Anyone have an iq less than 100?

[Anonymous]

Some of you are just too funny! More often someone that has a very IQ is probably deficient in other critical areas. It's no guarantee of success in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of my students have IQs in the 70s and low 80s yet they don’t qualify for IEPs even though they struggle.

Because that's not how IEPs work. They must show a processing deficit or a discrepancy in a specific area.

Oh I know! Every year, these same students are brought up to SST but there is nothing we can do for them. They are not making the expected progress because they are working to their potential. Most of them seem slow to very slow. I feel bad for them. It often runs in their families especially along the female/male divide. We just got testing done for a student and her IQ scores were just as low as her sister. Their brother seems to have an average IQ because he learns at an average rate. The two girls don't qualify for an IEP though. They are working to their potential but God forbid anyone brings that up at these meetings. Why test them if we aren't going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. They just aren't that bright. They are very nice kids though so I'll take them over some entitled, rude students in my class who are smarter.

Really? In my experience sitting in on IEPs, that does get mentioned - that the kid scores too low for an IEP. What criteria are they using at your school to deny ieps if they aren't saying that the kids are scoring too low to qualify?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would guess that my DD's very lovely preschool teachers probably have IQs right around 100. They are very good preschool teachers, but it's a profession where EQ is much more important than IQ.

Jesus Christ. Way to insult early childhood educators. I teach Pre-Kindergarten, have a Masters degree in ECE, and have an IQ of 120. Please don't make assumptions about people who teach young children. It's this prevailing view that keeps the pay for most of us criminally low.

Why is having an IQ around 100 an insult? And I didn't suggest that every PK teacher in the world has a low IQ, I said that I would guess that my DD's do. I have specific reasons why I believe that. I also believe they are great PK teachers. I think perhaps you are embarrassed about your current circumstances to read into my statement as much as you did.

We all know why an iq around 100 is an insult. Look at all these posters stating that there iq is well over 100 (although that's not what the question asked) and only one person stated that they had an iq of 97.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of my students have IQs in the 70s and low 80s yet they don’t qualify for IEPs even though they struggle.

Because that's not how IEPs work. They must show a processing deficit or a discrepancy in a specific area.

Oh I know! Every year, these same students are brought up to SST but there is nothing we can do for them. They are not making the expected progress because they are working to their potential. Most of them seem slow to very slow. I feel bad for them. It often runs in their families especially along the female/male divide. We just got testing done for a student and her IQ scores were just as low as her sister. Their brother seems to have an average IQ because he learns at an average rate. The two girls don't qualify for an IEP though. They are working to their potential but God forbid anyone brings that up at these meetings. Why test them if we aren't going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. They just aren't that bright. They are very nice kids though so I'll take them over some entitled, rude students in my class who are smarter.

Really? In my experience sitting in on IEPs, that does get mentioned - that the kid scores too low for an IEP. What criteria are they using at your school to deny ieps if they aren't saying that the kids are scoring too low to qualify?

I meant in meetings that are held after the student is denied an IEP. In the following years, these students still struggle and when their IQ is brought up from testing, that is quickly shot down as if it doesn’t matter. Obviously it does matter.

[Anonymous]

My son’s IQ was measured repeatedly at about 103 (he received special ed services since he was a toddler due to multiple issues.)
He still graduated from college, drives a car, lives independently. It’s ok that not everyone is an academic superstar. We still need worker bees!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son’s IQ was measured repeatedly at about 103 (he received special ed services since he was a toddler due to multiple issues.)
He still graduated from college, drives a car, lives independently. It’s ok that not everyone is an academic superstar. We still need worker bees!

this is my DS. He's a sophomore, and we're now starting to think about college options. if I may ask, did he got straight into a 4 year university? Did he find adequate support at his college? this is something that gives me tremendous anxiety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is an idea of IQ and jobs. Plenty of great jobs with IQ <100.

The problem is that most of those low IQ jobs will be executed by AI powered robots in 10 years....what do those people do then? It’s going to be a real problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son’s IQ was measured repeatedly at about 103 (he received special ed services since he was a toddler due to multiple issues.)
He still graduated from college, drives a car, lives independently. It’s ok that not everyone is an academic superstar. We still need worker bees!

This is awesome. What does he do for a living?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being bilingual boosts your iq. The constant switching between languages and cultural know how
It is a pity esol classes and high esol schools have so little resources

That's not actually true. People used to believe that, but it hasn't been borne out by research.

Yes, it has
Along with the evidence that IQ is fluid. It cannot be accurately measured at 6 or 12

https://scienceline.org/2014/07/are-bilinguals-really-smarter/

https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/does-being-bilingual-make-you-smarter

Quote from second: "So, does this make you smarter if you are bilingual? I’m afraid not. I don't know any study that shows a link between bilingualism and such concepts as executive intelligence, emotional intelligence or intelligence quotient."


I agree that testing IQ at 6 isn't super useful; scores at that age can absolutely be strongly influenced by the environment. By 12 they're much more stable and by early adulthood they're pretty much fixed. IQ also becomes more heritable as you get older. That's why promising gains in IQ from early interventions always fade out.

More heritable?
Does that mean that ordinary people can only have an ordinary child?
Sorry, super smart people can have an ordinary child and ordinary people a smart kid.
You sound like you are suggesting people could evolve into superior beings

Bilinguals show enhanced executive control, a quality linked to better academic performance.
In America bilinguals tend to be poor, and the school system is set up to benefit one small section of society. But elsewhere where these restrictions are not in place, you can see the results.

Of course intelligence is heritable. It's absurd to think otherwise. Very smart people tend to have smart kids, but generally not as smart as they are. Stupid people tend to have stupid kids, but not as stupid as they are. It's regression to the mean. Bilinguals do show better executive control on average as well as smaller vocabularies in each language. There are advantages to being bilingual, but it doesn't make you smarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of my students have IQs in the 70s and low 80s yet they don’t qualify for IEPs even though they struggle.

Because that's not how IEPs work. They must show a processing deficit or a discrepancy in a specific area.

Oh I know! Every year, these same students are brought up to SST but there is nothing we can do for them. They are not making the expected progress because they are working to their potential. Most of them seem slow to very slow. I feel bad for them. It often runs in their families especially along the female/male divide. We just got testing done for a student and her IQ scores were just as low as her sister. Their brother seems to have an average IQ because he learns at an average rate. The two girls don't qualify for an IEP though. They are working to their potential but God forbid anyone brings that up at these meetings. Why test them if we aren't going to acknowledge the elephant in the room. They just aren't that bright. They are very nice kids though so I'll take them over some entitled, rude students in my class who are smarter.

Really? In my experience sitting in on IEPs, that does get mentioned - that the kid scores too low for an IEP. What criteria are they using at your school to deny ieps if they aren't saying that the kids are scoring too low to qualify?

Np

They aren't scoring low enough for an IEP based on IQ. ID is defined as an IQ below 70. Above 70 and some other disability or condition would be required for an IEP. Some might qualify under OHI, but overall, a lot of kids in the 70 - 85 range aren't well served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is an idea of IQ and jobs. Plenty of great jobs with IQ <100.

The problem is that most of those low IQ jobs will be executed by AI powered robots in 10 years....what do those people do then? It’s going to be a real problem.

It looks like a lot of those jobs aren't automatable. Truck drivers, sure. Plumbers, probably not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is an idea of IQ and jobs. Plenty of great jobs with IQ <100.

The problem is that most of those low IQ jobs will be executed by AI powered robots in 10 years....what do those people do then? It’s going to be a real problem.

It looks like a lot of those jobs aren't automatable. Truck drivers, sure. Plumbers, probably not.

I think, based on what I’m reading recently, that trucking won’t go “full automation” the way we think of automation right away. What will happen at first is that the trucks will be fully automated but there will be a control center where people can remote control them as needed. Basically the trucks will autonomous trucks that turn into drones if human attention is needed. It will be a more skilled job so only the very best would have these positions and they’d propbably pay 2-3x as much but each human would still replace many drivers. Probably 20 jobs will be lost for each created. It’s still a good deal because the remaining drivers get better pay, a healthier lifestyle, and get to go home to the family at night. I’m sure as autonomous trucks improve over the years the control centers will have fewer and fewer people.