/sci/ - Science & Math

forgot to mention 60 is 100 iq in the armed forces grading system and the other mark is the average income for the average SAT score

>>14761897
No.

>>14761994
I dont understand (this still supports my claim)? im saying intelligence measure of this is very similar to iq and predicts income at 60k for the average person administered. If we look at the 30k margin the SAT predicts the average person to be, it falls under 20 or 80 iq. This means that theres more inequality in the SAT than in a standard intelligence test.

>>14761895
>>14762071
>SAT
Source? Also note that they changed how its scored in the past decade so anything on a 1600 scale will be disproportionately young people who in turn have lower income.

>>14761895
Everyone would be getting payed better if…
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

>>14762082
just google SAT vs income

>>14762084
what the fuck is this supposed to prove? Is this some sort of "you should be thankful you live now" thing? This is such a retarded statement.

"SAT math and ACT scores each exhibit robustly positive correlations of 0.22 with household income. However, the correlations between household income and metrics like high school GPA and high school graduation rank are less than half as strong, ranging from 0.06 to 0.10." TLDR: SAT barely predicts success while IQ directly predicts success. If what our test score is trying to do is tell colleges who they should invest in, then clearly they want to reward less adaptable and fast people.

>>14762112
The reason this is way worse than that though is because it hurts the average person from earning more than 30k by condemning them to have less opportunities. If the tests were to predict success more accurately then the average person would make 60k.

>>14762105
You're a retard for making a specific claim and then saying "lol just google it," but fine.
>https://blog.codingitforward.com/what-data-science-reveals-about-the-sat-earnings-and-poverty-in-higher-education-be764e221833
>Median annual income of students working and not enrolled 10 years after entry
So the average would be something like $40,000 for a 1000 SAT score. Because the pic you should was median family income then it's a reasonable assumption to multiply that by 1.5, accounting for spouse's income for the ~50% of people who are married, which puts you at about the 60 mark for the AFQT pic you posted. That's also the LIFETIME income whereas the SAT income is people surveyed 10 years after enrolling in college, making them around 28 years old. Since income is something that dramatically increases with age, that means that $40,000 might really be more like $70k median lifetime income.

>>14762112
>if our test scores are trying to tell colleges who to invest in

That's where you fucked up. Colleges don't invest and they're little more than daycares now.

I only suggest going to college if you're too stupid to find a good profession on your own.

>>14761895
>Everyone would be getting payed better if we were determined our careers based on our iq rather than mastering psuedo test taking
I don't get it, how would determining our careers based on our IQ cause people to slather tar on us?

semi-literate babble

>>14762124
I provided my claim and its only 0.2 related to success while iq is 1.0 so it essentially is a checkmate. However family income only means income per house hold and you are implying all of these individuals are married. Implications and personal conclusions have no place in this discussion

>>14762128
Im saying the complete opposite of that. Perhaps im not good with words. IQ would make everyone objectively better as a procedure for setting us on better paths.

My goal in this thread is to prove colleges are essentially daycares and we need to assert our dominance on psuedo intellectuals because while you may let them win their own little game they are still fundamentally a problem to society when putting inept people in professional places. They dont get good ever. They just get good at taking tests.

>>14762135
My bad, it was a pedantic joke about how you spelled "paid" as "payed"

>>14762223
yeah my bad I type 98 wpm on phone. But when are we gonna take down the college board and establish gattaca

>>14762230
>my bad I type 98 wpm on phone
Wow you manage to turn a fuckup into a humble brag.

Also, i still didn't get your point. Why would anyone be assigned a career in the first place?

>>14762257
idk I guess society wants to pick what people deserve what job and a test that fails at predicting success is being used to determine who can sit next to me in cs lectures. They linear think and I dont, surely there has to be a separator between people that got to where I am by getting good at that test only to be inept all around. IQ is mostly unpreparable and I am working on an IQ test that is completely unpreparable. All im saying is that society is retarded and accidents happen cause we cant acknowledge that there are geniuses in poor neighborhoods and buisnesses want us to think rich have higher iqs and sat is fairer