Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students&apos; intelligence is merely average

Background. According to a widespread belief, the average IQ of university students is 115 to 130 IQ points, that is, substantially higher than the average IQ of the general population ( M = 100, SD =15). We traced the origin of this belief to obsolete intelligence data collected in 1940s and 1950s when university education was the privilege of a few. Examination of more recent IQ data indicate that IQ of university students and university graduates dropped to the average of the general population. The decline in students’ IQ is a necessary consequence of increasing educational attainment over the last 80 years. Today, graduating from university is more common than completing high school in the 1940s.

Method. We conducted a meta-analysis of the mean IQ scores of college and university students samples tested with Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale between 1939 and 2022.

Results. The results show that the average IQ of undergraduate students today is a mere 102 IQ points and declined by approximately 0.2 IQ points per year. The students’ IQ also varies substantially across universities and is correlated with the selectivity of universities (measured by average SAT scores of admitted students).

Discussion. These findings have wide-ranging implications. First, universities and professors need to realize that students are no longer extraordinary but merely average, and have to adjust curricula and academic standards. Second, employers can no longer rely on applicants with university degrees to be more capable or smarter than those without degrees. Third, students need to realize that acceptance into university is no longer an invitation to join an elite group. Fourth, the myth of brilliant undergraduate students in scientific and popular literature needs to be dispelled. Fifth, estimating premorbid IQ based on educational attainment is vastly inaccurate, obsolete, not evidence based, and mere speculations. Sixth, obsolete IQ data or tests ought not to be used to make high-stakes decisions about individuals, for example, by clinical psychologists to opine about intelligence and cognitive abilities of their clients.

Content

Author and article information

Journal

Title: ScienceOpen Preprints

Publisher: ScienceOpen

Publication date (Electronic preprint): 6 February 2024

Affiliations

[1 ] Psychology Department, Mount Royal University, Calgara, Alberta, Canada ( https://ror.org/04evsam41)

[2 ] Psychology Department, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, Canada ( https://ror.org/03rmrcq20)

[3 ] Psychology Department, Western University, London, Ontario Canada ( https://ror.org/02grkyz14)

Author notes

[* ]Email: uttlbob@ 123456gmail.com .

Author information

Bob Uttl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9908-9222

Article

DOI: 10.14293/PR2199.000694.v1

SO-VID: 7f5fdfce-791d-46f7-90d2-4367a4cab8f3

License:

This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0 , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com .

History

Date received : 6 February 2024

Funding

Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000038, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada;

Comments

Peter Graf wrote:

This MS reports a meta-analysis of students' IQ score changes from 1940 to 2020. The meta-analysis was well done and the data are reported in a transparent and informative manner. I have no revision suggestions for the analysis and the data reporting.

The results of this meta-analysis are very important for many reasons outlined in the MS discussion. They are a wake-up call about developments in higher education today.

I believe some parts of the MS would profit from additional, minor copy-editing. For example, a few paragraphs are very complex and in my view they would deliver their message more clearly and effectively if broken into separate shorter paragraphs, each with its own distinct message. The para which begins with “Our findings have several far-reaching implications …” illustrates this problem; it raises many important issues each of which deserves its own para.

Similarly, a few sentences are too long and very difficult to read and they should be separated into two or more sentences. With this goal in mind, I have marked up the MS with comments and suggestions. I am sending the marked up MS to the first author because it appears I can't attach it here.

I like the discussion's focus on stakeholders who need to know about the results of this meta-analysis: Educational institutions/instructors, employers, professionals who often use educational attainment for estimating premorbid IQ, and young people who are considering pursuit of higher education and ought to reflect on the IQ composition of the classrooms they will be joining.

I like what the discussion says about implications for professional that use educational attainment for estimating premorbid IQ scores. This message is crucial for many different professionals including counsellors, clinical neuropsychologist, etc. However, I am less sure about the paras in the discussion that concern Dr. W, S, and M. While these paras underscore that even professions don’t seem aware of how old IQ scores ought to be adjusted for the Flynn effect, these paras still depart (and perhaps distract) from the overall aim of the MS which is on IQ scores of students (not on professional who are ignorant of the Flynn effect and thus in violation of their professional ethical obligations). Perhaps footnotes could be used for this purpose.

2024-02-17 16:52 UTC

Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students' intelligence is merely average

Abstract