I must confess that I’m still a little puzzled by I.Q. tests. It’s been years since I sat for one (as a favor to a family friend doing research on the subject), and I remember wondering what kind of information my answers to all those random skill-testing questions could possibly yield. So what if I could repeat back a series of numbers better than I could rotate shapes in my head? What does my I.Q. score say about who I am or about my future? And can my score improve or worsen over time?

Before I get into Nicholas B. Kristof’s NY Times op-ed piece “How To Raise Our I.Q.”, I should begin with the following disclaimer: Although there are certain truths about I.Q. that are now commonly accepted (i.e. that it is indeed a component of academic ability and a predictor of future performance), no one should confuse I.Q. with intelligence. The latter is a complex construct with many different components, while I.Q. is only one of them. Further, I.Q. scores are not the sole predictor of success in adulthood. (Michael J. Feuer makes this point well here, although Kristof uses I.Q. and intelligence interchangeably in his article.)

That being said, the most controversial debate about I.Q. (and intelligence in general) is the nature-nurture question: Is I.Q. a heritable trait encoded in our genes or can it be changed by our environment? The answer to that question has some interesting implications – especially when it comes to education.

Kristof’s article is a review and commentary of Richard Nisbett’s book “Intelligence and How to Get It.”  Nisbett is a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan who cites several studies demonstrating that I.Q. is not in fact fixed and determined at birth, but is malleable and can change over time. For example: Studies show that when children born into poverty are adopted into upper-middle-class homes, their I.Q.’s rise by 12 to 18 points. Also, I.Q. scores have risen over time, with the average score in 1917 being 73 which today would be considered mentally retarded. (Not sure how many people were tested in 1917 to come up with that conclusion, or what country the study took place in, but I guess I’ll have to read the book to find out.)

The implication of such research suggests that educational interventions aimed at addressing educational inequality and narrowing the achievement gap can indeed have a dramatic impact on children’s I.Q., which will presumably increase their chances of future academic and career success. I totally agree with Nisbett’s praise of intensive early childhood education programs like the Milwaukee Project, which raised the I.Q. scores of children at risk by an average of 27 points. (By adolescence, they maintained a 10 point lead over their counterparts in the control group who did not go through the program. But how much better did they fare in terms of overall academic attainment and career success? Not sure. Hopefully the book will have that info.) Thankfully, President Obama also seems to recognize the importance of investing in early childhood education as he makes it one of his top five priorities in his education agenda.

Most interesting to me is the book’s mention of a study where junior high school students who are told that I.Q. and intelligence are expandable work harder and achieve higher grades. Such a simple intervention that can (and should!) be easily incorporated into every curriculum. Just goes to show how powerful our ideas and beliefs about I.Q. and intelligence can be.

Against my better judgment, but in the interest of fairness and presenting both sides of the debate, I should also draw your attention to Charles Murray’s latest book “Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality.” In it, Murray promotes the “intelligence-is-fixed-at-birth” point of view and concludes that: children have different abilities; half of our children have below average I.Q.s; we are wasting time and money by sending too many kids to college; and we should devote more resources to educating the gifted. All I can say is, read it and weep. Literally.

For more on the subject of I.Q., takepart in reading Bowen, Bok, and Loury’s book “The Shape of the River”. Also, check out Michael J. Feuer’s wonderfully scathing review of Murray’s “Real Education” here.

(Photo: Arwen Abendstern’s flickr photostream/Creative Commons)