[Cerek]

This is something I've been pondering recently. IQ scores are supposed to indicate how intelligent a person is, which is also used as an implied indicator of how successful they may be or how good they would be at a given job. But I've found that isn't always the case.

There are many qualities that determine if a person will be "successful" or not, and IQ plays only one part in that equation. Motivation, social skills and personality also play a large part. I have a very good friend who is supposed to have a "genius level" IQ. That may very well be true, but he also has a significant lack of social skills and I've seen similar correlations more than once. In fact, I read an article on MSN a couple of years ago that many CEO's prefer an applicant that did NOT make straight "A's" throughout school. Most students with a perfect 4.0 GPA (grade point average) usually spent a great deal more time studying than other students. That might indicate better discipline, but it often also meant that they had a hard time adapting to situations that weren't "by the book". They studied their books exhaustively, but had a difficult time actually applying the concepts or rules learned to situations that didn't fit "textbook" examples. Conversely, students with lower GPA's were often more "flexible" in their thinking. They also usually spent more time in extra-curricular activities (such as fraternities or sororities or sports) which led to improved social skills and interaction. The article closed by saying that many CEO's preferred an applicant with a more "average" GPA, but with better inter-personal skills.

President Bush has been oft maligned for his grades at Yale (he made mostly "C's" with a few "B's" mixed in), yet he went on to become a certified jet pilot and the head of the C.I.A. Whether you believe or disbelieve the accusations of Bush going A.W.O.L. is irrelevant, the fact that he IS a certified jet pilot is one indication of his actual intelligence - because it takes a someone with good reflexes intelligence and perfect eyesight to operate a plane that sophisticated. The same is true for Al Gore. I think he is a very intelligent man, but his grades in college were only slightly better than Bush's (I haven't looked up Kerry's transcripts). As for his stint at the C.I.A., I'm sure many people beleive he got that job because of WHO he is rather than what he actually knows, but once he got the job, he still had to perform at an acceptable level to KEEP the job.

I have a fairly high IQ (according to the tests anyway ). It isn't "genius level", but I did qualify for Mensa when I was still in high school (based on several sample tests I took). I once thought it would be GREAT to put that on my resume', but when I got into college I learned that listing Mensa on my resume' wouldn't be nearly as impressive to potential employers as I expected it to be - for many of the reasons I've listed above. (BTW - for those that are unfamiliar with Mensa - it is an organization for people with high IQ's).

One other example of whether IQ is an accurate indicator of intelligence and success is this year's theme for "Apprentice". Instead of looking for folks with MBA degrees, Donald Trump and his staff decided to create a theme of "College Smarts" vs "Street Smarts" - with the underlying implication being that lessons learned in real-life situations are JUST as valuable (and sometimes moreso) than lessons learned in the academia setting. In real life, you find out right away whether a particular idea or approach works or not, because it is tested every single day.

So what do you think? Is IQ an accurate indicator of intelligence and future success, or does someone with "Street Smarts" (and a healthy dose of common sense) actually know more about what works in the real world than somebody with a 4-6 year college degree?