Hollywood loves the idea of a genius. Amadeus, The Social Network, A Beauiful Mind, to name but a few cinematic portraits of brilliant men, men who apparently have a direct line to the rarified realm of mathematics and music, perhaps even the mind of God, while the rest of us dabble in the shadows. This year added The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything. The latter features perhaps the ideal subject for an exploration of brilliance; ALS has removed any doubt that whatever Stephen Hawking is doing, it occurs entirely within his mind, inscrutable, and so by implication, incomprehensible. [Read more…] about Science in Review — Movie Magic
intelligence
Science Corner: All the Brilliant Ladies
It is both conventional wisdom and a statistical reality that gender representation is not equal in all STEM (science, technology, engineering & mathematics) disciplines. When I enrolled at Carnegie Mellon, a school known for its STEM programs, nearly twenty (!) years ago, the student body was well aware of the distributions. Variations on “There’s a guy for every girl… and then another guy for that guy” or (ladies speaking about men) “The odds are good, but the goods are odd” circulated widely lest we forget. (In fairness, the 2:1 implied ratio was already shifting towards 1:1 at the time, and is now around 11:9.) [Read more…] about Science Corner: All the Brilliant Ladies
Science Corner: SAT, GRE… DNA?
I imagine this study of the genetic contribution to academic achievement will be of interest to many in higher education. As I see it, there are actually two related but distinct takeaways from this research. The first is that academic achievement (as measured by a standardized university entrance test; insert all the necessary caveats) is based on factors like “motivation, personality, [and] confidence” independent of intelligence/IQ. While hardly a surprising result, it’s a point that warrants reinforcement. As the story notes, for a long time IQ was the only metric investigated for this kind of study, which tended to shape thinking and conversations about education.
Second is that these traits can be attributed in large part to genetics. Remember, these are observational findings. It’s not that certain genes guarantee certain test scores no matter what; the results are only relevant within the context of the given academic environment. So we might image grouping students by age (as we do now), and also consider clustering by genetic traits. Not in a remedial fashion, but in acknowledgement that students with different combinations of traits like motivation or confidence might benefit from different learning strategies — just like personalized medicine hopes to use genetics to better match patients to therapies. Will we one day send our genome along with our transcripts and SAT scores when applying to college, in order to get a better fit between school and student? How do you think findings like these should be used?