from earlier in the thread go take a look

Help me out – tell me in which posting I mentioned genes.