Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #32522

Re: good post on LinkedIn

From Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups comp.arch.embedded, sci.electronics.design
Subject Re: good post on LinkedIn
Date 2026-02-02 00:17 +1100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <10lnjq7$3oefp$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (8 earlier) <10lk2ja$2kic9$4@dont-email.me> <10lkssp$9260$1@paganini.bofh.team> <km7snkt6blsi6a0kvovicedatp3fc081qs@4ax.com> <10ln85q$3jmuk$1@dont-email.me> <5ocunklupjpvotfpknk3gkpslpfgm3ui1q@4ax.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/02/2026 10:06 pm, john larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 20:59:19 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/02/2026 2:29 am, john larkin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 12:34:35 -0000 (UTC), Nioclás Pól Caileán de
>>> Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In sci.electronics.design Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> |-----------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>> |"the "Intelligence Quotient" is a remarkably ill-defined measure"|
>>>> |-----------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>> (S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
>>>
>>> It's an integer that results from a standard IQ test. That is very
>>> well defined.
>>
>> What it tests isn't.
>>
>>> And the integer correlates highly with many measures of productivity
>>> and success.
>>
>> For a rather low value of "highly". The correlation between IQ and
>> post-employment success of university graduates is pretty close to zero.
>>
>> You used to need an IQ score of about 115 to get into university - the
>> average IQ if American university students is now 102. Your chances of
>> actually getting a university degree don't correlated strongly with with
>> you IQ score at university entry.
>>
>> Difficult courses - mostly STEM subjects do show a stronger correlation,
>> but about 40% students drop out without getting a degree, and it takes a
>> IQ of 130 or better to get this down to 5%.
>>
>>> The SAT tests are even better, because they have separate math and
>>> verbal scores.
>>
>> But they still aren't all that good.
> 
> "productivity and success" and "actually getting a university degree"
> are entirely different things.

True, but they correlate tolerably strongly. Neither has much to do with 
doing well on an IQ test, but the IQ test is remarkably cheap to 
administer and correlates well enough with the other two to be worth the 
effort. In a more rational society we'd put rather more effort into 
evaluating people than just getting them to sit an IQ test, and in fact 
we do - conventional education and regular examinations are more 
influential than scores on IQ tests - but still not all that good.

Rich people like to be able to buy their kids an unfair advantage by 
paying for expensive extra education, and have corresponding little 
interest in setting up a system that's less easy for them to game, or 
paying for better education for other people's kids.

Australia is surprisingly bad in this respect. About 30% of the 
population is Roman Catholic, and the Catholic church in Australia has a 
long history of setting up parochial schools where they can teach the 
Catholic children to read and write and to believe in Catholic doctrine.

They didn't pay the teachers much, and most of the schools didn't work 
too well. The obvious solution - to close them down - wasn't politically 
feasible, so the government subsidised them, and other religious 
schools, so we've now got a whole bunch of different sorts of schools 
with different levels of funding, and it is remarkably easy for the well 
off to buy better education for their kids, and it is less easy for 
bright kids from regular families to get the kind of education that lets 
them fully exploit their skills.

I suffered from this (but not much). My first year of secondary 
education  was in a state funded local high school which happened to be 
pretty good, then I got sent away to a Presbyterian boarding school 
where the teaching was dire. Not bad enough to stop me passing all the 
exams I needed to, but still dire.

Three of us from my year at the local high school ended up with Ph.D.s 
in Chemistry. If anybody from the boarding school ever got any kind of 
higher degree I've yet to hear about it.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

good post on LinkedIn Niocláisín Cóilín de Ghlostéir <Master_Fontaine_is_dishonest@Strand_in_London.Gov.UK> - 2025-02-22 21:12 +0100
  Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <Spamassassin@irrt.De> - 2025-08-29 16:16 +0200
    Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-01 18:52 +0100
      Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-02 01:40 +0000
        Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-29 14:26 +0000
          Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-29 09:04 -0800
            Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-29 17:57 +0000
              Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-29 10:59 -0800
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-30 00:48 +0000
                Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-29 17:01 -0800
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-30 01:28 +0000
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-30 15:14 +1100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 11:52 -0800
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 16:05 +1100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 12:34 +0000
                Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-31 07:29 -0800
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-01 20:59 +1100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-01 03:06 -0800
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-02 00:17 +1100
                Re: Excel and accountants, good post on LinkedIn John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-01-31 23:21 +0000
                Re: Excel and accountants, good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-31 16:22 -0800
                Re: Excel and accountants, good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-02-01 02:13 +0000
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 03:56 +0000
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 15:23 +1100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 14:36 +0000
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-01 21:31 +1100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-30 14:59 +1100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-01-30 10:15 +0000
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 00:06 +1100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-01-30 15:06 +0100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 11:55 -0800
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 13:33 +0000
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-01 01:31 +1100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 19:16 +0000
                Re: history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-01-31 23:10 +0000
                Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 23:25 +0000
                Re: Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-02-01 02:43 +0000
                Re: Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn OrangeFish <OrangeFish@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-01 18:00 -0500
                Re: Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-02-18 14:56 +0000
                Re: Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-02-18 20:32 +0000
                Re: Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-02-18 23:20 +0000
                Re: old new postings Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-02-19 02:46 +0000
                Re: old new postings Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-02-19 11:33 +0000
                Re: Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-02-19 22:28 -0500
                Re: history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-02-01 22:11 +0100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-01 21:36 +1100
                Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 14:26 +0000
            Re: good post on LinkedIn wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> - 2026-01-30 11:27 -0800
              Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 18:54 -0800
          Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 03:40 +0000
            Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 15:20 +0000
              Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 17:13 +0000
            Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-31 07:55 -0800
            Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-02-16 13:52 +0000

csiph-web