Why would a single school's freshman class be perfectly reflective of IQ distribution nationally?
Here's the Undergrad population of Montana University:
The enrolled student population at The University of Montana, both undergraduate and graduate, is 69.7% White, 7% Two or More Races, 6.1% Hispanic or Latino, 5.82% Asian, 3.58% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1% Black or African American, and 0.1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders.
Does that look like an IQ distribution, or do you think living in Montana might have something more to do with it?
No, it would get applicants from populations of people who could afford to go to it, and are interested in the technical degree, and who have enough social capital to apply with a real chance to go.
All you are offering up is that it might be more representative, not that it is.
Those grants don't counter and remove the influences of class differences and social preference, I can promise you that. And even then, your argument covers applicants not acceptance.
Even if the process were purely meritocratic, there's no reason it must match IQ distribution. I mean, IQ doesn't even necessarily correspond with Ivy League attendance.
Why would a single school's freshman class be perfectly reflective of IQ distribution nationally?
Here's the Undergrad population of Montana University:
Does that look like an IQ distribution, or do you think living in Montana might have something more to do with it?
The University of Montana mostly gets applicants and students from Montana.
MIT is an elite school that gets applicants from all over the country. It would obviously be more representative of the national population.
No, it would get applicants from populations of people who could afford to go to it, and are interested in the technical degree, and who have enough social capital to apply with a real chance to go.
From all over the country.
And grants and scholarships are available to "disadvantaged" or "marginalized" students that are unavailable to poor white kids.
It would still be much more representative of the national population than University of Montana.
All you are offering up is that it might be more representative, not that it is.
Those grants don't counter and remove the influences of class differences and social preference, I can promise you that. And even then, your argument covers applicants not acceptance.
Even if the process were purely meritocratic, there's no reason it must match IQ distribution. I mean, IQ doesn't even necessarily correspond with Ivy League attendance.