« Should I get a custom domain name for the new blog? | Main | The blog has moved »

January 01, 2013

Comments

I'd love to know your daily hit level on this blog. My personal opinion is that you are making a mistake dumping it for a new one, but I have put a link to your new blog on my rarely visited site.

"Half Sigma was right, there was a deal in which taxes stay low and government spending stays high."

Thanks be unto Darwin that's over with. I was sick of hearing about it for months. Unfortunately the economy is going to be bouncing around various levels of suckiness for the next four years.

Btw, do you have any updates about the iPad? Have you tried the "Paper" drawing app yet?


"My personal opinion is that you are making a mistake dumping it for a new one, but I have put a link to your new blog on my rarely visited site".

I think HS will regret his move. His reason for wanting to dump this site is because he claims a lot of the comments here are racist in context. What isn't "racist" about HBD in the eyes of the general populace who readily submits to our PC culture? Further, most of the commentators here rarely talk about HBD as a science. The discussion usually revolves around a battle between SWPLs and Proles, Asians and Whites, with a few NAMs thrown into the mix here and there.

You have been right about quite a bit, but there is one thing you may have been horribly wrong about: your theory that high IQ is irrelevant to income once education is factored in.

Please see table 4.2 of the following link:

http://www.swlaw.edu/pdfs/jle/jle601yakowitz.pdf

As you would probably agree, law school GPA is very g loaded and based on blind grading, and certainly hours and hours of law school exams are more g loaded than a 10 word vocabulary test you analyzed in GSS.

Thus it's interesting to note that law students at the top of their class (across a wide range of law schools) with GPAs above 3.75 go on to earn $94,000 a year. Those in the middle of the class, with GPAs just over 3.0 earn $62,000 a year, and those at the bottom of the class, with GPAs below 2.5, earn $50,500.

So even among people getting the exact same degree, entering the exact same profession, across the exact same range of law schools, all of whom passed the bar exam the first time, we still find that the above average students earn nearly TWICE as much as the below average students.

Further, Barack Obama, who you've implied was at the time the smartest black law student in America (IQ 150 according to you) goes on to become the most powerful black in human history, with influence over trillions of dollars of tax payer money.

So even among people with the same degree at the same schools (where IQ's are very similar) we still see that the high IQ people achieve more career success (money, power, status) and this should be true almost by definition (intelligence is the ability to adapt & problem solve)

[HS: No "Linda," that article is about the bad outcomes of people who go to crappy law schools, something I wrote about a LOT. It's completely consistent with my writings and in fact supports it.

Yet strangely even, those who failed the bar exam still had higher salaries than the average college graduate who didn't go to law school. So more education = more income, even for people too stupid to pass the bar exam.]

Yes, you were right about more education causing more income independently of intelligence, but where you went too far was asserting that high IQ gave no (or negative) boost to income once education was factored in. As table 4.2 shows, even among people all smart enough to pass the bar exam the first time, attending the same range of law schools in the same career tracks, the smartest part of the law school class (as measured by GPA) earns nearly TWICE as much as the dumbest part of the class.

[HS: (1) Law school is a unique case, and (2) people may have failed the bar because they were lazy and not because they weren't smart enough.]

"[HS: (1) Law school is a unique case, and (2) people may have failed the bar because they were lazy and not because they weren't smart enough.]"

But table 4.2 has separate columns for those who were smart/hard working enough to pass the bar exam the first time and those who weren't, and within BOTH groups, those near the top of their class in GPA (a measure of g graded on a curve within each law school) earn nearly twice as much as those in the bottom of their class.

[HS: You are looking ONLY at law students, which is not a normal case. And law school GPA has only a weak correlation with g. The quality of law school you attend and grades are both more important than g for obtaining a high-paying legal career track.]

Um... yeah there was a deal but it is a little too soon to say the economy was not hit hard.

"[HS: You are looking ONLY at law students, which is not a normal case. And law school GPA has only a weak correlation with g. The quality of law school you attend and grades are both more important than g for obtaining a high-paying legal career track.]"

Law school grades only correlate weakly with g because of restriction of range. IQ tests and LSATs would also correlate weakly with g among law students at the same school, but you adjust for restriction of range and law school grades should correlate a potent 0.7 with g (similar to the correlation most IQ tests have with each other).

As I write this I'm enjoying my two double big macs so I can get fat and live longer :-)

"I think HS will regret his move. His reason for wanting to dump this site is because he claims a lot of the comments here are racist in context. What isn't "racist" about HBD in the eyes of the general populace who readily submits to our PC culture? Further, most of the commentators here rarely talk about HBD as a science. The discussion usually revolves around a battle between SWPLs and Proles, Asians and Whites, with a few NAMs thrown into the mix here and there. "

I liked Half Sigma precisely because it is racist, although it is a mild racism. Admittedly, I lost some respect for Half Sigma since he is afraid of being referred to as a "racist" under his semi-pseudonymous identity (one can figure out who Half Sigma is, but the people who know the real Half Sigma cannot figure out that he is Half Sigma). The site is popular precisely because it has a nice mild racism to it and because it is not politically correct.

-----

Linda, look at the juxtaposition of tables 4.2 and 4.3. This support Half Sigma's contention that educational institution prestige trumps academic achievement within an institution. Graduates from the highest tier of law schools (I don't know if this is exclusively top 14) earned more than the average of all students in the highest GPA tier by a considerable margin (and this applies to tier two to a lesser degree).

Furthermore, why use law school GPA at all when one has a psychometric instrument that directly measures some facet of "g" as the LSAT measures verbal intelligence? Table 6.3 and 6.7 shows a some logistic regression coefficients on the effect of numerous variables, such as UGPA, LSAT, and LGPA, on Bar Exam pass rates. These regressions show that LSAT has a smaller effect than UGPA and LGPA on Bar Exam pass rates. This is not surprising since the Bar Exam is not designed to be a "g-loaded" test, much like the LSAT is intended to be, but measures comprehension of specific legal knowledge. There is a minimum threshold of "g" in order to pass the Bar Exam, but for most students, this is exceeded due to the attrition of the educational system culling low-g students. For instance, tertiary educational institutions explicitly consider "g" in the admissions process: the LSAT filters some low-g students from ever attending any law school, and before that, the SAT/ACT prevents some students from even attending a low-tier university. This restriction of range and the emphasis on content would make the Bar Exam less g-loaded.

I believe the US is a meritocracy primarily based on "g" as is the thesis of The Bell Curve. However, this only begs the question of why "g" is correlated with income and occupational prestige. Like the Venerable Half Sigma, I believe that the primary economic utility of "g" resides in its signaling ability to signal intelligence to mainstream employers through superior educational credentials (defined as a degree from an institution with a high mean SAT/ACT score), not from any advantage from increased workplace productivity (which would be rendered moot if superiors are able to transfer your extra value to themselves and their shareholders).

Thanks for presenting this data Linda; it was a worthy use of ten minutes (I didn't not devote my attention to the paper) to confirm with some empirical evidence that legal employers primarily select on law school prestige.

[HS: Thanks for the EXCELLENT comment.

The primary benefit of g is that it helps you get better educational credentials, which then help you get a better career track.

But if young people don't use their g wisely to get the right credentials, then the g is wasted.]

P.S. Your new blog is no longer blocked at mcdonalds. WTF????

"Linda, look at the juxtaposition of tables 4.2 and 4.3. This support Half Sigma's contention that educational institution prestige trumps academic achievement within an institution. Graduates from the highest tier of law schools (I don't know if this is exclusively top 14) earned more than the average of all students in the highest GPA tier by a considerable margin (and this applies to tier two to a lesser degree)."

Prestigious credentials might trump g, however among people with equal credentials, the high g people are clearly getting richer.  Also we don't know why the average tier 1 law grad (regardless of grades) makes more money than the average top student (regardless of school prestige).  The IQ of the two groups is probably about the same so school prestige could be causing the income difference, or it could be that that top tier students come from richer, better connected families which both got them into a good school and a good job when leaving school.

"Furthermore, why use law school GPA at all when one has a psychometric instrument that directly measures some facet of "g" as the LSAT measures verbal intelligence?"

Because the paper shows how GPA correlates to income.  I suspect LSATs would correlate to income in a similar way but I haven't seen the data.

" Table 6.3 and 6.7 shows a some logistic regression coefficients on the effect of numerous variables, such as UGPA, LSAT, and LGPA, on Bar Exam pass rates. These regressions show that LSAT has a smaller effect than UGPA and LGPA on Bar Exam pass rates. This is not surprising since the Bar Exam is not designed to be a "g-loaded" test, much like the LSAT is intended to be, but measures comprehension of specific legal knowledge."

Or it could simply be because GPA (which is based on a large series of exams) is actually MORE g loaded than a single test like the LSAT among law students and thus has more predictive validity.  That's speculation though.

"There is a minimum threshold of "g" in order to pass the Bar Exam, but for most students, this is exceeded due to the attrition of the educational system culling low-g students. For instance, tertiary educational institutions explicitly consider "g" in the admissions process: the LSAT filters some low-g students from ever attending any law school, and before that, the SAT/ACT prevents some students from even attending a low-tier university. This restriction of range and the emphasis on content would make the Bar Exam less g-loaded."

The restriction of range (and ceiling bumping) would also make the LSAT less g loaded (among students taking the Bar exam)

"I believe the US is a meritocracy primarily based on "g" as is the thesis of The Bell Curve. However, this only begs the question of why "g" is correlated with income and occupational prestige. Like the Venerable Half Sigma, I believe that the primary economic utility of "g" resides in its signaling ability to signal intelligence to mainstream employers through superior educational credentials (defined as a degree from an institution with a high mean SAT/ACT score), not from any advantage from increased workplace productivity (which would be rendered moot if superiors are able to transfer your extra value to themselves and their shareholders)."

Then why do law students near the top of their class (at their respective schools) earn nearly double those near the bottom of those same schools when both are earning the same credentials.  Clearly g positively influences income independently of credentials, even if credentials are more important than g.  

"Thanks for presenting this data Linda"

You're very welcome.  And thanks for not putting my name in quotes :-)

[HS: People at the top of the class get an extra two credentials: "Order of the Coif" and "Law Review". Those credentials often mean the difference between 40K government job and a 160K BIGLAW job.

But those credentials have a lower correlation with g than you think.]

"[HS: People at the top of the class get an extra two credentials: "Order of the Coif" and "Law Review". Those credentials often mean the difference between 40K government job and a 160K BIGLAW job."

Okay, so let's forget about the top of the class. People in the MIDDLE of the class earn 24% more than people in the bottom of the class even though the bottom of the class is largely affirmation action folks who get offered lucrative jobs because of race.

****P.S. Your new blog is no longer blocked at mcdonalds. WTF????****

I'm no computer networking expert, but I have had it happen that a place blocks a site I am trying to access - and then I try again several days later only to find it's now accessible. I wonder if some of these systems default to "DON'T ALLOW" but are automated to change a site to "ALLOW" if there are multiple requests to access it.

off-topic: heard of this guy, jewish convert in LA and all? http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=45680


"Those credentials often mean the difference between 40K government job and a 160K BIGLAW job. But those credentials have a lower correlation with g than you think".

Correct, a NYPD Lieutenant collecting idle overtime wouldn't be all that far from a 1st year BIGLAW sweatshop associate.

Is BIGLAW lucrative anymore?

The LSAT is more g-loaded than law-school exams, at least past the first year. It's possible to load up on seminars and carefully select classes to pad your GPA in the second and third years. (Incidentally, everybody should do this, but not everybody does.) That's why law review editor without coif is more impressive than coif but no law review.

I actively hire youngsters from the ivies. My firm is up or out just like most i banks and most biglawfirms and most i banks.

Youngsters that consistently perform at an adequate level of intellectual ability are promoted. There is a correlation between grades and performance. There is a correlation between iq and performance

Anyone who has made a career in law finace or high level consulting can tell you that a youngsters performance correlates to iq

Half sigma himself doesnt seem to understand that getting that first job is only entrance to a tournament.

Halfsigma is brilliant in terms of iq but lacks the grit and determination to rise to biglaw partner. Sk even if half was given a first year job at. Cravath he would not make partner.

Partners generally have grit determination and iq together. Some sales skill is needed too but really it is rare for someone with super high iq and grit to lack all sales skill

"Halfsigma is brilliant in terms of iq but lacks the grit and determination to rise to biglaw partner. Sk even if half was given a first year job at. Cravath he would not make partner".

Smarts are required, but HS doesn't seem like an ahole. It takes aholeness more than smarts to make it in BIGLAW. I have seen aspiring associates take it out on their paralegals in BIGLAW when they're frustrated and they get away with it. It gives them a source of renewable energy. That's how many BIGLAWYERS thrive.

Just like many things in life, nice guys finish last especially in BIGLAW.

Of course Half Sigma is right - he always was the true Lion of the Blogosphere - unlike that little scared kitten that calls himself that.

@ Half Sigma,

Sorry to hear you're stopping blogging here, will look forward to following your new site. Will you be keeping this site? I have linked a number of posts to others, particularly the ones about marxism and the dystopian robotic future. Could you give us a heads up if you're going to take this site down so I can save some of the posts?

[HS: This site will be kept alive for at least another year.]

The comments to this entry are closed.