Seriously, do you need to have above average intelligence to get a Ph.D.?

Uhhhh yes.

yes

I have no proof, but I'd say usually, yes. You can probably find out if you search a bit.

More intelligent than the general population: definitely.

More politically astute than the general population: in most cases, no.

The quality of PhD candidates has been in rapid decline over the past decade. They are starting to let just about anyone with a pulse into one kind of program or another.

Disgraced former general manager of the MBTA, Beverly Scott, would be a good example of a PhD degree for the sake of the "PhD".

No, many are maladjusted dimwits with an almost idiot savant- like expertise in a single subject.

A- wrote:

Are folks with Ph.D.s generally more intelligent than the overall population? Or, perhaps, they're just more driven/motivate to stick with the grad program to the end?

Almost by definition, if you have a PhD you are more intelligent about your field than the overall population. Whether or not you are smarter is variable.

A- wrote:

Are folks with Ph.D.s generally more intelligent than the overall population? Or, perhaps, they're just more driven/motivate to stick with the grad program to the end?

Of course they are more intelligent than the overall population. Having spent 4 years on Stanford's campus in graduate student housing and spending lots of time with mainly Ph.D. candidates (in a science), I can tell you without a doubt that they are not just more intelligent than the general population, but leaps and bounds more intelligent. Of course, that was Stanford and mostly science people which skews this opinion of mine a little bit.

My personal anecdote aside, without question Ph.Ds are generally more intelligent than those in the general population. Is there a plumber somewhere who is more intelligent than a Ph.D. somewhere? Probably, but that is the exception to the rule.

No. They have an iq of around 100 maybe average 102 or something, but are very driven. They seemed so smart to flagpole because his iq is only 84.

Yes, you do need 'above average' intelligence in order to obtain a PhD, but you need exception perseverance more than anything.

Remember, though, it's about depth of intelligence, not breadth, so lots of PhDs are often clueless to many observations made be those far less astute. An anecdote: I am studying a PhD, and recently attended a conference with a colleague, someone on my degree, but not part of the same cohort, nor the same research area. I made some comment about gentrification as we drove through a neighbourhood near the campus. She asked me what it was. She had no idea. At all. She's very smart (but also very sheltered, which is true of lots of others in my department).

If you can be in the NBA with below-average height (Spud Webb, Muggsy Bogues, and a few others), I'm sure you can get a PhD, which is way less elite, with below-average intelligence. Plus we're not just talking about PhDs like Physics, Computer Science, Mathematics, Electrical Engineering, Biochemistry, Mechanical Engineering, etc. Lots of doctorates are undemanding intellectually, like English, African Studies, Psychology, Women's Studies, Education.

Doesn't the average college graduate have an IQ of like 110?

Letsrace wrote:

No. They have an iq of around 100 maybe average 102 or something, but are very driven. They seemed so smart to flagpole because his iq is only 84.

Pshaw!

Brilliant all of them, but some more singularly focused than others. One in particular I would not have asked for his advice or opinion on anything other than what he studied, but most of the rest of them were very smart and educated people even beyond their narrow focus of study.

On average folks with a college degree have IQs around 115.

done here>

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6197978

Shamrock Lou wrote:

No, many are maladjusted dimwits with an almost idiot savant- like expertise in a single subject.

In many respects, this is true. "So, tell me Angry Willy, how do I use the fax machine?"

Worked with an optics scientist, he was savant-like with regards to lenses and mirrors with FRED software (couldn't use anything else) but I was surprised every day that he 1) found his way to work 2) arrived with shoes tied.

I have worked with mostly science/chemistry/math PhD types. Many had a razor thin breadth of knowledge, but had a great depth of knowledge in that area.

Many of them have opinions, and everyone is entitled to those opinions, even if they have no knowledge in that particular field. With this in mind, I would add that most have above average egos, which helps with the perseverance required for a PhD. Our group of scientists had monthly in-sessions where they would bloviate about their latest research, which no one else really cared about.

I think that the STEM/biology PhDs have a much higher IQ, but possibly not so much in other areas. (I am sure that I am leaving out some field, and generalizing) I have a friend with a PhD in something, maybe linguistics (???) but he specializes in "accent reduction". He isn't overly bright IMHO. He doesn't actually speak other languages other than at a traveler level, but has made a career out of selling his services to companies with call centers whose employees need to reduce their accents. "Thank you for calling Dell, this is 'Bob' how may I help you?"

I don't see STEM PhDs as any brighter than other fields. At the highest levels, everyone is smart; it doesn't matter what your field. "STEM majors" is just a new marketing ploy for parents who think their idiot kids that can't get into Ivies might have a chance for a future.

Horatio wrote:

I don't see STEM PhDs as any brighter than other fields. At the highest levels, everyone is smart; it doesn't matter what your field. "STEM majors" is just a new marketing ploy for parents who think their idiot kids that can't get into Ivies might have a chance for a future.

^ creative writing major

99% of human intelligence is culture. People are able to absorb and memorize knowledge accumulated over thousands of years.

Only about .5% consists of actual thinking. Much like a machine that uses three or four registers to do actual computations, the act of thinking is very simple and is guided by rote memory that "programs" it through formed habits. Nobody is born with that programming, it's all gained by experience.

The other .5% is creativity, which is thinking of new ideas rather than rearranging existing, habit-formed ideas. This can be manifested as brilliance or insanity depending on how it's used. Most scholars (i.e. pH.d.'s) don't possess much of this because everything they think, do, or say has to be accompanied by a mountain of cultural baggage obtained from their specialty.

Musicians, artists, actors, writers and such often possess tons of creativity, which is why a degree in those fields is nearly meaningless and is most appropriate for the least talented, like Juilliard-attendee Robin Williams.

A prof of mine used to say that all you need is an IQ higher than your blood alcohol content and then he would make a comment that he doesn't drink.

Why do you think those doctoral fields are intellectually undemanding?

Psychology and sociology, for example, have average GRE scores around high 150s and low 160s, which puts their verbal scores in the low 80s percentile and their quantitative scores in the high 70s or low 80s. So, they are far above average among the group taking this exam for graduate school, almost all of whom presumably graduate from college. The group heading to graduate school is going to be well above average for all those attending college. And those attending college are going to be above average in the population (only about 29% of the population, but definitely a minority, gets a four year degree, I believe). The GRE general test, based on the SAT, is likewise more of an IQ test than anything, since it is not subject-specific. If you then consider that many graduate students in Ph.D. programs don't even make it past the first semester, and that of the half or so that make it to the dissertation stage, about half never complete their dissertation, then you have a pretty select group getting Ph.D.'s, even if that group is watered down by some schools.