A meta-analysis reveals that the average IQ of undergraduate students today is 102, only slightly above the general population's average of 100. This finding, driven by increased university enrollment and the Flynn effect, has significant implications for educational standards, professional assessments, and societal perceptions of higher education.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
Main finding is that the average IQ of
undergraduate students today is 102
which is only slightly above the general population.
Today's guest is Dr. Bob Uddle who is a
cognitive psychologist and professor at
Mount Royal University in Canada. Thank
you so much Bob for joining us today.
>> Thank you for inviting me. Bob, I
discovered you from your metaanalysis
which is called on average undergraduate
students intelligence is merely average
which this meta analysis came out last
year in 2024.
And I guess you could say that the main
finding is that the average IQ of
undergraduate students today is 102
which is only slightly above the general
population of average IQ at 100. Can you
summarize your research paper and talk
about some of the other findings, how
you came to this conclusion and just
give us the bigger overview of this of
this study. Okay, I will start first
with some basic facts about IQ which
which some people might not sort of
realize. Most people have probably seen
something like bell curve and so bell
curve shows you distribution of IQ's but
it also shows you distribution of almost
anything which you measure about people.
Some people have a longer hair, some
people have a shorter hair but on the
average they have certain hair lengths,
right? And most people are sort of in
the middle and then towards both ends
there's fewer and fewer people.
And um in terms of IQ, how do you
measure IQ? Right? You can measure it by
all sorts different tests. There's many
IQ tests. One of the most common one is
so-called vexler adult intelligence
scale. Uh first version of that was
designed in 1939.
And what you do on IQ test is you give
people a bunch of tasks. It could be as
simple as uh taking
taking
100 random words from dictionary
and then asking people to define each
word. If they define it correctly, they
get one point. If they don't, they get
zero points. Then you summarize how many
points everybody got. And let's say that
on average they will get 60 points. So
there's going to be the average of the task
task
um 60 words and then there's going to be
some standard deviation around it and
once you have this data you can
transform that into so-called IQ point
scale and that IQ point scale or IQ's
are standardized to the mean of 100
and the standard deviation of 15
and you can take any kind of task and
standardize it to that type of scale.
And when you do this in the 19 let's say
40s with the first vexel test
people standardized it to the 100 15 uh
standard deviation and then later on
people found out that
subsequent generations of people people
who were born later
can do
higher number of tasks. on these
intelligence tests.
So if there was let's say some test with
20 puzzles in 1940s
people would solve let's say this is
fiction fictitious data uh five puzzles
but people in 2020
can do 15 puzzles
and so we restandardize the tests IQ
test every so often
and so if we take these give these
puzzles to bunch of people they do some
you know 15 we standardize it to IQ 100
and standard deviation 15. So again mean
IQ in 2020 for the population is 100
but those people can do many more
puzzles than those people in 1940.
This is called Flynn effect right
general rise in intelligence raw ability
over last century basically.
So what happened between 1940 and let's
say 2010 or 2020 whatever it is a raw
ability of a general population meaning
everybody in the population has increased
increased by.3
by.3
IQ points per year.
So that makes it about you know between 1940
1940
60 70 85 years multiplied by.3
uh that gives you about um what
24 IQ points something like that right
one explanation
for that increase in our ability
is a massive increase in education
ational attainment.
20% of people let's say approximately
finish high school. Today it's more than 90%.
90%.
In 1940s 4% finished university. Today
it's 40% or more and bunch of people
actually continue you know don't get
quite four years university degree may
get a three years degree. And so when
you add those it's about 70%.
So you can think of IQ
being standardized for current population
population
but it has ability has increased over 8
years. One driving force was the
increase in educational attainment
and because people who have university
degrees have become larger and larger
Average IQ of those people with
university degrees must have gone down.
It's a mathematical necessity. It cannot
be in any other way. Once everybody has
a university degree,
everybody in a population, if that ever happens,
happens,
then of course mean IQ of the population
will be mean IQ of all the people with
university degrees.
Sometimes people with PhD have a hard
time to understand this concept and
that's in fact what happened to our
paper because uh it was uh basically
they accept it because people thought
that that I don't know what they thought
but that's basically what happened. So
the decrease
in average IQ of university students
is a necessary consequence of increased
enrollment in the universities over the
last 80 years or whatever you want to
sort of count it right
but what is important to remember is
that today's university population is
theoretically still more capable than
that university population in 1940s
because Flynn effect says it increased by.3
by.3
um we found about 2 per year decrease in
university so they are still a bit more
able in terms of ability
ability
if that makes sense. Yeah, it makes
sense because basically what you're
saying is that every few years that test
is essentially reconfigured back to an
average. So an average 50 years ago to
now it's still just reconfigured for the
general population. Even though in 1940,
if you were to not reconfigure it, the
average IQ now would be like 124 verse
the 1940 that you're referencing.
>> Exactly. Yeah.
>> This research paper, this metaanalysis
that we're discussing today, on average
undergraduate students intelligence is
merely average, which is the the title.
So this was accepted in Frontiers which
is a peer-reviewed journal I think that
specializes in psychology or at least
that was uh what this was this was going
under. So it was accepted and then it
turns out there was a lot of Twitter
push back and then like a month later
they then pulled it from being accepted.
But it seems like they they really
did they not read the paper then because
they're somehow getting offended for
reasons that you didn't say. At least
that's kind of what I'm gathering.
>> Yeah, it's a it's a completely um you
know I have never never heard of that
ever happening. Right. So the paper went
through peer review. It was
peer-reviewed by four people. It was
accepted by um uh chief associate editor
at Frenchers for psychology and um you
know once the paper's accepted they type
set it and they send you a copy proof.
So they send me copy proofs I fix the
copy proofs and furniture has one
interesting feature which which uh most
journals uh don't do. Once the paper's
accepted, they post the abstract on
their web page
and abstract of course is you know I
don't know how long that website was but
let's say 300 words right it basically
tells you what the problem is rationale
what was the method what were the
findings and it and some kind of a
conclusions implications right
so that was posted publicly on
furnitureures and within like a week or
whatever it was it had like 50,000 views
and 2,000 and plus u posts on X and it
basically went viral right then I'm
sitting at the computer and suddenly
email arrives from Franchesur and you
know it does this kind of a standard
accept and rejection thing and you know
basically informed me that the paper was
uh rejected
and I was like what you know like what
is this right so I simply replied and
said well I'm sorry but you must be
And then it turned out and it took you
know lots of emailing including emailing
this with Francher's head office about
what happened and they never they never
disclosed what actually happened except
that um there were quote several posts unquote
unquote
on quote X unquote that somehow were
brought to the French's attention and as
a result of that chief associate not not
chief associate that chief uh editor
right uh section of the cognitive
science section or whatever it was uh
decided to pull it.
So it was not the associate chief editor
who accepted it but one editor above
that right
and uh I got this uh you know email
about what were the problems with the
paper and I said well you know I applied
to every single one uh they didn't
reverse themselves they basically
refused right and so then you know I
went public with it I put it on my blog
and two stories about the whole thing
and then I posted as a preprint
immediately right and then we went to a
different journal got it peer reviewed
one more time and now it's um published
but it was something unheard of at the
time right I understand that it actually
has happened a few times before except I
have I have never heard about it
>> how long have you been studying IQ and
what motivated you to do this research
>> I haven't been studying IQ like IQ IQ
but I'm a cognitive psychologist and I
have um uh lots of sort of expertise in
research methods and psychometrics. I
also teach it right and um uh I
published some some papers on uh rising
IQ on verbal tests sometimes in 2000 and
so on and a bunch of other things on assessment.
assessment.
But one motivation for this paper was
that I sort of found out that clinical psychologist
psychologist
routinely use
uh old test. Right? Okay. So today you
may go to psychologist let's say for
um vocational assessment
or god forbid you know for uh fitness
for duty assessment and the psychologist
will give you ways four IQ test which
was standardized in 2008
and then because there are no data on
how people in different occupations are
doing no current data Huh? They dug out
data from 1940s
on white enlisted men enrolled in US
army at the time of second world war.
And of course those people were were
assessed with test standardized in 1939. Right.
Right.
Uh and then they pulled out another test
um uh base in fact from 1955
to which bunch of occupations were
standardized to. Right? And um when you
make that comparison, when you take the
IQ from 2008 test
and compare it to some mean IQ of some
workers in 1939,
you shaved off
20 or more IQ points from the person,
right? You instantly make them look
mentally challenged
even though they are not. It's a
psychologist who has a little bit of a
problem, right? And so then I was
looking into it and u I of course found
out that all these te texts which
psychologists use are repeating this
myth that uh undergraduate students are
smart right 1530
because if you if you show up uh uh to
to the vocational psychologist then
psychologists also add and or think that
you should have IQ of 115
and when they find out that you know
your IQ is 105
they will somehow think that you somehow
lost some IQ points even though that
they are forgetting that you know in university
university
IQ's also normally distributed so if it
was 115 as it was in 1939 or 1940
well plus minus 2 * 15 IQ points those
are the people in the university right
so when the IQ in university was 120
you could still see students with 90 IQ.
Today you see students with IQ 70 or
because average is the average but
there's a huge variation around it. And
so uh if for example you go to that
vocational psychologist and you know
your vocation theoretically requires um
requires um university degrees and the
then the psychologists assume that you
should have 115 or 120 IQ points and if
they measure 90 they think that you
suffered some brain damage
even though that's complete nonsense
right and so then I looked into um
published scientific research and what
happens is that uh when uh ways uh
various versions of ways uh the vexel
adult intelligence scale are published
publisher typically or at least so far never
never
Some other people analyze those
standardization samples. So publisher
allow them to study the standardization
samples and they actually publish the
IQs on the standardization samples
by education.
And so uh first test this was done for
was um we actually have this figure in a
paper. It's a figure three right where
you can see how people uh uh with
different uh education namely having 13
to 15 years of education meaning some
college but not quite university degree
and people with 16 years of education
who had university degrees. what
happened to it across three versions of
uh base. I'm not aware of a data for
vase in 1955.
I'm also not aware for data for uh the
first version of vase which was um um
published in 1939. Right? uh but first
data analysis was done for w and at that
time 1981
that's when that was published the mean
um in 1997 they published way 3 new
revision and the mean IQ was 111.6 six
2008 they published race 4 and the mean
was 107.4
of the graduates okay now for those
people who were in college but did not
graduate the base R in 1981 was 107 mean 107.4
107.4
uh 1997 for way 3 it was 103.6 six and
base 4 standardized 2008
it was only 101.4.
So there was a decline even for those
people who got some college but did not
graduate. Right? And this the
standardization samples data include
everybody meaning any adult you know
from like 17 all the way to I don't know
85 or something like that right and so
those adults of course got a different
educations too because those people who
are today 85
well they probably you know going to for
them to have a university degree was an
exception whereas for those who are
today 20 that's normal. almost right.
So we decided okay let's let's do the
independent study on this and we did the
meta analysis and what we basically did
was searching for the article articles
in scientific journals which for some
reason reported average waste IQ
right and people report it because they
want to describe their samples or
because they are studying ways for some
reason for different reasons and then
you can tabulate those way IQs by of
publication as a proxy for the year of
assessment. And if you actually have a
year of assessment, then you replace the
uh publication by the year of
assessment. It's your estimate. And what
we found was that yes, it went from
something like 118 in um Pacifica 9,
right? That it went from 118 about to
down to 102. So it's an independent
verification of what has happened to the
IQ of anticardia students. What would
you say are the main implications of
this finding if the average IQ of a
college graduate with a bachelor's
degree is 102?
The question would mean there's m many
questions but like what does this mean
at the university level? What does it
mean once you have the degree as someone
that wrote this study? What were your
biggest implications for say society as
a whole? So we discussed six
implications in a paper as I said I went
into it more from that uh sort of you
know how is this IQ used by clinical
psychologist right um and of course if
clinical psychologist use 80 years old
data to compare you two that's just just
that's just crazy right I I I I can't um
I don't know how I would describe it. I
probably would how to use few swear
words. Uh but
but um you know one implication is of
course that um today
in the university you are no longer
teaching as a professor some selected
group of students. Moreover, because
that uh that enrollment in the
university increased so much, you are
also teaching much uh a group of
students with much wider IQs.
1940s your lowest kind of person in
there might have had a IQ 90.
Today we are down to 70 or below. Right?
So we are teaching the span of you know
60 IQ points or more than that right and um
um
that of course uh implies that you have
to change what you actually teach
and it implies that you have to teach
um to the lower portion of that
population. Right? one way or the other
um you will not be able to teach to
everybody at the same time unless you
are teaching to the lower portion but
the higher a higher ability people will
be somewhat bored right
one thing which is related to this is
that in many universities probably the
majority of the universities uh
professors are evaluated by so-called
student evolution of teaching meaning at
the end of the term term uh students
students
give you some sort of evaluation some
sort of rating scales
and we know that those evolutions are
basically measures of satisfaction
and the question is you know will you be
really satisfied if I give you f
probably not so
there's a related concept over the last
80 years that Um
it used to be the case
45 years ago right that average grade in
the university was C.
In fact almost every calendar which you
open today will still tell you that C is
a B is above average grade. But that's
not true. data after data show that you
know we are inflated up to a and
probably your most common grade is some
kind of a a range today right
and uh that's a natural consequence of
of these pressures right so if you if
you are evaluated as a professor uh by
student students and that's a student
satisfaction that should not teach an
effectiveness meaning that should not
you know students don't learn more from
the professors with higher SATs
I published a paper on that too by the
way. So um so that's one huge
implication right one one thing is
standards went down.
Another data show us that uh students
study less. They used to study three you
know for every hour in class they study
two to three hours outside of a class.
Today they barely study an hour. Right?
So that went down. So grades don't
reflect uh you know ability anymore
because it's just yeah they they are not
set to that sort of average C kind of
standard right
and that of course you can look at the
implication for the employers employers
used to use undergraduate degree as some
kind of an indicator of your above
average ability
and of course that's not true today.
Today having university degrees no
longer signals that you are higher
ability because the average IQ is
somewhere around under two. So many
employers basically stopped requiring
university degrees and instead they have
some kind of assessment of their own.
One of the interesting part is that even
government of Canada, one of the biggest
employers in Canada,
allows you to replace university degree
by I think about 90 multiplechoice
question IQ test and if you get about 60
you are good. It's a bonus university degree.
degree.
When you when you look at it that way
then it says well uh nobody expects
anybody to learn anything in the
university. So I may just as well give
you just multiple choice test on your IQ
Um the third implication we talk about
is that when you are heading to the university
university
you cannot expect that you will be part
of some sort of exclusive club
that you will learn something which
other people won't because it's no
longer exclusive.
Fourth implication is that all this misinformation
misinformation
in scientific literature needs to be corrected
corrected
and needs to be corrected pronto right
because it has a massive implication for
causing harm to examinees in clinical
settings where people get wrong
diagnosis they are referred for disability
disability
etc even though they are not disabled
right and uh you know in a disability
situation if you are clinical
psychologist and you use these
uh you know you compare 2008 IQ
straight to 1939
standardized test of white enlisted man
in US army then you shaved off those 20
plus IQ points from the person and if
it's a if it's a university educated
person and you assume that they should
have 115 then you you know you dump them
even more right and if a person is
actually asking to be adjudicated ated
as disabled and therefore eligible for
government benefits. let's say, you
know, 22,000 in Alberta, um, uh, for
people who qualify for disability per
year, that person may be happy with the outcome,
outcome, but
but
Alberta taxpayers when they learn about
it probably won't be too happy that they
are spending, you know, millions and
millions of dollars to support their
citizens who just didn't want to work
perhaps. And it also of course takes the
money from people who are really
disabled and who actually need the
money. So it it basically um
well it creates problems for the program
that the program is not doing what it
was designed to do, right? To support
people who actually need that support,
right? And in other settings it may end
your career, right? Because if for
example employer for some reason sends
you for some kind of evaluation
and they may have a they may have some
ulterior motives for that and you show
up in clinical psychologist office and
they do this kind of comparison
well they just terminated your career
right because employer will say look
psychologist says that you are mentally
impaired so you can't do this job
anymore right and this is true in you
know applications for police officers,
fitness for any kind any kind of fitness
for duty uh evaluations, right? where a
person who is really victim of that kind
of misinformation and nonsensical use of
IQ scores um
and it ends their career or they don't
start their career right simply because
psychologists are not aware of the
current scientific data on IQ and use
these data from 80 years ago when the
world was different Right. Um
Um
then another one is um you know
psychologist imagine that you suffer
some kind of um uh you are in a car
accident and you suffer some brain
injury right and typically when people
try to assess how much of an injury you
have um suffered
let's say for compensation purposes for
uh liability issues and so on so forth
Right. Um they try to figure out what
your IQ was before
the injury, right? And of course then
because you didn't have any need to to
have IQ assessed, right? So they use
these primorded measures of uh IQ uh
functioning which are based on sort of
idea that certain uh intellectual
capacities u remain kind of intact even
if you suffer injury right let's say
knowledge of your words is a good
example right or pronunciation of the
words but those kinds of estimates are
massively imprecise you know they
predict something from who knows when
based on some data and so even if the
data were correct current. They are imprecise.
imprecise.
But now because you took
the scientific prediction
of what your IQ was based on ways R
and but you assess the person with ways
four, you can't compare that because
there's a difference between uh how
people do on ways four versus ways R and
is huge, right? But psychologists take
the prediction, you know, they they plug
the equation in and they predict your IQ
and they conclude you suffered big loss
when in fact again you didn't because of
that Flynn effect, right?
Um and of course um second thing because
what changed is the IQ in university. So
in these predictions, people use your
education as one predictor.
But that education no longer has that power.
power.
So you are making it up as a
psychologist because you are not aware
that you shouldn't be using it because
it's 30 or 40 or 50 or 70 or 80 years
old. Right? So uh perorbid IQ's all
those equations out of the window,
right? You can correct for it using a
Flynn and you could correct for it for
education but it's a speculation right
it's not really suitable for any high
stakes decisions one additional thing
which is sort of implied from this newer
research right is long man and his
colleague who are also here in Calgary
they studied what happened to a
relationship between education and IQ
in US standardization sample versus
Canadian standardization sample. We know
for quite some time that Canadians score differently
differently
on the same test than US. Canadians
typically outscore
uh US population by about four or five
IQ points.
So you we now from from base three on uh
publisher does both US and Canadian arms
because you would be making lots of sort
of mistakes if you were using different
norms from different country in in your
country right uh so it's standardized
now on both Canadians and um uh US
people and part of the analysis which
long man did was that they looked at the relationship
relationship
between vase uh scores, base IQ
and education attainment.
And in US in 19 uh 97 when V3 was standardized
standardized
the effect of education
is much higher.
median education is correlated uh with
um uh this uh IQ or was correlated with
IQ in 1997 by about.5
number of years of education with IQ in
United States uh standardization sample
in Canadian sample the correlation was
much smaller
so a relationship between education and IQ
IQ
in Canadian standardization sample on W3
was much much smaller. And so that again
tells you that you cannot use the norms
or findings from a different country
than your own country, right? Because if
you use it in Canada, you overpredict
how smart a person with u with um
university degree
should be and it's an error. They
shouldn't because in Canada that
relationship is much much flatter.
So you will again
make the Canadian person if you use a US
right? and and again psychologists don't
seem to have an idea right so uh Pearson
published they published these advanced
clinical solutions for uh waste 4
and um they of course published it based
on US sample they didn't do it on
Canadian sample and Canadian
psychologist use these ACS US advanced
clinical solutions norms and They use
the prediction from US sample
which overpredicts what the person's IQ
should be if they have a universal
indicating and they seem to be
completely unaware
that that's not psychometrically sound
that is based on data from a different
country which are not applicable in Canada
Canada
right and nobody seems to be teaching on
that at least I can't I can't find any
you know article which would say well
don't do that kind of stuff right so I
will have to write one
um and then I think we said um so with
massive clinical education massive sort
of clinical implications right um
and uh sort of overall thing is of
course right that you know when you are
making these predictions in clinical
practice side you really need to be
aware of all these factors because if
you are not you you are just producing
misinformation right
and harming people who have been subject
to your assessment and once you are
subject of psychological assessment
to change it is almost impossible
psychologists are almost like right in
fact there's a movement in uh clinical
psychology uh that you know nobody
should see how the psychologist do this
stuff, right? Only another psychologist
and uh the amount of error and wrong
conclusion and so on in these reports,
right, is just incredible. I have a blog
about uh some of this stuff, right? And
uh you can read about it and it's it's a
it's a it's insane. In this piece that
we're discussing, your data shows
massive differences between the top and
the bottom, but you also say that
different universities have higher
average IQs versus other universities.
And the same thing with majors. I mean,
a big difference between I think you
gave the example of physics versus education.
education.
And so when we're talking about like how
can employers use this like what are
certain universities that you could use
is like oh this person is a intelligent
person or more so than the average or is
that difficult or what about majors? I
would imagine that you don't see too
many dumb physicist or rocket scientist
or surgeons or something like that. I
mean I don't I would hope you wouldn't
have a a surgeon with an IQ of 70
actually cutting someone open. I just
can't imagine them actually surviving
12 years of school to actually graduate.
But maybe I'm wrong on that. But uh what
would you say in that?
>> If you look look at those figures um on
um a relationship between um uh mean SAT
scores, right? So SAT scores people sort
of say that's not an IQ test. That's
kind of you know aptitude test or
something like that. But anything which
um as I said you can take the random
words from dictionary it will be very
good estimate of your IQ right you can
take uh 100 random facts about the world
and again you score did the person
correctly say what it is uh or did they
not you give them average score
standardize it to 100 and again that's a
very good estimate of IQ because more
sort of processing power you have more
ability ity you have more you will read
more you will end up solving problems
more foresight you have and so on so
forth right so it's all correlated so
SAT is basically intelligence test it's
not standardized in terms of IQ it's
standardized differently right but it's
an intelligence test nevertheless and so
if you look at that figure four it gives
you uh soal mean SAT
reading and math scores and um it gives
you those average scores for different
fields which people want to go to study
in the university. So it's intended
major. They are not in major yet. They
are in high school but they say what
they want to study and you can see this
spread of ability right at the very top
is of course mathematics and statistics.
We know and I mean I you cannot miss it
in the media that people are talking
about problems with students not knowing
the basic mass and not having basic
numeracy right has been discussed I
don't know ever since I have been in
North America as far as I remember right
u so it makes sense that things like you
know mathematics and statistics uh you
know you are basically one and a half
standard deviation above uh somebody who
is going to education Right. And uh if
you look at things like GRE, that's a
figure five where you have a a GRE
verbal and GRE quantitative and then you
have those uh different fields to which
people uh uh seek acceptance to right.
So um again you see this uh spread where
on a quantitative you know highest is a
mass and then there's a physics astronomy
astronomy
uh engineering banking and so on so
forth and somebody with you know
education elementary is uh close to the
bottom right and social work at the very
bottom. If you are looking uh on the
verbal well the engineers might not be necessarily
necessarily
scoring highest on the GRE verbal right
but people in philosophy are right and
it makes sense and of course uh talking
to your to your overall question right
you know is it is it possible that you
know surgeon graduates with IQ70
I think it's quite possible today
actually right but in certain fields
there's a kind of immediate feedback
on your inability.
If you are engineer and you design the
bridge and that bridge goes down when
you put um extra of paper on it, right?
Or maybe you know maybe it doesn't even
start, maybe you don't even finish
building it because your pillars will
crumble, right? So there's there is a
feedback on your ability and once you
screw up once in that kind of a field
you are probably out whereas in fields
like social work there's basically no
feedback on your ability or inability
and that's a big problem right then um
there are some fields where there are
national standardized tests
like nursing
and what that does is that now the
university which has a nurse department
is focusing on being good on those
standardized tests.
Assuming the standardized test measures
something uh you know relevant to
nursing then of course those departments
are actually focusing on teaching you
what you need to know to be a nurse
right and um it has one additional
effect in the university that nursing
departments for example don't care very
much about student evolution of teaching
because if you are nurse faculty and you
are teaching Nurse students if for
example in a practicum they do something
wrong they are told right there and then
you did it wrong I don't want you to do
that ever again otherwise you're out of
the program right I've actually
witnessed this once in a hospital myself
and um so uh people in the departments
where there are some standardized tests
um focus us on teaching the relevant
skills so that the department is known
for producing
um competent nurses.
same thing as any other professional
sort of um um education where there is
some national standardized test right it
actually starts all of these things
starts much earlier right so in K9 or K12
K12
it's already there right and it used to
be the case that you know if you were
not doing well you were repeating the
grade today people are basically passed
through no matter what no matter what
they know right and So when they get to
university now you can read uh regularly
media accounts of you know some
university somewhere has to you know
increase number of remedial courses
because students don't know how to deal
with fractions.
Well that's because K12 didn't do its
job so to speak right. Um there's a
interesting phenomenon. I I'm in Alberta
and Alberta is one of the provinces in
uh Canada which still has standardized
testing every every few years in a K12.
And when uh students
uh who graduate from high school in
Alberta, they get some extra points when
they are applying in universities
elsewhere because of that. What would
you say if someone were to take your
paper at the policy level? How should
university change based on this
information like what you'd recommend?
>> Some people have discussed this uh has
been discussed quite a bit. So one one
consequence of this situation is that at
least US public confidence in higher
education has just gratered. I think the
last year it was about 39% or something
like that. Um, some people say you can't
change it. It's too it's too
established. It's you would have to
change the whole system. It's
impossible. You will need to close it
all down and start over. Right?
But if you really were serious about
changing things, you would probably need
to bring in standardized testing
where you say okay so if you graduate
with degree of psychology you must know
this and if you don't you don't get the
degree right. Um another really critical
thing I think is um you need to um get
rid of student evaluation of teaching as
a principle mean of evaluating professors.
professors.
I don't know what you know about um
student evaluation of teaching but as I
said right at the end of each course
students are asked to fill out some sort
of questionnaire right where the eight
professors on some kind of strongly
disagree to strongly agree scale and
then somebody computes the averages
and then you are told whether you are
satisfactory or insatisfactory
and in some cases especially like for
people who are not 10 year old or people
who are contract faculty
whether or not they get to teach next
term depends on SATs and SEDS only.
So if that's your job description,
if that's how you are evaluated, if
that's your ultimate job description,
what is the rational thing to do for
somebody who wants to teach again?
Well, my rational choice is to maximize
my SATs
because if I don't, I won't get the job
again. And so what that leads to is uh
uh decrease in standards, academic
standards. You don't ask as much of
students as you would normally ask.
Uh something quantitative that's
basically disappearing unless it's
absolutely necessary, right?
and um and you teach to the lowest
common denominator because the people at
the bottom if you actually make them
unhappy they will complain and they will
bring your ACT really down right so I
think that has to go the teaching has to
be evaluated on
you know what do you actually do in
class right now the problem with that of
course is that no one has ever defined
what effective teaching is We know what
ineffective teaching is.
We have uh some uh you know some uh
faculty actually come to class and they
basically read a chapter.
Well you know today some software can
read it for you right so that's ineffective.
ineffective.
um and so on so forth. But um we also
know today that these SAT scores are unrelated
unrelated
to teaching effectiveness. That is what
the students actually learn from the
professor, right? And they are harmful
to the uh education because people are
decreasing the educational standards.
they are decreasing amount of work which
they require of their students because
students have that tool by which to
modify your behavior. I think in one of
your papers that were discussing about
the grading of the teachers by the
students, you mentioned that attractive
teachers with lenient grading get higher
uh scores and also was it like if you
give treats out while you're uh giving
students the
but like if you're was it at least in
the US most of the professors are
adjunct so like you're mentioning
they're basically you know contract or
temporary so if getting your contract
renewed is bas based upon your score. Of
course, you're going to inflate the
grades because you won't be teaching
next semester.
>> That's right. You you have to and most
importantly, you must make sure that
your grades are definitely not lower
than other people grades. Given that
other people gates on average are
somewhere at a minus, you must give a
minuses, right? At least. Uh so we
discussed this with in a different
paper, right? uh but but yes it's a
rational choice and like in US in uh you
know in Canada I don't know what
proportion of contract faculty is but
it's somewhere around 50%. Don't quote
me on that number, but it's it's substantial.
substantial.
>> At least in the US, I think Canada is
fairly similar, but in 2008, the
fertility rate of the US of Canada, you
know, has gone down, which means that
this past year 2025 was the largest high
school graduating class
and then every subsequent class now, so
say for the 2026 school year, they're
going to be smaller. And so I I kind of
look at like say the university where
you have like maybe in the 1980s you had
more a consumer model where the student
essentially is the customer and the
customer is always right. But now
starting in 2026 where you're going to
have less people going to university
just because there's less uh high
schoolers graduating every year for the
next, you know, for the foreseeable
future. If you just look where the
incentives are at, if you have less
students, you're going to have the same
number of universities fighting over
these students. So, it seems like it's
actually in the future, the problem will
just end up getting worse. If you have
10% less students for years, then the
university is going to be incentivized
to make it as attractive as possible to
to get those students there, right? I
mean, I think this is the whole reason
too that a lot of the standards have
decreased. These universities have just
gotten so big and the faculty and
there's so much admin that you need
these you need students to keep going. I
mean, honestly, if you have an IQ of 70,
you probably should flunk out of
university right away. And the
university would be doing the student a
service because now they're not taking
on all this extra debt,
you know, and whatnot. Maybe that
student would never graduate anyways.
they would they're just prolonging them
being in school before they drop out.
But you're not really doing that student
a service by piling on this debt. You
know, I like you're kind of doing harm
to these students, but I don't see it
changing just because you're going to
have less customers in the future.
>> Yeah, that's a pretty um obvious
conclusion, I would say. And you know,
what will happen depends on what's going
to happen in the marketplace. Right. So today
today
um you know many university graduates
with degrees from certain fields
basically do not find a job where they
can apply those um uh whatever they
learned or didn't learn to
get some higher salaries right and they
end up working in uh I don't know
service industry instead
for which they didn't need university
degree in the first place, right? And so
uh I can uh see that you know we will
still need um uh lots of people with
university degrees but those degrees
will have to actually mean something and
teach something. Otherwise that trend
where employers design their own
training programs where they teach their
new employees what they need to know in
a span of you know 6 months or perhaps
even 6 weeks right why universities take
in uh four years and cost a lot of money
right and um at some point uh you know
maybe taxpayers won't be willing to
actually pay the substantial part of the dedication
dedication
>> you think we will see a marketplace
always change that. Like if you're a
surgeon, like yeah, maybe you need more
education or if you're a structural
engineer, but if you're like a marketing
major, the time you graduate from
school, maybe a lot of the stuff that
they taught you is already outdated for
that. Maybe a a six-month program would
be a lot better. I just don't know why
like a lot of different majors are kind
of lumped in with the same structure cuz
the difference between physician and say
marketing there's just a lot of
different um focus for different majors
and different timelines and things like that
that
>> for for surgeon absolutely you need to
know more right so it will take some
time for you to learn it right uh civil
engineering I think you must have some
kind of you know equivalent of
university degree which actually teaches
you thing. Many tools which people use
today of course will be quickly outdated
because there will be different tools
and so to the extent to which your
university education just teaches you to
use few things then that basically will
become unimportant.
But I would also say that you know
journalism for example if you want to be
competent journalist then you probably
need to study quite a bit. COVID was a
nice example of this, right? So,
universities today don't teach critical
thinking anymore.
You don't have uh you can't have a
debate because you can offend somebody.
Students are afraid of each other
discussing things and so it's almost uh
you know kind of little bit of one-way
street. You are saying something and
they either you know absorb it or they
don't, right?
And getting students uh uh to debate uh
things uh is difficult to start with but
it's also dangerous right because if you
say something which somehow
uh somebody finds offensive then they
may go after you now going back to co
you know CNN or major networks where on
the bottom of the screen you had you
know so many people died so far. So many
people died so far. So many people died.
So so far and then there were
journalists who said okay well you know
US is doing really really poorly in
managing CO. I mean look at the high
number of deaths, right? And then BBC
for example put out put out um a
graphics where they showed you know uh
it was maybe 1 month or two months after
the uh co started and they had this nice
bar graph where they uh had uh you know
US leading in number of deaths relative
to all other G7 countries or you know
sort of western countries about seven or
10 or whatever it was right and
they put it out
without saying that that was a complete
garbage data.
The data themselves were good. The
numbers indeed
many more people died in United States
than let's say in Germany or UK.
that that's irrelevant because you need
to adjust it per capita. United States
is much much bigger country than Germany
or UK in terms of population.
So in United States any given day many
po many more people die of all causes
than in Germany.
It's obvious thing right? And so as a
journalist you should never put up a
figure showing number of deaths unless
you know there might be some exceptional
circumstances for it but if you are
looking at how country managed co you
need to adjust it per capita at minimum
>> yeah cuz you're talking the oh finish
with that I'm sorry
>> and uh this is you know this is not
unique to co this is this is we actually
do this in healthcare right people do it
per per capita right no one would ever
thought of, you know, um talk about the
fact that more people in the United
States have Alzheimer's than in Germany
because United States has a 340 or 350
million people or whatever it is and
Germany has less than 100.
>> Yeah. You're talking population of
Germany is around 83 million and the
population of the US they have between
342 to 348 million. A massive >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> massive difference.
And so one would you know one would
assume that if somebody goes into
journalism and they had some
journalistic degree they would have
never done something like that right
because you mis you mislead millions of people
people
>> kind of last big topic here just out of
curiosity wasn't really related to the
paper but just since you mentioned the
Flynn effect quite a bit today I mean
I've been reading going back years now
that a lot of say western countries
since either the late 90s or the early
2000s we've actually seen the reverse
Flynn effect. So where they're actually
seeing now a decrease of of IQ
and from what I was at least some of the
research that I was reading they kind of
put it on the computer generation you
with computers coming out particular in
the late 90s where people can't spell
anymore. Well, of course, you know, we
get Microsoft Word with the spell check.
And then, of course, who does math where
you're just using whether it be uh, you
know, the T9 calculator or now you use
some AI system to do it. And then a lot
of the schools kind of just got got
easier um, as they were wanting to get
everyone to to graduate high school and
kind of pass people through. So, maybe
they weren't quite learning as much. So,
I mean, is that actually true? Is the
reverse Flynn effect actually observed
in a lot of say first world countries
US, Canada, Norway, Denmark or is that
overexaggerated? What I mean what do you
what's your take on that? Uh I think
there is something to it right. I think
it was in Canada and US the evidence is that Flynn effect continued at least to
that Flynn effect continued at least to 2010. Right? The vase five just came out
2010. Right? The vase five just came out a year ago and it shows much smaller
a year ago and it shows much smaller Flynn effect but still Flynn effect
Flynn effect but still Flynn effect right only about.1 per year rather
right only about.1 per year rather than.3 if I'm correct. It it's simply
than.3 if I'm correct. It it's simply much smaller, right? Let's let's put it
much smaller, right? Let's let's put it this way. Um then you also need to
this way. Um then you also need to consider that um intelligence tests
consider that um intelligence tests ultimately are some collection of tasks
ultimately are some collection of tasks which people do
which people do which we summarize the scores on
which we summarize the scores on standardize them to that 100 with
standardize them to that 100 with standard deviation 15 and so now it
standard deviation 15 and so now it depends a bit on which task you take.
depends a bit on which task you take. Okay, we have um you know talking about
Okay, we have um you know talking about those vocational psychologist using
those vocational psychologist using outdated stuff right and um uh so one of
outdated stuff right and um uh so one of the things which people used again
the things which people used again because it was done in 1940s
because it was done in 1940s United States employment service
United States employment service designed this uh general um uh aptitude
designed this uh general um uh aptitude test general aptitude test battery okay
test general aptitude test battery okay it has bunch of tasks in it and it's
it has bunch of tasks in it and it's also a measure of intelligence
also a measure of intelligence But
But um
>> each task is very speeded. You have like six
is very speeded. You have like six minutes to do as many problems as you
minutes to do as many problems as you can. Okay. talking about the calculators
can. Okay. talking about the calculators and all that stuff. We gave that test to
and all that stuff. We gave that test to a university student
a university student and we scored it according to Canadian
and we scored it according to Canadian norms which were done in 1986 or 85. So
norms which were done in 1986 or 85. So in 1985
in 1985 um they gave this test to general
um they gave this test to general working population. So not people who
working population. So not people who were in the university just general
were in the university just general working population. So you would assume
working population. So you would assume that it's going to be fairly close to uh
that it's going to be fairly close to uh the sort of population standardization
the sort of population standardization mean, right? But um they didn't describe
mean, right? But um they didn't describe it very well either way. At the time the
it very well either way. At the time the test is standardized with standard
test is standardized with standard deviation of 100 and no sorry mean 100
deviation of 100 and no sorry mean 100 and standard deviation of 20. So it's
and standard deviation of 20. So it's different than IQ does right the IQ
different than IQ does right the IQ standardized with 15 this was 20. 10
standardized with 15 this was 20. 10 years later, a professor or some guardia
years later, a professor or some guardia student in um in uh Lakehead University
student in um in uh Lakehead University in Canada gave that test to a bunch of
in Canada gave that test to a bunch of university students and they scored half
university students and they scored half a standard deviation below
a standard deviation below the normative average.
the normative average. Okay,
Okay, they didn't really talk about why. And
they didn't really talk about why. And when we gave it um uh two years ago to
when we gave it um uh two years ago to our students, they scored one standard
our students, they scored one standard deviation on verbal below the average
deviation on verbal below the average and 1.5 standard deviation below the
and 1.5 standard deviation below the normative average on numerical
normative average on numerical ability. What was part of the numerical
ability. What was part of the numerical ability? Two speeded tests where they
ability? Two speeded tests where they need to calculate, divide, subtract,
need to calculate, divide, subtract, long division and so on.
long division and so on. Well, in 1980s
Well, in 1980s calculators
calculators entered
entered uh
uh K12.
K12. So as the calculator enter calculus
So as the calculator enter calculus entered the education and students were
entered the education and students were no longer required to acquire fluency
no longer required to acquire fluency in doing these tasks.
in doing these tasks. They cannot possibly solve as many as
They cannot possibly solve as many as people who were drilled
people who were drilled multiplication tables and they got
multiplication tables and they got homework and they had to do it at home
homework and they had to do it at home and they had to come back with you know
and they had to come back with you know bunch of sheets of calculations and so
bunch of sheets of calculations and so on. So people before 1985 did have
on. So people before 1985 did have fluency. Once the calculus appeared, the
fluency. Once the calculus appeared, the fluency disappeared and the performance
fluency disappeared and the performance on that test greater, right? And so I
on that test greater, right? And so I think you can't really assume that uh
think you can't really assume that uh every performance on every test will go
every performance on every test will go up just because there's a fl right
up just because there's a fl right because it depends on what kind of a
because it depends on what kind of a task. And the gutb the general aptitude
task. And the gutb the general aptitude test battery is probably the nicest
test battery is probably the nicest example of it all, right? because it is
example of it all, right? because it is a speedy test. So, it doesn't really
a speedy test. So, it doesn't really test your ability to do it, but it tests
test your ability to do it, but it tests your fluency in doing it.
your fluency in doing it. And the fluency is scattered
And the fluency is scattered as the opportunity to acquire fluency
as the opportunity to acquire fluency at in school disappeared.
at in school disappeared. And then of course you know on something
And then of course you know on something like verbal things uh it depends on
like verbal things uh it depends on changes in language too right uh so
changes in language too right uh so words may drop out of the language new
words may drop out of the language new words may come in and so the when you
words may come in and so the when you are using older test who knows what it
are using older test who knows what it means right you really need to give it
means right you really need to give it uh you need to give a old test and new
uh you need to give a old test and new test to to both um uh to to a single
test to to both um uh to to a single group of people and see how they would
group of people and see how they would score on previous norms versus today's
score on previous norms versus today's norms and so um
norms and so um I have No doubt that on some of these
I have No doubt that on some of these tests it's actually reversed way
tests it's actually reversed way earlier, right? Because of the task
earlier, right? Because of the task changes and fluency.
changes and fluency. Then another thing is that um you are
Then another thing is that um you are basically now probably at one of the
basically now probably at one of the highest points of saturation in in uh
highest points of saturation in in uh educational attainment in society,
educational attainment in society, right? As people realize that those
right? As people realize that those degrees are not really helping them
degrees are not really helping them anywhere because employers will start
anywhere because employers will start ignoring them.
ignoring them. uh I don't think we will achieve that
uh I don't think we will achieve that 100% saturation that everybody will have
100% saturation that everybody will have a university degree right and so the
a university degree right and so the massive changes in education have
massive changes in education have happened to large degree and we might be
happened to large degree and we might be seeing a ceiling of that increase in
seeing a ceiling of that increase in ability due to uh getting more education
ability due to uh getting more education and of course as more people go to
and of course as more people go to education then the standards in
education then the standards in education goes down people earn less and
education goes down people earn less and then you take in all that other stuff
then you take in all that other stuff about technology uh which you mentioned
about technology uh which you mentioned right so spelling well I you know ask my
right so spelling well I you know ask my ch GPD to check it for me or some
ch GPD to check it for me or some grammarly or something like that and so
grammarly or something like that and so then you don't acquire those same skills
then you don't acquire those same skills >> with AI coming into the picture now
>> with AI coming into the picture now maybe in in 10 years those uh those
maybe in in 10 years those uh those tests will be pretty pretty effective I
tests will be pretty pretty effective I would imagine
would imagine >> what do you mean
>> what do you mean >> like uh if you're using chat GPT for
>> like uh if you're using chat GPT for everything. Like nowadays, before you
everything. Like nowadays, before you used a word processor to help you with
used a word processor to help you with spelling and you used a calculator, but
spelling and you used a calculator, but now you're using chat GPT to write your
now you're using chat GPT to write your essays in every topic and you're using
essays in every topic and you're using chat to do the math and chat to do the
chat to do the math and chat to do the to do the the emails and the outreach
to do the the emails and the outreach and build your resume. Now we're at this
and build your resume. Now we're at this point where we could see like a a a
point where we could see like a a a major cratering because you kind of
major cratering because you kind of outsource all the activities to to you
outsource all the activities to to you know a device
know a device >> maybe. But I would say that anybody who
>> maybe. But I would say that anybody who played around with uh Chbd or any of
played around with uh Chbd or any of these AI systems, right, um
these AI systems, right, um those systems hallucinate,
those systems hallucinate, they made make the stuff up literally,
they made make the stuff up literally, right? And um they are also only as good
right? And um they are also only as good as the information they receive.
as the information they receive. Given the amount of misinformation
Given the amount of misinformation which those systems receive,
which those systems receive, the conclusions of of those systems is
the conclusions of of those systems is um rather problematic in you know
um rather problematic in you know substantial portion of it. Right? So chd
substantial portion of it. Right? So chd AI may may um uh do some u uh good in
AI may may um uh do some u uh good in terms of uh you know trying to find some
terms of uh you know trying to find some stuff and so on but the human
stuff and so on but the human intelligence is still needed to actually
intelligence is still needed to actually see whether it makes any sense whether
see whether it makes any sense whether it's in fact true right and um some
it's in fact true right and um some universities there's some hint of it are
universities there's some hint of it are now going to oral exams
now going to oral exams right where you cannot
right where you cannot insert your chest GPD answers.
insert your chest GPD answers. And this is interesting because if you I
And this is interesting because if you I don't know how much you know about sort
don't know how much you know about sort of historical European education but uh
of historical European education but uh in many countries in Europe when you
in many countries in Europe when you went to university
went to university uh you um you went through you you had
uh you um you went through you you had to do bunch of things
to do bunch of things but um your grades on that bunch of
but um your grades on that bunch of things were only determinative whether
things were only determinative whether they allowed you to take the exam.
they allowed you to take the exam. And then you took the exam and it may
And then you took the exam and it may have been some combination of written
have been some combination of written and then definitely oral
and then definitely oral and the only thing which counted for
and the only thing which counted for your university grade were those final
your university grade were those final exams,
exams, right? So you went to lecture, you went
right? So you went to lecture, you went to some tutorials, you had to hand in
to some tutorials, you had to hand in bunch of stuff in and that kind of
bunch of stuff in and that kind of stuff. You had to get maybe attendance
stuff. You had to get maybe attendance in the tutorials or maybe you didn't,
in the tutorials or maybe you didn't, right? Depends on on the particular
right? Depends on on the particular place. But all that work during the term
place. But all that work during the term merily decided whether you were allowed
merily decided whether you were allowed to take the final exam and the final
to take the final exam and the final exam you were there and the professor
exam you were there and the professor was there and the professor was not
was there and the professor was not looking what percentage you know
looking what percentage you know professor was trying to find out is
professor was trying to find out is there something you don't know
there something you don't know and if the professor found something you
and if the professor found something you didn't know then well if if it was a
didn't know then well if if it was a minor stuff they sort of you know okay
minor stuff they sort of you know okay you you will get B right um But if it
you you will get B right um But if it was anything major out, you need to try
was anything major out, you need to try it again. And you had one or two tries
it again. And you had one or two tries and if you didn't pass a second a second
and if you didn't pass a second a second repeat, you were out of university.
repeat, you were out of university. >> How much different is the model of
>> How much different is the model of university in Europe versus say Canada
university in Europe versus say Canada or the US? I mean, I I have some friends
or the US? I mean, I I have some friends that go to university in Europe. I mean,
that go to university in Europe. I mean, they're from Europe, but like they don't
they're from Europe, but like they don't have the big sport teams like we have in
have the big sport teams like we have in the US, and their campuses are a lot
the US, and their campuses are a lot smaller. or one of my good friends,
smaller. or one of my good friends, she's from Switzerland, and she was
she's from Switzerland, and she was basically saying like, you know,
basically saying like, you know, university is really cheap, but they
university is really cheap, but they also have really small classes and
also have really small classes and because the government subsidizes a lot
because the government subsidizes a lot of it, they actually try to make it
of it, they actually try to make it really challenging because they don't
really challenging because they don't want the average person going to
want the average person going to university, they only want the people
university, they only want the people that are smart and capable. So, she's
that are smart and capable. So, she's like, you know, they essentially they're
like, you know, they essentially they're trying to flunk you out. Is that true or
trying to flunk you out. Is that true or is that just Switzerland? Is that more
is that just Switzerland? Is that more standard across Europe? How would that
standard across Europe? How would that compare to what we have in the US and
compare to what we have in the US and Canada? I'm probably a bad person to ask
Canada? I'm probably a bad person to ask because you know my I have gone to
because you know my I have gone to university in Czechoslovakia, right? But
university in Czechoslovakia, right? But it was a communist Czechoslovakia at the
it was a communist Czechoslovakia at the time. So to start with to get to
time. So to start with to get to university uh they basically took about
university uh they basically took about I don't know what it was but 2 4% 5%.
I don't know what it was but 2 4% 5%. right of the uh people who sort of
right of the uh people who sort of graduated uh uh this 12 years or
graduated uh uh this 12 years or something like that right and but the
something like that right and but the system was this way what I described
system was this way what I described right and I listen to uh to um um audio
right and I listen to uh to um um audio book uh by Malala I don't know if you
book uh by Malala I don't know if you are familiar with with her she was from
are familiar with with her she was from Pakistan shot by Taliban and then she
Pakistan shot by Taliban and then she attended uh Oxford University and she
attended uh Oxford University and she actually describes that's a very same
actually describes that's a very same system in Oxford
system in Oxford at the time she was there right so I was
at the time she was there right so I was thinking oh interesting right so I know
thinking oh interesting right so I know that it's in UK it was the same you know
that it's in UK it was the same you know uh standards were much higher right what
uh standards were much higher right what it is today I don't know right uh if you
it is today I don't know right uh if you if you read some of the stuff from UK uh
if you read some of the stuff from UK uh it has certain declined too
it has certain declined too but hasn't declined to the level in you
but hasn't declined to the level in you know North America I'm not Today's guest
know North America I'm not Today's guest has been Professor Bob Utle who's a
has been Professor Bob Utle who's a cognitive psychologist and professor at
cognitive psychologist and professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary in
Mount Royal University in Calgary in Canada. So, uh, Bob, just two final
Canada. So, uh, Bob, just two final questions. One, just let people know
questions. One, just let people know where they can get a hold of you. And
where they can get a hold of you. And then secondly, leave us with a final
then secondly, leave us with a final thought related to this podcast,
thought related to this podcast, something that maybe we didn't discuss
something that maybe we didn't discuss or just a concluding thought to wrap it
or just a concluding thought to wrap it up.
up. >> So, yeah, I have a few blogs actually,
>> So, yeah, I have a few blogs actually, right? I when I had that experience with
right? I when I had that experience with Frenches in psychology, I decided to go
Frenches in psychology, I decided to go public with it. So you can read about it
public with it. So you can read about it including all the emails and everything
including all the emails and everything at uh bob utel.org
at uh bob utel.org which is b o ttl.org.
And uh if you are interested in what clinical psychologists do uh I have a uh
clinical psychologists do uh I have a uh different kind of a blog and it's uh
different kind of a blog and it's uh SD5BC
SD5BC uh info info. So you can find lots of
uh info info. So you can find lots of stuff there. Otherwise of course you
stuff there. Otherwise of course you know you can find me on Google and uh
know you can find me on Google and uh find my articles in uh different places.
find my articles in uh different places. I can provide those links to those
I can provide those links to those articles so that people can read them.
articles so that people can read them. They are not behind any pay wall. they
They are not behind any pay wall. they are published in uh open access
are published in uh open access >> and then to leave us with a final
>> and then to leave us with a final thought.
thought. >> We need to remove the misinformation
>> We need to remove the misinformation about what is the IQ of undergraduate
about what is the IQ of undergraduate students and I think um we also need to
students and I think um we also need to uh somehow reform the universities so
uh somehow reform the universities so that they uh produce uh something
that they uh produce uh something desirable
desirable uh for employers.
uh for employers. >> Right. And as you mentioned also with
>> Right. And as you mentioned also with getting rid of those uh tests of a
getting rid of those uh tests of a student uh this be a good place to
student uh this be a good place to start.
start. >> Yes. Remove remove the student evolution
>> Yes. Remove remove the student evolution of teaching evolate professors on what
of teaching evolate professors on what they actually do. I think uh it's uh
they actually do. I think uh it's uh difficult to evolate professors because
difficult to evolate professors because uh we don't have any um agreement as to
uh we don't have any um agreement as to what effective teaching is right um
what effective teaching is right um people can again read about it in one of
people can again read about it in one of my papers but um important thing is that
my papers but um important thing is that we get rid of things which we know are
we get rid of things which we know are harmful to education like SET evolution
harmful to education like SET evolution of teaching and we need to introduce
of teaching and we need to introduce some standards and and enforce those
some standards and and enforce those standards.
>> My dear friends, that is it for this episode of El Podcast. Once again, if
episode of El Podcast. Once again, if you're not yet subscribed, please
you're not yet subscribed, please subscribe on YouTube as well as Rumble.
subscribe on YouTube as well as Rumble. You can also find us on Spotify and
You can also find us on Spotify and Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your
Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts from. We thank you all from the
podcasts from. We thank you all from the bottom of our hearts for watching and
bottom of our hearts for watching and listening and we will see you on the
listening and we will see you on the next episode.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
