I doubt most college degrees require above-average intelligence.
My point was not that you needed above average intelligence to GET a degree, my point was that I think you need above average intelligence for the degree to be useful. If you are say 25th percentile in intelligence but you are a diligent worker I'm sure you CAN get a degree. However, if that 25th percentile intelligence person manages to work their way thorough four years and get degree in Tiddly Winks I don't think that degree does them any good.
I think it's more socioeconomic. College grads are more likely to have parents who are college grads (who, in turn, generally have more money). Having financial support from your family is probably more predictive to completing your degree than IQ. Although, they may just walk hand-in-hand, idk.
I do know that if you're not getting money and/or food from your family, it's a lot harder to finish college, no matter how smart you are. That's why so many seemingly blindly walk into debt and deal with those repercussions the rest of their lives.
Over the past half-century or so socioeconomic status and intelligence have converged in a major way. There are a multitude of reasons but I'll hit a few highlights:
First, attainment of a college degree is now basically available to all:
Prior to WWII only a small fraction of the workforce had college degrees. There were a few exceptions (Black Colleges and Women's Colleges for example), but college was generally only available to wealthy white males. Those three restrictions were lifted in roughly a quarter-century:
- The GI Bill (passed during WWII) eliminated the need to be wealthy.
- The success of the Civil Rights Movement eliminated the need to be white.
- The success of the Women's Movement eliminated the need to be male.
By about the mid 1970's (or earlier) basically anyone could go to college. Consequently, at this point in time possession of a college degree is a reasonably good proxy for intelligence. There are exceptions, of course, but in general it works.
Second, assortive mating:
Years ago you used to hear about people being the first in their family to go to college. Not so much anymore. Most people today have either two college educated parents or none and either four college educated grandparents or none.
The reason is that the vast majority of people mate/marry within socioeconomic status. College grads generally marry college grads and non-college grads generally have children with non-college grads. (Note the distinction between "marry" and "have children with"). Several generations on this means that most kids either have two college educated parents and four college educated grandparents or none.
At the same time intelligence is at least partially genetic. That means that those kids of college grads (and grandkids of college grads) have HUMONGOUS advantages over their peers who are children and grandchildren of non-college grads. Not only do they have a better support network but they are also, on average, smarter.
Third, the marriage vs having children thing that I referenced above:
Right around 50% of first time mothers are not married. This, however, is NOT the same across the socioeconomic strata. This
link is a few years old but it shows a dramatic difference in % of births to unmarried women by education:
- 90% of women with a Bachelor's degree or higher are married when they have kids.
- 57% of women with an Associate's degree or "some college" are married when they have kids.
- 41% of women with a HS Diploma or GED are married when they have kids.
- 38% of women without a HS Diploma are married when they have kids.
This is a modern phenomena. In the 1950's there wasn't a significant difference based on education or socioeconomic status. Now there is. Marriage has effectively become a luxury item that only the relatively well off are able to obtain.
For white college educated women family formation is not really any different than it was for their great-grandmothers 60+ years ago, you get married then you have kids. For non-white and non-college women marriage is maybe something to dream about but probably not a practical reality.
For the kids this creates an even larger divide:
- One group has a married mother and father who are both college grads. They also generally have four college educated grandparents along with college educated Aunts and Uncles.
- The other group has a single mother who is not a college grad. They also generally have zero college educated grandparents, Aunts, and Uncles.
The difference for the kids is very significant.
I'll use a sports metaphor to explain why I think this really only makes a difference for the kids in the middle.
Way back when I was in HS my school had a really good BB team. That is to say that we were really good at what I call "white suburban kid ball". After a couple rounds of the playoffs we advanced to where we were playing inner-city schools from Akron in Akron U's gym. I went to the first such game and while sitting in the stands with my friends we were WORRIED. The opposing team clearly and obviously had a LOT more natural talent than our team did. During warmups they were ALL dunking as compared to our team that had literally only one guy who could dunk and even then it was only if he had a clear path and a running start.
My friends and I all thought that our team was going to get crushed. What we didn't notice was that the other team's pregame warmup was not organized at all. It was just a bunch of kids basically playing street-ball against each other with little or no oversight. When the game started we lost the tip-off then won everything after that. There was a guy on the other team's bench sitting where the coach should have been and he even looked like a coach. As far as I know he was drawing a salary for coaching but that team didn't have a coach. Seriously, it looked like the other team had NEVER had any serious BB coaching. They were all fairly talented individual street-ballers but they had literally no idea how to actually play BB as a team sport. My school crushed them.
A few days later we went back to Akron U's gym to play another inner-city Akron school. This time my friends and I in the stands were not worried at all. We watched the warmups and assumed it would be like the last game. What we didn't notice was that this team actually had an organized pre-game warmup routine. Individually they were no better or worse than our previous opponent but this group had a legitimate coach. They won the tip-off and everything after that. My school got crushed.
Coaching and teaching are obviously similar so that is my go-to metaphor for the importance of quality coaching/teaching. My example here:
LeBron James had EXCELLENT HS BB coaching. If he hadn't, I don't think it would have mattered much in the long run. He was so naturally gifted that even without quality HS coaching I think he still would have eventually flourished in the NBA. It might have taken longer. He might have had to go to college for a year or two and develop some in the league but he was naturally gifted enough that he would have gotten there eventually anyway.
I didn't play HS BB so I had no HS BB coaching at all. It really doesn't matter because I clearly don't have any aptitude for the sport other than watching it. No matter how good of a HS coach you gave me, I still wouldn't have made the NBA. I suppose if I had had a REALLY good HS coach I *MIGHT* have been able to play BB at something like a D3 College but that is probably my ceiling.
My point is that I don't think quality of HS BB coaching matters too much for LeBron or me. It matters to the marginal NBA guy, way better than me but not nearly as good as LeBron. For that guy, the quality of his HS BB coaching probably determines whether he gets a D1 scholarship and an eventual NBA contract or an offer to play D3 ball and no NBA contract.
I think the same thing applies to education. The 50th percentile is set at an IQ of 100 with a SD of about 15. A kid with a 130 IQ is REALLY smart (98th percentile) while a kid with a 70 IQ is REALLY dull (3rd percentile). What I am saying is that for the kids with IQ's of 70 or 130 the support network probably doesn't matter much. That is so high or so low that the high IQ kid will eventually flourish even with a weak or non-existent support network and the low IQ kid just isn't going to get far no matter how well supported they are. Where it matters, I think, is for the MUCH larger group of kids in the middle. Roughly half of all kids have IQ between roughly 90 and 110. For that group I think the support network matters a lot and a 90 IQ kid with a strong support network probably has a greater chance of getting a degree than a 110 IQ kid with a HS dropout single mother.
