Jump to content

Menu

Average IQ for homeschoolers


Recommended Posts

Well, the only one of the kids that has been tested was over 130 a bit...not sure exact score as he was tested when he (as we later found out) had a popcorn kernel stuck in one ear and had trouble hearing the psychologist's questions (she pointed out to us his need to have his hearing tested after the test...and said test protocol did not allow her to repeat questions so if he could not hear he missed the question and lost points). So all we know is he is over 130....and had popcorn stuck in his ear for months w/o mentioning it...so so much for smarts ;)

 

He was nine at the time. Now he is home from his first year of college, straight As this last trimester. If you think I am bragging - well, his fraternal twin SillyAutismMan is at first grade level academically (IQ ranges from 70 to 110 depending on the test - on tests designed for non-verbal folks he is normal, but autistic. On highly-verbal Stanford-Binet he is not. So is it his intelligence or auditory-processing delays being measured by the SB??) The twins balance each other out to make one typical kid ;)

 

The next-in-line kid looks to have the same smarts as CollegeMan (she is a junior) BUT...not anywhere near his study skills or work ethic so she does not have the AP credits or GPA he did. IQ doesn't mean diddly if you do not put in the effort, too, to live up to your potential.

 

The last kid seems more of a normal IQ level BUT works like the dickens at her studies and is starting high school a year ahead of her older "smarter" sister in math and is a year ahead in Spanish and on Honors track for other subjects.

 

Hard work + normal range IQ beats laziness + high IQ any day.

Edited by JFSinIL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry. No, that's not why I started the discussion. My dh and I were specifically talking about parents that homeschool their kids and couldn't believe that only 2% of homeschool parents were in the upper range since ALL the HS parents we know are exceptionally bright (2% being the overall population quoted from another thread - not mine.)

 

 

Of all this discussion, the thing that bothers me the most is the assumption on occupation linking IQ scores. That's just annoying. There are lots of super smart people that do menial labor jobs. I have a very good friend who scores above 150 and he is literally a genius, but his problem is that he is so smart that he doesn't know what to do with himself. Therefore he finds himself doing menial tasks to pay rent and during his free time, he makes lasers and telescopes, crossbows and computer programs.

 

I know that he is probably an exception, but the stereotyping and labels is what bothers me the most.

Have you ever heard of Gardner and Multiple Intelligences? I like his point of view much better than the standard IQ answer. IQ is based on academics, not the whole person and their ability to adapt or have strengths in other areas. Gardner says that we have intelligences in many areas - and this is why some people that are poor academically are still successful people in other areas.

 

As far as the bright doing menial jobs... Several years ago I dated a man who had several brilliant people in his family. One uncle was much like the one you described above -unable to move beyond one job because he was so good at so many things that there were too many choices. My bf described it as the fine line between genius and insanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thats an interesting point.

My son, now back at school, did an IQ test at the school last week, and got 147. He is my LD kid who was homeschooled because of LDs.

The test might have been wrong- I am not investing too much into it- but I was glad he did it because school only served him to feel bad about himself. I definitely homeschooled him to give him the best I could, knowing school had failed him.

High IQ does not necessarily translate over to brilliance across the board and often goes hand in hand with difficulties. However, I would not have thought he had such a high IQ either, even though I know he is very bright in certain ways.

 

I tested in the range of your son. And I'm about as average as they come. I wish I had been homeschooled, and often wonder where I'd be today if that had been case. I was super smart, but had ADD and found stuff BORing. Therefore, I almost didn't make it out of high school, and I went to a college that had open admissions. IQ is an indicator, but environment plays a BIG role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Of all this discussion, the thing that bothers me the most is the assumption on occupation linking IQ scores. That's just annoying. There are lots of super smart people that do menial labor jobs.

It's not an assumption. :confused:

 

I was responding to the comment that physicians had an average IQ of 100-110, which just isn't true.

 

 

It's about group averages. The average intelligence of a group of doctors is going to be higher than the average intelligence of a group of menial workers. There are going to be individual outliers in each group, of course, but like it or not, the average for different groups are going to be different.

 

I know there is controversy about how to measure intelligence, and I don't think people even agree on what intelligence actually IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once had a student who showed up 17 out of 82 days for the entire semester. He happened to show up on testing day. He got the highest score in ALL of my 9th grade English classes by far and had never read the books.

 

IQ was completely wasted on him. He was so incredibly smart, but was in a gang and hung out with older gang members during the day and just never came to school.

 

Sometimes those who have very high IQs are very book smart but not very life-skills smart.

 

I don't know what my IQ is but I would guess it is in the very average range.

 

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once had a student who showed up 17 out of 82 days for the entire semester. He happened to show up on testing day. He got the highest score in ALL of my 9th grade English classes by far and had never read the books.

 

IQ was completely wasted on him. He was so incredibly smart, but was in a gang and hung out with older gang members during the day and just never came to school.

 

Sometimes those who have very high IQs are very book smart but not very life-skills smart.

 

I don't know what my IQ is but I would guess it is in the very average range.

 

Dawn

 

What a tragic waste. I can't even comment on the gang thing. But, it should be obvious why he didn't come to school - why bother if you're not learning anything you don't already know. Imagine how excruciatingly bored out of his mind he must have been at school. IMO, this is one of the huge downsides to schools' failure to teach at kids' ability levels instead of to the lowest level - all that talent is wasted. His situation may be as much, or more, a failure of the school system as of his personal ethics. Underachievement starts early (K and elementary age). No Child Let Ahead. (I don't mean this has anything at all to do with individual teachers - it's a system issue.)

Edited by wapiti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone has strengths that are important and should be respected and not all of those strengths are going to involve whatever we are testing when we test IQ.

 

Absolutely agreed on this. Our personal and family experiences are very different, but you and I could start a club based on the above statement.:D

 

IQ testing is not exact. All testing of this sort has a known and stated margin of error. It is also difficult to accurately test young children. IQ testing is more helpful, IMO, for determining specific learning disabilities.

 

I am a fan of higher education for many reasons, but it is not the only path to becoming a successful, self-supporting adult, and IQ and higher education are not correlated with happiness, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rainefox, have you read Outliers? I took it as an entertaining (vs scientific) book, but I think he had a chapter where he concluded that having an IQ score over a certain # (120?) can help a person's success up to a point, but over that IQ score, other factors such as perseverence, hard work, luck, support system were more important for success.

Your questions in a previous post were very interesting!

This is what I took from the book too - in order to make it in graduate school and beyond successfully, you needed an IQ score of at least 120. But comparing the long-term outcomes of someone in graduate school with a 125 IQ and someone with a 145 IQ showed no measurable differences - things such as hard work, social skills, networking ability, and knowing how to navigate the academic world and work world successfully counted for far more once you hit a minimum IQ threshhold.

 

Someone with an IQ of 100 who wants to be a doctor will do more poorly almost every time by someone with an IQ of 130 who wants to be a doctor - but two people with IQ's above 120'ish are on a fairly even playing field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly recommend the book Mindset by Carol Dweck. It is a fascinating research-based book addressing talents and abilities versus fixed/growth mindset and the pitfalls of praising intelligence in our children.

 

I think I will reread it after I finish rereading Night by Elie Wiesel. It's that good. It was recommended to me by the neuropsychologist who reviewed thes educational and IQ testing for my child with a learning disability.

 

IQ testing and educational testing can provide helpful information when a child is struggling. The subtests on the WISC, for instance, can help pinpoint specific issues such as ADHD (working memory) and visual-perceptual problems, in addition to other learning disabilities. They also can help pinpoint islands of individual strength. I have appreciated having the results of testing for this particular kid because it has helped me to tailor the homeschooling experience to meet those needs, remediating weaknesses and emphasizing strengths. I got specific information through testing that I would have not had otherwise because it picked up on subtle but important deficits.

 

I was IQ tested in 6th grade as a prerequisite to entrance into a private school. (My parents opted to send me to public school in the end, though.) I was given the results. Only one of my kids has received IQ testing, and it was due to the concerns about the learning disabilities. I don't regret the testing and will most likely repeat it at some point to continue to gather information and adjust my plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I took from the book too - in order to make it in graduate school and beyond successfully, you needed an IQ score of at least 120. But comparing the long-term outcomes of someone in graduate school with a 125 IQ and someone with a 145 IQ showed no measurable differences - things such as hard work, social skills, networking ability, and knowing how to navigate the academic world and work world successfully counted for far more once you hit a minimum IQ threshhold.

 

Someone with an IQ of 100 who wants to be a doctor will do more poorly almost every time by someone with an IQ of 130 who wants to be a doctor - but two people with IQ's above 120'ish are on a fairly even playing field.

 

This fits very much with my professional and personal experience. I have had the benefit due to my professional work of being able to read countless testing reports, including IQ testing, and then interact with the individuals who were tested. That has helped me to understand how the "on paper" results correlate with "real life" experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I consider brilliant isn't just the basic recall of the details learned in a lengthy education, but the recall of very specific facts and the mental adaptability to take that knowledge learned 10+ years ago, add it to new knowledge and get current, accurate information out of it. It is what they can do with the information they have learned, and the application of it that shows someones brilliance to me.

 

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't put much stock in IQ tests except that I do think they can be useful for the outliers and in particularm when learning disabilities mask something else. For most people, they are completely unpredictive of life success and for most, if you have the perseverance and tenancity, you'll pursue what is important to you even if it is "outside the scope" of your tested IQ.

 

These tests do tend to be biased towards a certain scope of educational experiences while not validating other experiences. It's unfortunate that some educators and psychologists believe in them so heavily.

 

I don't think that even in adults, I.Q. tests are predictive of ability to learn. They may show, to some degree, a small subset of what is known know....that's it. But again, sometimes when dealing with outliers they can be helpful and specifically to a parent who is suspecting something is "off" with their child and needs to begin to get some answers. :D That's us! We suspected our youngest of being autistic with pockets of well, brilliance. We had him tested and he was not autistic. But, when you are four years old and you do have some Sensitivity Integration issues along with an IQ extrapolated to be 185, well then...mum and dad are dealing with an unusual set of learning needs and better find some answers now!! In his case, that IQ number helped us adjust what we needed to do for him educationally and our methods. But, it was because he was so extreme that the IQ test was helpful.

 

I guess maybe I would be more open-minded if my own college psych professor hadn't been such a putz. His determination to cram down out throats that everyone is born with a specific intelligence ability and nothing can affect that, that IQ's cannot go up or down...one must always call the test faulty if inconsistent results are measured, that there is NO cultural bias to the tests, etc. made me hate IQ tests.

 

That said ds's tester wanted to test the whole family to satisfy his curiosity as to just how much of a family anomaly ds might be. He had been soooooo good with ds and such a help to us with recommendations, that we humored him with the caveat that the other children would NEVER know their scores. The scores for dh and I and the other three kids ran the gamut from 130-165.

 

I know that we homeschool for mostly academic reasons, with religion and safety issues also making a play in there somewhere and especially safety. But, I also know that even prior to ds's testing, regular school didn't work so well for dd (she did two years in a Lutheran school while I taught and she was BORED out of her mind) and our youngest would either have become so shy that they'd be recommending counseling or he might have gone the other way and been a real troublemaker because of not being challenged. Either way, homeschooling was definitely the ticket.

 

I don't think there can be a direct correlation made between career choice and IQ. People gravitate to what interests them and that has a lot more to do with personality than natural intelligence. If one, like my father, is not a "cube dweller", as he puts, he/she is going to gravitate towards something that may not be traditionally academic. Since IQ tests only cover what I consider to be a narrow set of academic skills, then naturally, this person is not going to score high in many cases. Now, my dad aced his Air Force exam and went directly from high school into missile mechanics and design... with a high school GPA of 2.5! Oh yeah, jumping hoops was not his strong suit...his IQ test was well, let's just say that's where ds gets it from. So, a huge subset of highly intelligent folk are not going to be academic hurdlers by nature though profoundly smart.

 

Then there is the whole issue of those who are required to take the test and do not take it seriously. My brother, my nephew, my husband's brother, my other nephew (do you see a male theme running here?:D), my grandfather.... hmmm...I just can't see coming to any conclusions for the general population based on IQ tests.

 

Oh, and I agree with Rainefox...if IQ is supposed to be a criteria for who rules the world, count me out. I suspect that many of our elected politicians would score well on IQ tests. Unforunately, for the bulk of them, it seems that their collected common sense would only fill a thimble! :001_huh:

 

As for IQ tests going up in the past decade or so...yeah, I'd expect it. All of that bubble testing we've all had shoveled down our throats is bound to make some people good at testing! :001_smile:

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband took an IQ test when he was a kid that came out below average - 87. (He is a poor test-taker and wasn't even told what he was taking, or that he should do his best, or anything.)

 

This affected him through much of his adult life. He always felt "stupid" and "slow", etc. After we were married a few years, and I realized what was happening, I finally convinced him to take another one...which actually turned out above average. But that didn't change the deeply ingrained issues he had all those years. He still struggles with them.

 

I have let DD take tests that give her strong and weak areas. I would NEVER let her take a test that gives her a general IQ score. It's just too loaded.

 

FWIW, I am a strong tester, always have been, and scored significantly above average. After my experience with my hubby, who is a wonderfully smart and talented man, I just don't put much stock in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone with an IQ of 100 who wants to be a doctor will do more poorly almost every time by someone with an IQ of 130 who wants to be a doctor - but two people with IQ's above 120'ish are on a fairly even playing field.

 

Yep. The way I think of it: IQ is your raw material. If you want to be a neurosurgeon, you're going to need a high IQ, just like if you want to be an Olympic athlete, you're going to need certain genes that give you the musculature and cardiovascular ability that being a professional athlete requires.

 

BUT . . . does everyone born with those genes become an Olympic athlete? Of course not. You need the genes AND the desire/perseverance. Does everyone with a high IQ become a neurosurgeon? Of course not. You need the IQ and the desire/perseverance. You can't have just one or the other: you have to have both.

 

Think of it like a Venn diagram: there are some careers that just take hard work. There are some that take hard work and IQ. There are some that just take IQ . . . though, frankly, not many, because who wants to hire a lazy genius? Though high IQ can help you do some things easily that take other people a lot of effort.

 

Is that fair? No. And it's probably not good for the soul of the lazy genius. But it's true. Just like a genetically-blessed person might be able to run a faster 100-yard dash without practice than a genetically-cursed person who trains every day. But that genetically-blessed person still isn't going to be an Olympic athlete unless he gets off his butt and starts training. And if he waits too long, he can ruin all his gifts and miss his opportunity entirely.

 

No one can take credit for his genes. But we can all do our best with what we have, and we'll get further than others who had a lot more to start with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that the gifted population is one whose needs are not well met in traditional classrooms, which may lead those parents to homeschool, particularly if they were academically gifted as children themselves.

 

I would think that the numbers of homeschoolers who are gifted would be statistically higher than in the average population because the students needs are not being met and the parents probably feel more capable than average of meeting their children's academic needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the "IQs are raising" thing....

 

Would this mean that there is a wider range of average OR that the range is similar, just higher up?

 

I guess my question is: Say I had a child with an IQ of 90. Would that be below average or just the low side of average still?

Edited by 2J5M9K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the "IQs are raising" thing....

 

Would this mean that there is a wider range of average OR that the range is similar, just higher up?

 

I guess my question is: Say I had a child with an IQ of 90. Would that be below average or just the low side of average still?

IIRC, the range is similar but higher up. I believe some of the iq increase is related to prenatal nutrition - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734706

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.....well, by that criteria I would be above average. I took the GRE and did fairly well, and have two graduate degrees, however, I didn't think they were difficult graduate degrees.

 

Dawn

 

This is what I took from the book too - in order to make it in graduate school and beyond successfully, you needed an IQ score of at least 120. But comparing the long-term outcomes of someone in graduate school with a 125 IQ and someone with a 145 IQ showed no measurable differences - things such as hard work, social skills, networking ability, and knowing how to navigate the academic world and work world successfully counted for far more once you hit a minimum IQ threshhold.

 

Someone with an IQ of 100 who wants to be a doctor will do more poorly almost every time by someone with an IQ of 130 who wants to be a doctor - but two people with IQ's above 120'ish are on a fairly even playing field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the "IQs are raising" thing....

 

Would this mean that there is a wider range of average OR that the range is similar, just higher up?

 

I guess my question is: Say I had a child with an IQ of 90. Would that be below average or just the low side of average still?

 

On current tests your child's IQ would still be in the average range. However, if you were to compare his score with those of similar aptitude and ability from 30 years ago, or if he were to take the test from 30 years ago, your child's IQ would higher than that, closer to 99+-.

 

The main idea behind the Flynn effect is that the people who established the norms seventy years ago would not receive similar scores on today's tests. Someone who received a 100 seventy years ago would probably have a score of 80 by today's standards. People who take the older versions of the tests today would score much higher then the norms established seventy years ago.

 

 

I believe the general idea is that fewer and fewer people ar testing in the below average (-70) range and more and more are testing in the average range, 100 +- 1SD, or 85-115. The gains in IQ haven't been as noticable in the gifted (130+) range. The normal distribution still remains valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that the gifted population is one whose needs are not well met in traditional classrooms, which may lead those parents to homeschool, particularly if they were academically gifted as children themselves.

 

I would think that the numbers of homeschoolers who are gifted would be statistically higher than in the average population because the students needs are not being met and the parents probably feel more capable than average of meeting their children's academic needs.

:iagree::iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons we hs is because the school system was failing my gifted oldest dd. I have taken an official "real" IQ test. My stepfather is a psychology professor and I was often a guinea pig. :glare: I know that mine was...above average. I don't want this to turn into a P!$$ing game, so I won't state mine. But I do know that most of my brain has leaked out of my ears with the births of my last few children. :smash:

 

I do know a lot of people who take online free "IQ tests" and use that when they talk about their IQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I just don't like topics like this. I have been sitting here and wondering why. Is it because so many people assume that all homeschoolers are very gifted? Or that because IQ determines superiority or worth somehow? Maybe it has to do with my kids having special needs (learning disabilities) and having heard people make crazy assumptions about them because we homeschool (I must not be teaching well or am neglecting their education because they are not working grades ahead of others). I have IQ scores for myself and my kids. It doesn't change who they are, their learning style, their interests, their potential to succeed, which curriculum works best... It is just another number. My IQ doesn't determine my fitness as a parent or my love for my kids. An IQ score is based on a one time event. It is actually supposed to be given as a range - you scored 100 but it could actually be x points higher or lower.

 

IQ testing was originally designed to be used for student placement in France around 1900. The government had begun free education for everyone and wanted to know which children were 'normal' and which ones were 'inferior' so they could determine appropriate education for all of them. Binet developed a test to determine 'mental age' and to determine who was 'inferior'. Inferior students were not allowed to study with those deemed 'intellectually normal'. Goddard brought the tests to the US and adapted them. However Goddard used the tests to support racial and ethnic inqualities - which was eventually used by the Nazis as well.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you guys are going to make me read The Outliers......okay!

 

I guess one reason I have strong opinions on this subject is because DH and I still have family members who know what those numbers are for us and still bug us about why we aren't doing more or being more or something. But for both of us there were other things that were more important. For me, finding some kind of emotional stability after surviving an abusive mom and for DH finding sobriety after turning to heavy drug use in his teens. I know I would have 'gotten further' in life with an average IQ and a normal, supportive family. It was difficult for me to get to the place I am at now, and I am really glad I finally made it. So now I put a lot more value on things other than the results of an IQ test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My IQ was tested at age 12 when I was doing poorly in school-- I guess my mom wanted proof that I wasn't dumb :rolleyes:. I tested at 137 which the psych said was the highest she had personally tested. I don't consider myself to be all that smart, but I am good at recognizing patterns, which if I remember correctly, is what a lot of the test consisted of.

 

My husband has never had his IQ tested but he is much smarter than I am, and my children are all very bright, three of them with near-photographic memories. I don't think it's a secret that homeschooled children are an intelligent bunch-- standardized test scores alone indicate this. It would be interesting, though, to try to parse it out systematically, to try to figure out how much is nature and how much is nurture when it comes to homeschool accomplishments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit off topic, but going with the flow: Both my DH and brother-in-law have IQs over 165. Are they brainacs? No. They think faster than most everyone in the room, possess a wicked, dry humor that goes above the range of most, and both studied art. They were lucky enough to go to good public schools that offered gifted classes, and they grew up with the expectation that every graduating senior would attend college, preferably a UC and not a state college.

 

The offspring, our children and one niece, have yet to be tested. Some of the kids have learning issues (twice gifted?), but all of them are willful, headstrong people. Are these kids smart? To me they are normal, but when I take a look around at their peers or find myself in school-like situations and I am able to observe other kids the same age, then yes, these kids are sharp.

 

DD~13 is clearly the sharpest of the bunch. Homeschooling, until she hit the teen dreamy stage, allowed her to move several years above grade level in some subjects. When we attended a charter school/homeschool project fair last year DD's project was so profoundly different than all the others, including high school students, that she declined to enter the fair again. The charter when later used her project as an example.

 

IQ is not the golden measure. In fact, a high IQ can be a liability. I think Gladwell writes about this in his book Outliers.

 

Original Question: Are the IQs of those who homeschool their kids higher than the average? I say "yes!" However, DH has no kind words for homeschooling. He's yet to meet a homeschool kid that wows him with their intellect and ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way I'd classify myself as on of the top 2% of the population.

 

Of course not. From your own perspective you're normal. I don't know *anyone* who thinks they're *brilliant* (and I'm including those I know who are in the IQ140+ range). Well... now that I think of it... I have a second cousin with an incredibly high IQ who could never hold a conversation with anyone growing up b/c no one could understand him. He might know that he's brilliant. And he absolutely is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son, now back at school, did an IQ test at the school last week, and got 147. He is my LD kid who was homeschooled because of LDs.

 

I can understand how IQ scores can be a *minimum,* but I don't think the psychologists can easily end up overestimating. What kind of test did he take?

 

Maybe the LDs made it difficult to see the high IQ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an assumption. :confused:

 

I was responding to the comment that physicians had an average IQ of 100-110, which just isn't true.

 

 

It's about group averages. The average intelligence of a group of doctors is going to be higher than the average intelligence of a group of menial workers. There are going to be individual outliers in each group, of course, but like it or not, the average for different groups are going to be different.

 

I know there is controversy about how to measure intelligence, and I don't think people even agree on what intelligence actually IS.

 

Thank you. I am weary of the constant derision toward MD's. Guess what folks, when you are a professional it is not luck, a "silver spoon" or any other nonsense. Nothing but sheer balls and intelligence will get you through state board and licensing exams. It does not matter who your family is, where you are a legacy admission student or how much money your family doantes to the school, if you cannot pass the board or bar exam it is too **** bad. There is no way around that requirement. I would like to meet and interview the MD with an IQ of 100. And I think unicorns are real. :lol: Now are we going to hear that average people work for NASA??? Seriously??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once had a student who showed up 17 out of 82 days for the entire semester. He happened to show up on testing day. He got the highest score in ALL of my 9th grade English classes by far and had never read the books.

 

IQ was completely wasted on him.

You know, that's like saying "Red hair is completely wasted on her!" For goodness sakes, the fact that he learns things quickly is just the type of brain he was born with, it doesn't imply that he owes anyone (or even himself) anything.

 

He was so incredibly smart, but was in a gang and hung out with older gang members during the day and just never came to school.

It is so very sad for him that he made those choices, but IQ might not have had anything to do with it. (Or maybe it did. Maybe school bored him to tears and he was never really educated there. Who knows?)

 

Sometimes those who have very high IQs are very book smart but not very life-skills smart.

People with high IQs can make poor choices. People with average IQs can also make poor choices. People with low IQs can make poor choices.

 

 

I want people to understand that high intelligence (also called high IQ) is simply a fact about how a person's brain works, just like red is simply the way hair looks and tall is simply about how far the top of the head is above the ground. These are descriptions about the way we're made. They don't make one person better than another. These qualities shouldn't make people expect certain things of us (thinking along the lines of "tall people should be good at basketball and people with high IQs should make smart choices/good decisions).

 

In the end, just like common sense tells us, it's what we do with what we have that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thats an interesting point.

My son, now back at school, did an IQ test at the school last week, and got 147. He is my LD kid who was homeschooled because of LDs.

The test might have been wrong- I am not investing too much into it- but I was glad he did it because school only served him to feel bad about himself. I definitely homeschooled him to give him the best I could, knowing school had failed him.

High IQ does not necessarily translate over to brilliance across the board and often goes hand in hand with difficulties. However, I would not have thought he had such a high IQ either, even though I know he is very bright in certain ways.

 

My LD kid, who was (and is) homeschooled because of LDs, has a similar IQ--but he only scored that high after homeschooling for 5 years. At age 7 his IQ was less than 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand how IQ scores can be a *minimum,* but I don't think the psychologists can easily end up overestimating. What kind of test did he take?

 

Maybe the LDs made it difficult to see the high IQ?

 

I dont know what type of test he took- and the school didn't, or hasn't as yet, sent us any results. It might have been something one of the class teachers decided to do. I am not sure. I told my son "I told you so", and then let it go.

 

My LD kid, who was (and is) homeschooled because of LDs, has a similar IQ--but he only scored that high after homeschooling for 5 years. At age 7 his IQ was less than 100.

 

OK, thats very interesting. That is another possibility. The dyslexic lady (the one who diagnosed him) was very adamant that dyslexic kids are often very bright.

 

He is extremely socially bright- an articulate, people person- as well as musically gifted, although he has dropped learning an instrument. He just never did well at abstract thinking. However he just got 80% for a science test- the highest mark yet- he has been happy if he passed so far- he is thrilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting, though, to try to parse it out systematically, to try to figure out how much is nature and how much is nurture when it comes to homeschool accomplishments.

 

I think a large amount must be nurture. An old friend of ours was first tested at about 80, and is now 140-ish.

 

Rosie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was tested in school but just not quite to Mensa standards. Although, I think I have lost many brain cells from pregnancy and sleep dep. Dh was never tested and didn't do that well in school, only because he didn't care. He didn't see most of school as useful information. I think he is considerably smarter than me and learns easier, although I never found it hard to learn. Both of us are much more inclined to Math and Science though then English. One of the reasons why we wanted to hs is to give our children the chance to excel and be able to give them education to their level as we were convinced that we would have genius children.

 

Well, that hasn't been the case. I have been worried actually about the opposite for my son, which also seems a good reason to hs. However, talking to more mothers I feel that he is average in his abilities. I think he has a bit below average on reading abilities and a bit above in Math. I don't know with my daughter yet, she has more abilities with language but she doesn't understand things the way he does. He could always figure things out that adults couldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calvin has a high IQ. The score that he received, however, I believe was too high. He was tested with an old version of the Stanford-Binet as well as the WPPSI. The WPPSI score was closer to how he functions, I believe. Hobbes hasn't been tested; he's clearly bright, but his intelligence is so different from Calvin's that I can't compare them.

 

You will get some skew on IQ results among home educators, because some HE specifically because their child is gifted or has difficulties in school.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand how IQ scores can be a *minimum,* but I don't think the psychologists can easily end up overestimating. What kind of test did he take?

 

Maybe the LDs made it difficult to see the high IQ?

 

Once was with the WPPSI, once with the old Stanford-Binet. There was an enormous difference in level, and I believe the lower one (WPPSI) was correct.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My IQ was tested at age 12 when I was doing poorly in school-- I guess my mom wanted proof that I wasn't dumb :rolleyes:. I tested at 137 which the psych said was the highest she had personally tested. I don't consider myself to be all that smart, but I am good at recognizing patterns, which if I remember correctly, is what a lot of the test consisted of.

 

.

 

I was also tested at about that age because I was doing poorly at school (in retrospect, I should have been tested for Aspergers, but it was not on the radar of doctors back then in caveman days when I was a kid) and a miserable kid and the score I got was not nearly as high as my kid sister in the grammar school gifted program - and mom let me know it. In fact, I was insulted by the school folks who were surprised that I tested well above normal. Anyway - point is I was a miserable kid and got a certain score.

 

Years later, out of public school and in college, majoring in what I loved and happy as a clam, I was retested with two different tests and came out with two scores, about 15 points difference between them....and the lowest almost 30 points higher than the score I got as a miserable kid! (Take that, Mom - she had often mentioned how sad it was that it was not my much-higher scoring kid sister going off to college, that SHE was the one who should have gone, not me!)

 

PS I know the first test, done by the school psych., was Stanford-Binet, has was one of the tests I took years alter. Not sure what the second test I had as an adult was.

 

Now I have a son with autism who can test at 70...or 110...depending on which test is used!

 

I do not hold much stock in IQ test scores.

Edited by JFSinIL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want people to understand that high intelligence (also called high IQ) is simply a fact about how a person's brain works, just like red is simply the way hair looks and tall is simply about how far the top of the head is above the ground. These are descriptions about the way we're made.

 

The problem is that height can be measured a lot more objectively than intelligence. IQ is not the only or even necessarily the best way to determine intelligence. It's one attempt to measure it, not the definitive way to do so.

 

I don't doubt that IQ score and innate intelligence are correlated. But, I wouldn't be willing to say anything more than that, and I certainly wouldn't say that an IQ score is an accurate, objective descriptor of somebody's intelligence. Knowing that somebody has an IQ of 120 doesn't provide you with the same kind of clear, objective information about their intelligence that knowing that they are 5'4" would give you about their height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that height can be measured a lot more objectively than intelligence.

 

Knowing that somebody has an IQ of 120 doesn't provide you with the same kind of clear, objective information about their intelligence that knowing that they are 5'4" would give you about their height.

 

Okay. The point I was making, though, is sort of like this --

Just b/c you're 6'5" doesn't mean you should be good at basketball. Just b/c you have an IQ of 165 (most people would agree that an IQ score like this denotes ahigh intelligence) doesn't mean we should expect you'll always make good choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. The point I was making, though, is sort of like this --

Just b/c you're 6'5" doesn't mean you should be good at basketball. Just b/c you have an IQ of 165 (most people would agree that an IQ score like this denotes ahigh intelligence) doesn't mean we should expect you'll always make good choices.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Or hasn't anyone else ever heard or said 'How can you be so **** smart and yet so **** dumb?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little known fact - My IQ last time I was tested (about 6 years ago) and I scored 176. I never completed high school (did 1/4 way through year 9, skipped and did halway through year 10) Most of my learning was done outside school, through my parents massive library, and the fact my mother taught me to read (via phonics) before I entered school. My mum was a math whizz, so my genes obviously picked this up, and my stepfather was very science, math and History based, so anytime I asked him a simple question I got a 2 hour long lecture on the subject LOL.

 

If you have ever seen Dr House, I have a similar mind to him, in the way of puzzles and reading people, which is why I can usually figure out a sequence of events that are going to happen before they do. People in my mind are quite predictable and its not many that surprise me by going outside of their designated paramaters :lol:

 

That whole spiel was totally off the subject though LOL.

 

P.S. I must add I have had kids since then as well as a medical condition, so my current IQ is probably more equal to 30 ROFL. But my puzzles and "reading people" abilities still remain intact, and they are the most useful in my line of work :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calvin has a high IQ. The score that he received, however, I believe was too high. He was tested with an old version of the Stanford-Binet as well as the WPPSI. The WPPSI score was closer to how he functions, I believe.

 

IQ scores cannot necessarily be compared to one another. The result can be test-dependent. A 145 on the WISC-IV is not the same thing as a 145 on the SB-5. Check out this link for more info. http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...