If they pass those exams they will be awarded $1000,000. I think that more than 95% of these average students will pass their exams. Most of these student will look like extremely gifted children with high IQs.

I totally agree with this. But the point I was trying to make was that “differentiation, integration, complex analyses, contour integration, linear algebra, topolgy, functional analyses differential geometry, quantum field theory, general relativity…” and so on are the Latin of our day. These things have been created by scholastic Doctors to advance their own careers. This means that the way before Calculus Latin was considered the true knowledge by the Scholastic Doctors, today, calculus, took its place. Calculus is just a dead language, the programming language of the 17th century. Teaching calculus today is like teaching Cobol as the hottest computer language. There is no reason to define intelligence as the capacity to cram calculus.

I think what is stereotyped here is math. It is an academic scholastic notion that mathematics, or calculus, the Latin of our day, is a measure of intelligence.

I don’t think many experts believe this to be the case. The study just shows that the educational standards are very low in the US.

If you randomly pick 100 average 12 year olds you can make then experts in calculus by the age of 17 provided they study well. You don’t need more than a few years to master differentiation, integration, complex analyses, contour integration, linear algebra, topolgy, functional analyses differential geometry, quantum field theory, general relativity, etc. etc.

The problem is that most children are not motivated enough to study hard enough. But you can perform the following experiment. You let average 12 year olds participate in an experimental education program. When they are 17 they take an exam on subjects such as General Relativity, Lagrangian dynamics, quantum field theory etc.

If they pass those exams they will be awarded $1000,000. I think that more than 95% of these average students will pass their exams. Most of these student will look like extremely gifted children with high IQs.

So, thank you for posting this that I might randomly find it and be inspired to some new thoughts.

I would love to see the exact same set of tests given out to a sample of men and see if the opposite effect unfolds

Or the same effect.

Basically, if you want to draw conclusions from this study, you need to further test a group of men. It’s clear that reading a paticular essay had an effect on the test scores, but you can’t yet draw conclusions from this. For example, the candidates could have be irked by reading an essay that put down people, or anxious after reading something that mentioned mathematics as being difficult. That said, there were substantially different essays used which would elminiate uncertainty in this direction.

However, in order for the final conclusion to be accurate, you need a final control, i.e. a group of males. Frankly I don’t see how this was missed. It’s all in Feynman’s cargo cult physics speech. That said, I think the conclusion is most likely correct, but before you say that scientifically, you need that final control.

Incidently, the presentation of these results is excellent, because someone has made the effort to put the standard deviation in their graphs. Bravo.

The big iceberg hiding under the water is the myth that math and physics are so difficult that only gifted students in university can understand it. It’s high time to start to teach science in primary school!

Primary school — pfeh!

I’ve got a 4 year old daughter, and I’ve been teaching her math, physics, and astronomy since she could hold her head up by herself. I’m being sneaky, though — she thinks we’re just playing…

BTW, when the Canadian study first came out, did anybody else immediately think of ‘Teen Talk Barbie?’