Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chinese Company Seeks US Workers With 125 IQ

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the look-at-the-big-brain-on-the-yankee dept.

Businesses 553

CWmike writes "A Chinese IT outsourcing company that has started hiring new US computer science graduates to work in Shanghai requires prospective job candidates to demonstrate an IQ of 125 or above on a test it administers to sort out job applicants. In doing so, Bleum Inc. is following a hiring practice it applies to college recruits in China. But a new Chinese college graduate must score an IQ of 140 on the company's test. The lower IQ threshold for new US graduates reflects the fact that the pool of US talent available to the company is smaller than the pool of Chinese talent, Bleum said."

cancel ×

553 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

World is changing (5, Insightful)

SquarePixel (1851068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837766)

It's quite interesting how you can already predict how the world will change in the upcoming 10-20 years. The Chinese have the workforce (and hence more persons with high IQ), they're used to work hard for a living, and realistic economy. They don't let banks cheat and collapse the country like in the US where everyone must get the latest HDTV, big cars and just spend money on non-important items and entertainment. That is how US has been doing for many many years and loaning more and more money along the way.

Re:World is changing (5, Informative)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837818)

Percentage of people with an IQ higher than 140: 0.31349%

Percentage of people with an IQ higher than 125: 4.15182%

(Based on Wechsler)

Re:World is changing (2, Interesting)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838158)

That leaves China with over 4 million with an IQ greater than 140. The US then has just under one million.

Re:World is changing (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838280)

Not necessarily. Environmental contamination, particularly with heavy metals has an IQ lowering effect on the populace. Additionally since IQ is set relatively early, and brain damage later on will take off the total score. But more than that having a high IQ really isn't all it's cracked up to be. When you hit a point around 120 or so you more or less maximize it, there isn't really any particular reason to require more than that, and realistically you then have to deal with other problems. It's really hard at times for those of us up in the 140s to conceive of why a lot of this stuff isn't common sense. And hence end up spending a lot of time being misunderstood or explaining what ought to be perfectly obvious.

Re:World is changing (1, Interesting)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838312)

Although considering 1 in 5 Americans thinks the sun revolves around the Earth [nytimes.com] , it should be noted that your country's percentages may vary.

Re:World is changing (-1, Flamebait)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838360)

And everything revolves around America. ;)

Re:World is changing (4, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837942)

Maybe, the the high poverty rate, a government that pretty much decides what the truth is, and a bunch of human rights violations will certainly not help them get there.

Yes, China does have a large population/workforce resource... But they got where they are today because that resource was really cheap. China's getting more expensive, and with the issues that the rest of the world has with their government, I don't think it's such a guarantee.

Re:World is changing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32838002)

I think a person with an IQ of 140 has pretty good human rights where ever he/she goes.

Re:World is changing (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838042)

If they're allowed to survive. High IQ doesn't necessarily correlate with political shrewdness, and can be seen as a threat.

Re:World is changing (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838218)

I think a person with an IQ of 140 has pretty good human rights where ever he/she goes.

Ever heard of the Khmer Rouge [wikipedia.org] ? A 140 IQ would be enough to have you shot.

Re:World is changing (4, Interesting)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838328)

The ghost of Alan Turing is here; he begs to differ. I'm with him.

I live in the US, where human rights are in fact Pretty Damn Good. But it wasn't that long ago that I was guilty of countless felonies for having sex with my boyfriend (before those laws were finally struck down by the Supremes), and I can still be fired in my state for simply having a boyfriend. Having an IQ of 140 hasn't changed that, and I can't imagine it makes much difference at all in countries where human rights are Pretty Damn Bad.

Re:World is changing (5, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838102)

Transparent government and democracy do not make a superpower, no matter what we enlightened westerners may think.

A dictatorship that controls the flow of information, doesn't skim too much off the top and cracks down on corruption in the lower ranks is a quite efficient way of governing a nation. We may not like it, and it goes against everything we in the west believe in, but that doesn't mean it can't work. No electoral circuses or free press that get in your hair.

As to what extent china will be able to maintain an iron fist when economic prosperity grows is another question, but then he has the guns makes the rules. Heck, a pretty big chunk of the planet isn't quite enamored with the US either and we're still doing business with them.

As for getting where they are because resources are cheap...isn't that pretty much how all current and past superpowers came to be? They either had resources on their own turf to exploit or went elsewhere to do so.

Re:World is changing (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838202)

A dictatorship that controls the flow of information, doesn't skim too much off the top and cracks down on corruption in the lower ranks is a quite efficient way of governing a nation. We may not like it, and it goes against everything we in the west believe in, but that doesn't mean it can't work. No electoral circuses or free press that get in your hair.

So basically, as long as the people at the top have the interests of the nation in mind rather than their own, things will probably go okay?

Agreed, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32838016)

Americans are stupid. They are nothing but a bunch of retarded, fanatical yokels that bomb people who aren't of their religion. Your country is the laughing stock of the world. You are like that wanker that gets pissed on cheap beer and annoys everyone and, despite all the hints, they never seem to get that no one likes them. Personally, I wish that the Russians would have bombed your sorry arses back to the stone age so the world would be a better place.

Re:World is changing (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838024)

Take your rose colored glassed off and do your own research about their banking system, the results will surprise you. Just don't drink any of their milk while doing that research. Just watch out for the Chinese security services while doing that research, don't want you to go to jail for 8+ years for reveling state secrets.

Their banks don't cheat? (5, Insightful)

sirwired (27582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838058)

Their banking industry is largely (if not all the way) corrupt. They take the savings of the people (who do indeed have a high savings rate), and then loan them out to largely state-owned enterprises. Who gets the money is largely politically directed, and has little to do with how likely it is the loan will be paid back.

Eventually those savers are going to want their money back, and it won't be there. So, it would be accurate to say that Chinese banks haven't collapsed their economy yet.

So, in the US, all the wasteful spending and foolish loans go to consumers. In China, they go towards state-owned businesses. I'm not sure one way or the other is better.

SirWired

Re:World is changing (2, Insightful)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838072)

Persons who score more that 140 on a IQ test you meaan not people who are actulay at that point on the bell urve. The trouble using a IQ test is that IQ tests are gameable and are culture dependant.

>> "realistic economy"

Soory you need to know a lot more about economics to stop making an fool of your self, the chinease economy has an artificialy manipulated curency and a corupt stockmarket all the major funds investing in china prefer the HK exchange as its less risky.

Re:World is changing (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838222)

Please cite your sources on the cultural bias of the IQ. Also, which measure of IQ has bias? There are some more "culture neutral" versions of the quantitative reasoning and other forms of intelligence (non-language dependant and reviewed by multiple language groups for potential bias). See the PISA and TIMSS assessments for a large-scale multi-cultural/multi-lingual assessment.

Re:World is changing (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838364)

IQ isn't culturally dependent. To be valid the test is supposed to be normed to the population to which it is being given. As in it isn't a valid score if it doesn't place the individual at the correct place on the bell curve, well, excluding cheating. This is the sort of bullshit that social darwinists and progressives argue about, without any clue as to what they're talking about.

Re:World is changing (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838106)

Don't worry, they also have the same proportion (therefore higher absolute number) of cheaters, Madoff-wanabees, frauds... They also had financial crisis and bubble bursts in Asia. They will have them again.

Re:World is changing (2, Insightful)

dlt074 (548126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838214)

their economy is based on making said non-important things. so with out our unrealistic economy they'd be in a different boat.

also, the banks where only doing what Congress told them to. then, when that went horribly wrong, as most of the "good ideas" Congress has tend to do, they took the money Congress "offered". don't get pissed at the banks. get pissed at the people causing the problem. CONGRESS.

Feynman (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837822)

with barely 120 points wouldn't have a chance in that company.

Feynman had an "attitude" (1)

Latent Heat (558884) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837944)

I am saying that the only reason Feynman scored that low is that he brought his smart-alec attitude into the test. Kinda like the guy who fails the eye test because the letters he is reading are from the fine-print company address below the last line on the chart.

"attitude", or the test does not work well... (2, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838074)

Or on the other hand, one of the most intelligent people of his day only scored 120 because the test does not reflect intelligence [wikimedia.org] , not in any meaningful/comparative sense. You can quite easily study for an IQ test, repeat a lot of the same types of problems before the test for a while and you easily score much better than if you walked in unprepared.

Re:Feynman had an "attitude" (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838114)

As someone who took more than a fair share of IQ tests back in the day, I'd say that any test where it's even possible to bring any attitude into it, is a broken test anyway.

A count-the-blocks problem -- useless as it is to predict performance for anything other than counting blocks in isometric 2d -- only gets a number as a result, for example. You get the right number, you pass, you don't, you don't. If it's possible to interpret the picture or the question to truthfully answer any other number, then the test is broken. Ditto for other kinds of IQ questions.

This isn't stuff where you're asked to write an essay, or anything. Answering 14 instead of 15 isn't sassy or attitude, it's just answering wrong. And frankly anyone whose idea of being sassy and witty is answering the wrong number... well, let's just say they're more like quirky in the head than anything else.

But that's the point really (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838376)

Feynman was an unconventional thinker is so very many ways. That was where a large part of his brilliance came from. He did not work in the world of numbers and equations, despite being a theoretical physicist. He was an examples kind of guy. He always had to have a physical example running in his head of a theory, and was always challenging people to provide them for him. As such he often found errors they could not, as he was mapping the problem in a completely different way.

It was his unconventional methods that made him so very brilliant, that lead him to his Nobel research. It was also part of why he was so good at teaching. He could explain things to undergrads that most people could only explain to others with advanced knowledge. He could do that because he saw through all the equations and such to the real essence of what the theory was, and he could come up with examples because that was what he did anyhow.

That an IQ test can't measure that well is a failing of the test, not of Feynman. The IQ test is one mold for how people can be smart, one particular way. He didn't fit that. So while the test rated him above average, because he was just so smart overall, it could not truly measure the depths of his genius.

It is a good lesson: Don't put too much stock in a single test. Tests test for particular things, they are not generalizable to everything.

As an analog, take a blood test for liver function. A simple test can be done to determine if your liver works right (just takes blood now, they don't need urine anymore as well). It does so reliably and well. However, that's all it does. Passing a LFT doesn't mean you are in good health, it means your liver is doing its job. It doesn't even mean your liver is undamaged, it just means that to whatever extent it has been damaged, it is still currently capable of filtering as needed.

The test is useful, but you must understand its limits for it to be so.

Re:Feynman (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838366)

One of the larger problems with tests that last as long as some of these IQ type tests is what is termed "scale drift". This has happened to the SAT (see their website for numerous studies on the topic) and requires a re-norming every so often. Thus, if the test hadn't been equated properly (a psychometric/statistical link), there's a good chance that comparing these numbers from that long ago would be more or less meaningless. Likely, it is more valid, and less prone to measurement error, to compare people of a more similar and recent population. All this of course depends on which assessment of IQ we're talking about, what methods of equating and norming were used, and a lot of other factors that can lead to additional measurement error.

Ok, this is stupid (3, Interesting)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837826)

IQ is highly overrated

In practice, it's almost useless...

Google tests are (way) better than IQ, but guess what Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews.

IQ is not concerned with
- the candidate knows about the job
- the candidate has good (enough) people skills
- the candidate showers, shaves, etc

Guess they shouldn't bother and go straight here then http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html [kids-iq-tests.com]

Re:Ok, this is stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837876)

Yeah, shaving is absolutely critical to getting the job done. Those beards really get in the way of thinking sometimes.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837976)

Disagree: You think this guy [wordpress.com] isn't going to kick some corporate ass for you?

Well... When he's in the office he will.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (1)

jbb1003 (514899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837878)

Shaves? What has that got to do with anything?

Re:Ok, this is stupid (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837940)

It takes me twice as long to fuck a hairy beaver vs a nice shaved pussy. That probably applies to other things as well.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838204)

So when they want their projects to be fucked, they'll be in touch.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837904)

Re the Google tests. Interesting, but your sources would be even more so.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (3, Interesting)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837996)

http://gawker.com/5392947/googles-broken-hiring-process [gawker.com]

And I quote Peter Norvig

One of the interesting things we've found, when trying to predict how well somebody we've hired is going to perform when we evaluate them a year or two later, is one of the best indicators of success within the company was getting the worst possible score on one of your interviews. We rank people from one to four, and if you got a one on one of your interviews, that was a really good indicator of success.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (2, Informative)

Krahar (1655029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838274)

Here's another quote from Peter Norvig:

What do you know? Valleywag got everything wrong. Google is hiring, not laying off. Also, our interview scores actually correlate very well with on-the-job performance. Peter Seibel asked me if there was anything counterintuitive about the process and I said that people who got one low score but were hired anyway did well on-the-job. To me, that means the interview process is doing very well, not that it is broken. It means that we don't let one bad interview blackball a candidate. We'll keep interviewing, keep hiring, and keep analyzing the results to improve the process. And I guess Valleywag will keep doing what they do... - Peter Norvig from Bookmarklet

http://friendfeed.com/peternorvig/7a110005/google-broken-hiring-process-gawker?embed=1 [friendfeed.com]

Re:Ok, this is stupid (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837958)

and most important, IQ does not consider if they get stuff done.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838036)

It's a chinese company; they're still trying to figure some of this stuff out. Besides, with the number of applicants they have they can afford to be picky even beyound the 140 requirement.

I mean, here in the USA you'll get bad sorting processes as well.

Remember google's experience? Good performance in a job interview != good performance in the job.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838118)

IQ is not concerned with
- the candidate knows about the job
- the candidate has good (enough) people skills
- the candidate showers, shaves, etc

To understand computers, being able to think in abstract logic is far more important than your EQ so for an IT outsourcing company it's almost "knowing" your job. Now we'd all like perfect employees, but it's much, much easier to find someone to look good in a suit and talk nice to your customers than to find someone competent to do the work. It does not matter how good your "people skills" are, if you take a week to do what should have taken a day.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (2, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838124)

Google tests are (way) better than IQ, but guess what Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews.

Then maybe Google tests are not that good then. IQ tests show a correlation with income and with education level. Correlation is not causation, but if a company wants someone with good education, IQ is not such a bad instrument.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32838368)

I'm not sure if IQ tests themselves are permissible anymore in the U.S. as a part of a job interview.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838156)

Please do cite your sources on the Google tests. As a professional in psychometrics, I'd be very curious to know what evidence they provide for the efficacy of their tests. I'm also very curious as to what outcome they are looking for--e.g., most creative, but also compliant employees? Most loyal?

If their test looks like this: http://cruftbox.com/blog/archives/001031.html#001031 [cruftbox.com] , the psychometric reliability of a 20ish item test is probably not all that high.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (3, Insightful)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838190)

"Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews." [citation needed]

Re:Ok, this is stupid (3, Informative)

Eivind Eklund (5161) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838206)

IQ is highly overrated

In practice, it's almost useless...

Google tests are (way) better than IQ, but guess what Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews.

I'll quote [friendfeed.com] the original source of that claim, Peter Norvig, and his refuting of that interpretation:

What do you know? Valleywag got everything wrong. Google is hiring, not laying off. Also, our interview scores actually correlate very well with on-the-job performance. Peter Seibel asked me if there was anything counterintuitive about the process and I said that people who got one low score but were hired anyway did well on-the-job. To me, that means the interview process is doing very well, not that it is broken. It means that we don't let one bad interview blackball a candidate. We'll keep interviewing, keep hiring, and keep analyzing the results to improve the process. And I guess Valleywag will keep doing what they do...

(emphasis mine)

Eivind.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (3, Insightful)

Krahar (1655029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838256)

IQ is highly overrated

In practice, it's almost useless...

It's true that it's not all you need to do well. Citation needed on it being almost useless, in the same way that citation is needed on water not being wet.

Google tests are (way) better than IQ, but guess what Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews.

The best performers are those that were hired in spite of having a low score in one interview out of several. These are people that are so impressive for some reason or other that even a low score in an interview does not rule them out. Citation needed on Google tests being way better than just an IQ test - I only know that they are more laborious, not that they outperform 100 years of research into IQ. If they do I expect it's because they include either an actual IQ test or an IQ test by proxy such as riddles or hard subject-specific questions you can't just memorize ahead of time. In any case, citation needed.

IQ is not concerned with - the candidate knows about the job - the candidate has good (enough) people skills - the candidate showers, shaves, etc

... and yet IQ tests still predict performance very well in many jobs. It's both fantastic and fantastically politically unacceptable.

If you are up in arms about IQ, then just wait till you read about the general fitness factor. This is the first link I found on google: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ698164&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ698164 [ed.gov]

Re:Ok, this is stupid (1)

nnnnnnn (1611817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838276)

The Google tests in no way measured IQ. Here's some sample Google interview question

"How many golf balls can fit in a school bus?"
"How much should you charge to wash all the windows in Seattle?"
"How many piano tuners are there in the entire world?"

Those are not IQ questions. Please get your facts straight.

Re:Ok, this is stupid (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838310)

Guess they shouldn't bother and go straight here then http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html [kids-iq-tests.com]

Great source:

George W. Bush
IQ Score 125

*cough*Is that in octal?*caugh*

And other gems like Tarrantino == Stephen Hawking etc.
I am not saying IQ tests are accurate depictions of anything, but, come on...

Good news for us! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32838346)

"They're looking in the wrong place!" Indiana Jones

One of our competitive advantages is our ability to innovate. Chinese cultural and business practices tend to stamp out innovation. Grading applicants by IQ is an example of this.

Having more than the minimum qualifications for a job is no advantage and can be a disadvantage. People with high IQ or with advanced degrees do no better than those who just squeaked through their BSc.

I've read a bunch of papers that examine the correlation between job success and IQ or education. There is no correlation. The only predictor of success is interpersonal relationships. The guys hanging around the water cooler almost always did better than the genius with his nose stuck to the grindstone.

The latest writing to get me excited is an article about the Harvard Longitudinal Study of Adult Development and its current head, George Vaillant, in The Atlantic. link [theatlantic.com]

The study started in the 1940s with a group of Harvard students and still follows their lives. Vaillant has looked at the (very extensive) data from every angle. He is very clear that the only predictor of job status, satisfaction, marital status, wealth, social status or almost anything else, is relationships. IQ is no predictor of success.

It makes me very happy to hear that the Chinese are insisting on high IQs. That means they aren't taking the best employees away from America.

Misleading IQ label (1)

PIC16F628 (1815754) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837832)

This is just another entrance test to sort out candidates. It is not an "IQ" test unless we us the term "IQ" as a general test.

IQ isn't everything (2, Insightful)

TwiztidK (1723954) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837844)

Basing emplyment on IQ is pointless as it doesn't actually predict "real-world" performance. This is similar to college only accepting students with a score in the top 1% on the ACT/SAT - they can do well on a test, but that doesn't mean they are a good student.

Re:IQ isn't everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32838162)

If you would read the fucking article you would see that it doesn't get you hired, it is merely the first step.

Re:IQ isn't everything (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838244)

Any test is only going to test a narrow range of things. In the case of an IQ test it is similar to most academic tests in that it tests your logical-mathematical abilities (quantitative computation in particular) and often, depending on the form, your linguistic abilities. Doesn't tend to test much else. Now, while those are useful traits in many ways, there are others that are also useful. One would be interpersonal skills/intelligence. While many smart geek types, generally those with bad interpersonal skills, look down on it and say "That doesn't mean you are smart, it just means you know how to be social," that is not at all the case. Some people are incredibly gifted in that area, the can tell what others think and feel and handle their emotions. Likewise some are rather bad at it, like said geeks, and while they might pass it off as "I could if I wanted do," that's not true.

And of course IQ does not test any sort of actual concrete knowledge or skill. That isn't always necessary, many jobs aren't about accumulated knowledge and skill, but on the other hand many are. Also many are a mix. Tech support would be a good example. The most important thing is the ability to solve problems. You need to be able to logically work your way through an unfamiliar problem. Ok, fine. However especially at higher levels a large accumulated base of knowledge is important. To quickly solve problems you cannot be starting from scratch and researching everything. You need to be able to look at something, quickly categorize what it might be, draw up optimal ways of testing and so on. You rely on a large base of proper experience to do that well.

Tests are fine and all, but people need to keep a clear eye on what it is the test actually measures. No test measures everything. Figure out what it measures and how it does, and them make sure yo don't over apply it.

Your SAT analogy is a good one. The SAT is a very useful test in academics because it is a good predictor of academic success. The reason is it tests three things:

1) Your mathematics skills. Up about a precalc level, the test will determine pretty well how good you are at solving math problems of various types, and how far your math knowledge goes. Calc is where university math tends to peak in terms of starting classes, so that's useful. Most degrees require at least some math, and many of them you need to have a good grasp of precalc to start out in.

2) Your written linguistic skills. Reading comprehension, vocabulary, apparently writing now (I took my SAT long before the third section). If you do well it indicates you will be able to handle the kind of reading required in academics.

3) Most importantly, it tests your ability to analyze and take tests. Since academics is heavily about testing, your ability to do well at those tests is important. The SAT has patterns, rules, that can be analyzed and used to your favour if you are good at it. So, scoring highly also indicates you are good at tests and thus shouldn't have a problem with that part of university.

However beyond that? It has very little application. So it is useful for its primary purpose, but to try to apply it to other things would be a mistake.

Re:IQ isn't everything (3, Informative)

Krahar (1655029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838320)

Basing emplyment on IQ is pointless as it doesn't actually predict "real-world" performance.

Citation needed in the same way that citation is needed for water not being wet.

This is similar to college only accepting students with a score in the top 1% on the ACT/SAT - they can do well on a test, but that doesn't mean they are a good student.

That's true, though it also does not mean that they won't do well. It's a correlation - it doesn't automatically imply any specific outcome, just makes it more likely.

Countdown (-1, Redundant)

Robotron23 (832528) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837858)

Countdown to lengthy posts which refute and condemn the use of IQ in recruiting and/or in general...

In 5...4...

Re:Countdown (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837932)

"Countdown to lengthy posts by people with low scores which refute and condemn the use of IQ in recruiting and/or in general..."

  -- FTFY

Re:Countdown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837952)

Because it's true. IQ is an interesting measure but research into correlation with ability to perform at certain jobs is appropriately lacking.

I'm fairly surprised China would do something like this. You'd expect it from management-consultant-obsessed America or northern Europe where everything has so many irrelevant levels of indirection, measurement and arbitrary targeting that no-one actually produces anything. But I'd seen China as interested in people who could get the job done. Perhaps this is an aberration.

Re:Countdown (1)

Krahar (1655029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838342)

IQ is an interesting measure but research into correlation with ability to perform at certain jobs is appropriately lacking.

What makes you believe this? IQ research has been ongoing for 100 years.

Probably done by people with a higher IQ than you (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838116)

Or at least the ability to write more interesting and useful posts. Seriously, what is with shit like this and why does it get moderated up? Are you trying to make a statement of some kind? Then make it, don't sit there and be obtuse about it. Or are you just trying to make yourself appear smart by "predicting" something that is quite obvious?

Seriously, this is worthless. You have something to say on using IQ tests, say it. Don't try and be obtuse as though that somehow makes your post more interesting.

125 IQ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837864)

What a bunch of maroons!!

rent smart white people (2, Interesting)

Darth Sdlavrot (1614139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837866)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/29/china.rent.white.people/index.html [cnn.com]

What's next -- tall, smart, white people?

blond, slender, blue eyes, and so on.

Re:rent smart white people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837934)

I really wouldn't mind. But then I have a 134 IQ and I'm tall, blonde, blue-eyed and fairly skinny.

Re:rent smart white people (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838196)

IQ is correlated with height from what I've heard.

I pass the IQ test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837868)

I pass the IQ test ... but I'm not white :(

URL (2, Funny)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837872)

Wait, they didn't give the link to the test for instant IQ verification...

Re:URL (1)

CTalkobt (81900) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838226)

Wait, they didn't give the link to the test for instant IQ verification...

http://127.0.0.1/ [127.0.0.1] is it... Let me know if you can connect - I think it got slashdotted.

Re:URL (1)

th3rmite (938737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838326)

Hey man, that link keeps saying "Unable to connect"

outsource to myself? (1)

AffidavitDonda (1736752) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837874)

So they hire people in the US to outsource work from the US? I always thought outsourcing works, because people in China (or wherever) get paid less than in the countries the work comes from. To bad the article doesn't state, how much they pay...

Re:outsource to myself? (2, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837896)

Because cost of living is much lower in China than in, say, Silicon Valley, American employees working there can still be paid less than if they were based in the US.

Search for Intelligent Americans. (3, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837886)

Maybe the CIA and SETI should merge.
S.I.A.

CYA

Someone's hiring smartly! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837888)

The usual notion in the US is that US workers are more innovative, smart, and are worth significantly more than workers in other countries. Slashdotters constantly seem to think that a $80K developer in the US is much better the $10K developer in India for example. This is especially surprising because the average slashdotter is doing the same crap that the average developer in India is doing.

In some cases (where IQ's much higher), the worker may come up with solutions radically faster. But otherwise, it is all incremental. Hence it makes sense to link pay to IQ (at the start) and pay to IQ and results as time passes.

This is also true in other fields, banking, medicine etc. Hopefully, the internet will help reduce the disparity in wages.

Re:Someone's hiring smartly! (1)

twoshortplanks (124523) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838052)

Slashdotters constantly seem to think that a $80K developer in the US is much better the $10K developer in India

I think most slashdotters actually think that that a $80K local developer is much better the $10K developer in place with different time zone outside of the normal management chain and support system.

I personally suspect (though I admit that I have no evidence to back it up) that projects originating in India oprobably are equally good as those originating in the US.

Re:Someone's hiring smartly! (4, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838180)

This is especially surprising because the average slashdotter is doing the same crap that the average developer in India is doing.

Everything built today is short-term throw-away crap, often because the cultural, organisational, specification and documentation requirements won't translate (and the people involved in outsourcing don't care anyway).

Try discussing a real-world requirement with a well-spoken Englishman who has lived in the same area as you and experienced the same social and workplace culture and worked with you in the company on similar projects, then try communicating it to a man living in India who has experienced none of the above. Sit down with that man in a quiet room and prepare, say, an API together; now do the same with Bob from Bangalore over MSN. If you don't experience /any/ barrier then your need is so simple you'd be better off spending the next hour fulfilling it yourself.

Outsourcing is often used because the guy who got the bonus from apparently saving money in the short term knows that he'll be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan. Sometimes it works really well, but just as often it's a cruel joke. Its essential premise is: let's move work to an area with a greater supply of desperate workers and fewer workers protections because that'd be cheaper. It assumes that saving, say, $500,000 on the salary line of the budget for some project is not going to be offset by the disadvantages of not having someone with a local understanding. Communication takes longer, requests are more likely to be misinterpreted, there is no link between robustness of output and long-term advancement of the worker so his code is likely to suffer worse engineering practice, etc.

In some cases (where IQ's much higher), the worker may come up with solutions radically faster.

Or mull around over-engineering. Or not make much difference because the IQ test didn't identify skills applicable to the problem.

Hence it makes sense to link pay to IQ (at the start) and pay to IQ and results as time passes.

Why don't we link pay to colour? And any other number of immutable measures of an individual which have some correlation with intellectual performance.

Article missing it's mark (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837890)

I think the article missed the reason they are hiring US people. "To speak English"

They aren't hiring people from the US to do CS jobs, they are hiring them to train their mainland China employees on how to communicate in English on the specific topic (computer science) that otherwise would be completely lost on regular "GREAT ENGLISH JOBS IN CHINA TESOL" type of people who may know English but know little about computer science.

Re:Article missing it's mark (2, Insightful)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838056)

I think the article missed the reason they are hiring US people. "To speak English"

They aren't hiring people from the US to do CS jobs, they are hiring them to train their mainland China employees on how to communicate in English on the specific topic (computer science) that otherwise would be completely lost on regular "GREAT ENGLISH JOBS IN CHINA TESOL" type of people who may know English but know little about computer science.

That's surprising because I would think that there are far more English-speaking Chinese, than Mandarin (or whatever)-speaking Americans.

Re:Article missing it's mark (2, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838200)

Just because there are more English-speaking Chinese does not mean there are more highly fluent English-speaking Chinese with specialization in CS.

Re:Article missing it's mark (3, Interesting)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838146)

Teachers in the UK are being hired in China to teach Chinese students English. It doesn't matter what they teach over here; Science, Religion, History, Maths... If they can speak English and have a PGCE, they can go to China and earn a Western wage teaching English in a Chinese school.

To give you an idea of why the "Western" part of that sentence is important, a teacher in the UK will be on £25,000 per year on average. The Chinese average wage is roughly £5200 per year. You'll be earning 5 x a regular person, while paying Chinese prices for consumer goods and services.

Now that we know how they measure us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32837950)

How about they provide us with the entry salary so we in turn know how to measure them?

Not fully thought out plan. (-1, Troll)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837962)

It would seem to me, that anybody from Western Cultures that has an IQ over 100 would not want to live/work in a country like China because of its history of Human Rights violations and general intolerance for anti-state viewpoints.

If you are dumb enough not to know better I understand, but an intelligent person can surely see past the paycheck.

Re:Not fully thought out plan. (1)

BangaIorean (1848966) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838034)

Intelligence != General Knowledge and awareness

Re:Not fully thought out plan. (1)

alexhard (778254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838040)

By the same principle, no person with an IQ over 100 would be willing to work in the United States, which is obviously not true. Maybe you overestimate the prevalence of humanists..

Re:Not fully thought out plan. (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838064)

If you are dumb enough not to know better I understand, but an intelligent person can surely see past the paycheck.

Or maybe they're smart enough to realize that as long as they follow the rules they'll be fine and don't care about the human rights violations otherwise?

Or perhaps they're hoping to do their own little bit to change the way things work by actually going there. See the issues for themselves, while earning a paycheck so they don't screw up their finances or have to do the tourist thing.

Smart doesn't automatically equal ethical, or even 'progressive'.

Re:Not fully thought out plan. (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838352)

It would seem to me, that anybody from Western Cultures that has an IQ over 100 would not want to live/work in a country like China because of its history of Human Rights violations and general intolerance for anti-state viewpoints.

If you are dumb enough not to know better I understand, but an intelligent person can surely see past the paycheck.

Why do you assume that all intelligent people are against human rights violations? The existence of the Evil Genius is at least credible. High IQ doesn't automatically make you a nice person.

the cult of the iq test (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32837978)

the iq test tests very narrow ranges of iq, such as topological intelligence, the ability to manipulate 3D shapes in your head

but it has zero ability to measure something like social intelligence, the ability to manipulate people

i don't know that the ability to play 12 games of chess at the same time in your head is as valuable as the bedrock ability to communicate well, especially in the realm of business. the iq test certainly has its uses, but i think people ascribe way too much significance to it when determining someone's worth. someone with a very high traditional iq score can be quite useless in a business sense. the idea of something being useful is a relative term of course: you can be quite useful to an asocial pursuit that could very well be important to mankind in abstract ways with a traditional high iq

however, in your average business environment, the ability to simply and effectively communicate is a basic need, and pretty much trumps every other area of intelligence, since a business is nothing more than an efficient social organization. the more efficient a business is socially, the more efficient a business is economically, all else being equal. someone who gets well below 100 on a traditional iq test can be quite charismatic, persuasive, and capable of leading people. while someone who scores well above 100 on a traditional iq test can be unresponsive, aloof, distant, and confusing. so for the specific case of a business environment, a high traditional iq would seem not very useful at all

the ability to lead people is perhaps the most important iq of all possible areas of human intelligence, especially in business, but there is no test for it

Re:the cult of the iq test (2, Funny)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838228)

"but it has zero ability to measure something like social intelligence, the ability to manipulate people" -- that's what low IQ people say, they are full of social intelligence and are good at manipulating people, they usually end up working in HR.

'most popular' storIEs, emailed etc...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32838014)

so you don't have to even decide what 'stuff that matters' really is. we've never seen reality so far distanced/invisible from the mainstream media(hhaha). just as well, some of it (reality) may be upsetting, possibly interfering with our randoidian lazyisfair mindset(up).

the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

let creation of a new nigger begin (-1, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838018)

It has not escaped any youth's notice that certain races were once regarded as inherently intellectually inferior. Today we know this to be bullshit. But people were measured by their colour, and judged by their colour, and treated by their colour, and restricted by their colour. And all because they were born with a particular colour.

Now a new measurement grows: the IQ. People with low IQ are regarded as inherently intellectually inferior. People are measured by their IQ, and judged by their IQ, and treated by their IQ. Ultimately, they are restricted by their IQ. And all because they were born with a particular IQ.

In a century's time, the last vestiges of division by race may disappear in the West. We'll be divided instead by new irrelevant metrics which we have no hope of changing.

Then, in another century's time, we might realise that our measurements were not only cruel but also specious, and start over.

So, who's next?

Re:let creation of a new nigger begin (1)

GottMitUns (1012191) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838132)

What nonsense! Races will never disappear. There are blacks, whites and yellow. It's a fact. There are stupid people and smart people. It's a fact. Live with it.

Re:let creation of a new nigger begin (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838278)

Races will never disappear.

Erm, okay. I assume you misinterpreted "division by race" rather obtusely as "existence of races" rather than discrimination due to race. But you're fairly wrong anyway: we're interbreeding more than ever; to the extent that distinct races can be defined, they're disappearing.

There are stupid people and smart people. It's a fact.

The error is fixing people on a line, or fixing people in any way by some small set of parameters. There's nothing wrong with asserting, say, "my daughter has severe mental retardation" (which is another way of saying "my daughter is stupid") or "Feynman, despite his low IQ score, was smart".

0/2. And simplistic attitudes as you've expressed emphasise the danger.

Re:let creation of a new nigger begin (2, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838318)

Maybe not so new [independent.co.uk] , the old ones will still be in the same place.

What a load of crap (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838082)

IQ is not a measure of ability. Period.

The higher IQ scores in China just show that Chinese are better test-takers, nothing more.

Affirmative action (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838110)

yay!

psychometrics and testing for employment (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838112)

As a psychometrician, I can only say that any mental measurement professional would certainly argue that a single measurement is rarely enough evidence to make a high stakes decision. That is the reason that most college admissions are based on multiple criteria (e.g., weighted grades based on your school, etc.). For hiring decisions, it's probably safe to assume that most employers use certain minimum criteria for a large pool of applicants, but other factors such as experience (past performance), references and personal interview(s) are used to cull that pool further.

Relax, it's just an marketing move. (1, Flamebait)

jbssm (961115) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838140)

Naa, it's just an marketing move, they know those 2 conditions are impossible to conciliate: US citizen and IQ over 125 ... pleeeese.

IQ Test for the Submitter (1)

smack.addict (116174) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838182)

Country A has a population of x.

Country B has a population of x*4.

Which country will have a larger pool of job applicants with an IQ above 140?

Awesome (1)

th3rmite (938737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838212)

My IQ is 126, which makes me happy to be a part of the new overlords! Bow down before me you inferior clods!

Smart enough to cheat and steal (2, Interesting)

Bayoudegradeable (1003768) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838230)

Is your IQ over 125? Good! You have shown sufficient intelligence that can help you pilfer company secrets, embezzle funds, lie to us about why you missed work, lie to us about what you did with your expense account and in general cause us trouble because you are so darned smart! IQ will never measure - character, honesty, motivation, drive, creativity and countless other attributes.

Re:Smart enough to cheat and steal (5, Funny)

th3rmite (938737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838292)

Hey, don't blame me because I figured out the system!

Finally! (3, Funny)

mdarksbane (587589) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838262)

Affirmative action for white dudes! Where can I sign up?

US has a smaller pool... (1)

Silly Man (15712) | more than 4 years ago | (#32838302)

I suspect that the number of US applicants is smaller because: a much smaller percentage of US citizens want to work in Shanghai than Chinese nationals. Given that they lowered the qualifying score for Americans means they want Americans. Sorta says something positive about Americans in general.

Wh.. wha.. what is IQ? :D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32838358)

:)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?