Forum menu
I should add I was there in the mid 80s
But the place still isn't on the radar of lots of state schools, perhaps because so few of the teachers or parents went there, and people feel wrongly, it's not for them, and so the cycle continues...
this.
Alumni outreach works a bit, but only targets state schools that already have an Oxbridge history. The main thing is often coaching in interview technique given the weight placed on this at application.
No that was QueensEDIT: It doesn't work with the edit, and a reputation only because of its name - but wrong.
Eh? Oh come on, Wadhams well known for being left wing and errr liberal. 
The bop is mad for starters!
Besides, your experience alone doesn't tell the full picture and I'm actually fairly surprised that as a man who states that he went to a state school, that you haven't mentioned that you didn't feel at least a little bit out of place there. Or did your upper class puppet masters manage to make you feel like one of them?
Can I answer somebody else's question again? No, I didn't feel the least bit out of place there, and though I didn't mix with the toffs I had friends who'd been to comps like me, grammar schools and private schools. Didn't and don't feel upper class, so I don't think it worked on me, just that whilst there are folks like that around they are easily avoided if you don't fit in with them. Mind you I did go to some parties with people very not like me in my first term.
Well, a few of the lads I knew did and I could understand why.
I think the biggest factor is state school dont get as good grades in the first place and are less likely to get through the interview. Oh and if out reach by oxford only goes to places they have kids coming from already its a ****ing joke.
Anyone with half a brain can work out that oxford is elitist ( its supposed to be) and favours those from a more wealthy background.
True. But beyond that there will always be a lot of straight A (predicted) students at application stage from all schools. Many state school students do not apply due to lack of history. Some state students will apply but without decent interview prep will come up short. These are 2 needlessly prohibitive barriers to state students gaining entry.state school dont get as good grades in the first place
It doesn't take a wealthy background to address these.
TomW - maybe that is because they share your inability to have an open mind, exhibited so brilliantly on here.
Or maybe I'm giving a counter anecdote, considering that none of you seem to understand statistics or probability.
Also, I'm very good at fitting in with rahs. I just won't pretend like some of you, that Oxford is a bastion of meritocracy.
Yak firstly is there any evidence that state school kids dont apply? And secondly how do we better prepare state school kids for interview with no money to do it?
We are merely slaves to our experience, but it is at least our experience - unfortunately bald statistics don't always indicate causation.
anagallis_arvensis - I can't answer the first except anecdotally, so I won't try.
But the 2nd - this is a case of an extra hour a week by a committed teacher for the group of applicants for a short period. There are plenty of duff 'time-filler' subjects within a sixth-form day that could be substituted for this*
*back in my day, we had to fill a certain number of taught lessons per week. Even 4 A-levels didn't fill it completely so there was some 'filler' stuff. I imagine it may be the same now?
and also our own experience is a poor indicator of larger scale processes
http://m.mic.com/articles/1872/classism-is-entrenched-in-british-student-social-clubs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15940208
The writers experiences of Oxford (bbc video) mirror some of my own friends experiences in the 21st century.
Yak so you can fill the social capital gap with a few extra tips from a teacher. Pull the other one. Private education buys much more than grades and wealth can enrich your cv beyond measure. What you suggest is already done in all schools I've taught in. It helps some but cannot compete with a properly financed system built into high quality education driving you in that direction and thats before you factor in how the wealthy can boost a cv.
But the 2nd - this is a case of an extra hour a week by a committed teacher for the group of applicants for a short period. There are plenty of duff 'time-filler' subjects within a sixth-form day that could be substituted for this.
I was offered extra tuition by my teachers in order to sit entrance exams - in the event, being a lazy bugger who didn't feel like doing extra work I just applied to those colleges which didn't require the entrance exam. Unsurprisingly those also happen to be the colleges with the highest state school intake. Didn't actually get much interview prep, but given I was applying to study engineering, the interview was more about testing technical ability than how good your interview technique was - or at least I remember coping with it fairly well.
anagallis_arvensis - I'm not disagreeing in principle. It just that at the point of application decent students are getting undersold by their preparation, regardless of whether they've had a great cv-boosting background or not. The interview should be there to assess potential, not necessarily experience to date based on money spent. That part should be obvious.
The writers experiences of Oxford (bbc video) mirror some of my own friends experiences in the 21st century.
They noticed that people lost their accents? Maybe he's right - I can't say it's something I ever really noticed at the time, and I know several other people who've lost their accents who went to less celebrated universities.
As for the exclusive clubs, they were never something I had any interest in joining - instead I joined those clubs where other members were people like me, plenty of those about - so didn't have any pent up feeling of being downtrodden.
The interview should be there to assess potential, not necessarily experience to date based on money spent.
In my experience (from 25 years ago) it was.
Their preparation is better due to a better education which comes from wealth.
and despite what I'm saying like for like in terms of grades at a level state kids do better at uni but then even with the same degree as a privately educated kid from the same uni will go on to earn less.
The first is as expected, the 2nd is reality and frustrating.
Caryl Phillips is a friend of one of my oldest friends, they met at Oxford in, I guess, the late 70s. My friend has just retired. I am sure he is right, people think they need to conform and therefore do to an extent, but frankly there was, and is no need. However, at the time RP was presumed to the way to speak in "elite" circles due to, as much as anything, the BBC.
The other article is just a garbage rant. If in a student population of 22,000 a few guys are members of what they perceive to be an elite club, who cares? I even knew one of the guys in the David Cameron Bullingdon photo, I had no idea he was a member. He was, 15 years ago when I last saw him, the same meek individual that I had always known.
You're right Yak the first is as expected but does suggest uni's are not selecting on potential the second is as expected too given the social capital wealth brings.
Uni's are either not properly selecting on potential [i]or[/i] state school applicants are consistently underselling themselves for their level of ability. Same result, but the latter could be improved. Your schools sound like they are doing the right thing, but it would be interesting to find out the percentage of state schools that do the same.
I think you are failing to see the big ****ing 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.
The only time there has been social mobility was in the 50s-80s, with a decent grammar school system in place, bolstered by grants. There's also the fact that university in now incredibly expensive for your average lower middle-class family.
Oxford has also since opened the gates to privileged international students, leading to a Swiss finishing school air about the place, especially amongst the postgrads.
Public school children generally adapt to Oxbridge easier at the start because the system is familiar - very work hard, play hard, in a 24/7 institutional environment. I could pick out the state school kids a mile off in freshers week, either trying too hard or just shrinking in the corner.
In terms of admissions, prospective students need an adviser who understands the colleges, and can match the student to the college they are most likely to fit in.
But is it worth it overall? I spent seven years at Oxford and looking back there were some really low times, and I expect I would have dropped out if I were paying the current tuition fees.
Is there actual evidence for Grammar Schools boosting social mobility?
For the few who passed an exam at 11 years of age, it gave an opportunity for social mobility, for the rest that was it, the opportunity was gone and they were cast into a system preparing them to be factory fodder.
Of course those who benefited from the system moved into lives where they were able to crow about their success, the majority who the system failed remained voiceless.
Current grammar schools are poor at boosting social mobility
There are so few grammar schools now I doubt you could make a conclusion that they are "poor at boosting social mobility".
I'd be in favour of introducing something along the lines of the German system, where entry into their version of grammar schools can happen at 11 and 14. As well as a high standard of technical schools.
I went to a state school on a big council estate and it was a waste of time all round. The academic kids got held back by the kids who weren't academic. The non-academic kids I knew have since gone into trades anyway (and incidentally earning a lot more than many people I went to uni with) and so would have benefited from attending a technical school instead.
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.
I'm not sure "life skills" is totally accurate. I know of a privately educated individual who is absolutely **** useless when it actually comes to doing their job. Although they are just about sharp enough to realise it and explain the predicament with "I've had everything done for me before"
The only reason the individual in question is still in their job is nepotism, thanks to another privately educated but still under skilled pillock. Who again, is in their role through nepotism and connections. Glad I'm out of that equation these days to be honest. Tiny sample size. But I'd say the key difference is not that they are better, more that they believe they are better. And certainly better connected.
Alternatively to this, I know a lot of privately educated people. Who went down the path of serious academic study who are very smart cookies in their respective fields. Just getting that disclaimer in if the current or ex GF reads this.
Life skills was maybe a poor choice of word but given the same predicted grades they get into competitive uni's much better.
My IQ puts me on the far right of that graph, I doubt that I will be earning 100k anytime soon as I am a directionless **** up
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-pick.
Having worked in an environment with a lot of Oxbridge graduates and ex-public school types - the one thing that stands out to me is the degree of self confidence, particularly in certain environments. That may well be that their backgrounds mean they are used to senior business, public and political figures(ie their friends and family) and/or the Oxbridge style of teaching - tutor groups and debate.
However, they are no more or less effective. Some of the most objectively clever people I've met you wouldn't trust to tie their own shoes let alone run a multi-million £ programme. Unfortunately, the self confidence thing often means they do end up doing just that.
Conversely, because I've been around a while, some of the best people I've worked for have never been anywhere near a university as they left school in the 1970s and working class and generally lower middle class people simply didn't, those with grammar school educations got entry level management positions in banks, civil service or similar and worked their way up.
Now who would you trust a 30 yo super bright intellectual or a 55 year old with almost 40 years of experience and had to push their way up through the ranks? My answer - depends on the individual in both cases some can be brilliant and others are just fronting it.
The problem is that I see the Oxbridge route beginning to dominate - too many without life experience running stuff. Just look at politics, there is need for a balance.
Yak - MemberUni's are either not properly selecting on potential or state school applicants are consistently underselling themselves for their level of ability. Same result, but the latter could be improved.
The latter is basically impossible to make equal, and incredibly hard to improve much at all- many schools struggle to give decent UCAS support let alone interview coaching, and even that wouldnt' close the gap. The real problem is the former.
For whatever it's worth, we've more or less abandoned selection interviews, not because they're unfair (though, they are) but because they're just not much good- we found the correlation between interview performance and student performance was weak at best. Though, we're further down the pecking order 😉
Agreed - it will never be equal, but could be better.
It's just that for a given predicted set of a-level grades, you would expect the privately educated applicant to be able to make a very convincing argument for their potential. An un-coached state applicant would have to be exceptional to put forward an equally convincing argument for their potential.
aa - of course that is obvious, as it should be to the interviewer. You wouldn't expect the state applicant to have the range of experiences, and associated skills, but you would want them to demonstrate what they are capable of, not fall foul of bad interview technique.
Yak - MemberIt's just that for a given predicted set of a-level grades, you would expect the privately educated applicant to be able to make a very convincing argument for their potential. An un-coached state applicant would have to be exceptional to put forward an equally convincing argument for their potential.
The counter-argument is that the state-school applicant in this situation has performed better to achieve the same grades, on average. Though that's a huge generalisation of course, the concept of contextual admissions is sound but trying to implement it fairly for the individual is, er, [i]challenging.[/i]
I agree Northwind the problem has occurred far far earlier in a childs education than when the apply to uni. State education is massively underfunded and under resourced.
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 - MemberSo 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 [url= http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/the-odd-correlation-between-ses-and-achievement-why-havent-more-critical-questions-been-asked-a-call-to-action/ ]here[/url].
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.
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 [b]exclusive[/b] 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 [b]majority[/b] 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.