POLL: GMAT score and IQ

Question

Hello folks:

Apparently, there's a good deal of interest in this subject, the possible correlation of IQ & GMAT score.

Here's a blog I wrote on this topic.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-and-iq-correlation/

I would be very interested in other folks thoughts on this question.

Mike :-)

geometric · Answer

I think there are serious flaws to both tests in terms of their ability to measure a person's intelligence. That said, they will obviously have a significant correlation. I'm not too familiar with IQ tests, but the GMAT certainly measures innate intelligence and critical thinking ability to an extent - however, it's also an exercise in discipline. Are IQ tests the similar in that respect?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear vandygrad11 , I agree that, as measures of intelligence, both are flawed. As I argue in that blog post, I have my doubts that human intelligence, in its full splendor, is something that can be adequate measured and summarized by a single number. It is tantamount to saying that a human being's full worth could be summarized by a single number, a single "score" --- that's patently absurd. Just as you can study for the GMAT, so, if you so chose, you could study for specific IQ tests --- to that extent, neither is measuring pure innate ability. I believe it's actually a very good question whether intelligence, properly, is measured at all in an out-of-context test. Intelligence is part of who we are, and we are most who we are in the flow & context of Life itself, not sitting for an isolated test. I am very familiar with the GMAT, but not nearly as familiar with IQ tests. I know a little about the WAIS --- it does measure a wide variety of verbal and spatial abilities. Insofar as a subject walks into it cold, without knowing anything about the test (as, I believe, it is designed to be taken), then I would say it does an OK job of measuring innate abilities. In some sense, that's the big difference between the GMAT and IQ test. There's a whole industry around preparing folks for the GMAT --- this website & many others, my company & many others, a whole shelf of prep books at the book store, software packages, etc etc. By contrast, few people actually study for an IQ test or prepare for it in any methodical way. To that extent, one could argue that, not because of anything inherently better about the tests but simply de facto , IQ tests such as the WAIS do a better job of measuring innate ability than does the GMAT. That's my two cents. Mike :-)

VeritasPrepRon · Answer

Fingers crossed that there is a correlation!

However I will say that the GMAT tests a few specific areas of understanding and reasoning, and you can hone these abilities with time, practice and a disciplined approach to learning. IQ tests can also be prepared for, but at some point that defeats the basic purpose and you're really testing who prepared better for the test vs who did better. Obviously a walrus with 1,000 hours of prep won't be able to do well on the GMAT (how could they even select the correct answer?!) but almost anyone with enough prep and discipline can get the highest score, regardless of initial "intelligence".

I'd postulate that higher intelligence makes studying for the GMAT (and almost anything else) easier, but just because it takes me twice as long in the gym to get the same results as say Arnold Schwarzeneggar, doesn't make my bench press less valid than his.

Interesting topic, though! I'd love to hear more
-Ron

jumsumtak · Answer

I agree to an extent with the posters above.

The poll results might be a bit biased, with people who got lower score on the GMAT marking 'no' and vice versa. Obviously, this assumes people would like to think that they have a good IQ. I would have loved to see the GMAT scores of the people who are voting, or a similar poll for people who are at par - who haven't taken the GMAT or have scored say above 95% or below 80% (only to check the validity).

I think even the IQ tests, to a large degree, measure one's ability to do well on the standardized test. Especially, if one prepares for them. Further, I believe that this 'ability' is transferable within the different tests and therefore I expect to see a strong co-relation between the two scores.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Jumsumtak , It may be that folks' own scores is reflected in the voting. I think most folks, who haven't worked extensively with statistics and data, misunderstand the nature of correlation. This is something I touch on in that blog article in my first post on in this thread. For example, suppose it is well-documented that A is correlated with B. What does that mean? Even putting aside the " correlation implies causality " error, I think folks get into this literalist interpretation --- every time A goes up, B goes up. I think most folks don't understand how something can appear almost random in a case by case basis, yet a weak correlation appears over hundred and thousands of data points. As I say in my blog article, it's actually well measured that there's a correlation between salary and height, and yet we all know short rich people and tall poor people. Correlations are about patterns that emerge over an entire population, not rules that work infallibly on a case-by-case basis. As you suggest, I think there's substantial evidence that, in the overall population, IQ (whatever in tarnation that is) and GMAT score are well correlated, but that has virtually no predictive power at the level of individual cases. I think both the person who concludes " I got GMAT = 750: therefore I am smart " and the person who concludes " I got GMAT = 580: therefore I am not smart " are equally incorrect in their reasoning. Nevertheless, I am sure the two variables are solidly correlated. That kind of reasoning, what's true for the population vs. what's true for the individual, is very hard, very anti-intuitive, for folks who haven't worked extensively with statistics and data analysis. Any other thoughts from folks with a background in statistics? Mike :-)

AbhiJ · Answer

We know that there is strong co-relation between B School grades and GMAT. Co-relation between intelligence and IQ for score equal to or less than 700 will be weak. This is because verbal skills are not co-related with IQ though Quant skills are. As we move north of 750 the co-relation becomes very strong. At 780-800 level would argue the co-relation would be like 0.8.

bb · Answer

I actually do not think there is a whole lot of correlation between GMAT and IQ. I have seen way too many smart people do poorly and persistent people not blessed with genetic IQ skills to do very well.

P.S. Even if I am wrong and there is some correlation between GMAT and IQ, there is even a much weaker connection between IQ and Final result after graduation. I have gotten to know a number of brilliant leaders who were arrogant jerks and plenty of "medium" intelligence guys who were highly successful and I must reather preferred talked to the latter group.

P.S. There is apparently a very strong correlation between NYC Rainfall and Stock Market performance https://www.elliottwavemarketservice.com ... ck-market/

jumsumtak · Answer

Mike, I agree with your thoughts. I'm not a stats guru, but this seems pretty elementary. I never tried to come to conclusion about specific individuals on the basis of this 'co-relation' that we talk about.

I just said I'd love to see more data from the votes because that will help me understand better the psyche of a typical voter and what I felt about the co-relation! Best

mikemcgarry · Answer

BB -- From my little understand of psychometrics, I believe general intelligent factor --- what psychologists call "g" and common folks call "IQ" ---- has been shown to be highly correlated with virtually all standardized tests. I don't know if the GMAT in particular has been tested in this regard, but I would argue the general way in which the GMAT interacts with innate ability & prep work & memory & luck & etc. is not that different than do, say, the SAT, the ACT, the GRE, etc. My understanding is that g is the single best measured number in all of quantitative psychology, and that these correlations have been well studied. What you cite, with all due respect, betrays the non-statistician's frequent misapprehension of correlation. As I argued to jumsumtak above, correlation is about an overall trend in a population, and especially with a relatively weak correlation, there will be an abundance of data points that do not obey the overall pattern. Anecdotal data, while useful in other contexts, can be highly misleading with respect to population correlations. Anything short of the population-wide view is really inadequate for assessing correlation. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

	Target Test Prep - Save up to $599 $400 Discount + $99 Bonus GMAT Club Tests
	e-GMAT: 60% Off on GMAT Focus Get to 735+ from any starting point
	Magoosh increases your score, guaranteed - 15% off ALL Magoosh GMAT plans with code GMATCLUB15 + Free GMAT Club Tests.
	Manhattan Prep: $99 Bonus Score Higher on Your GMAT Exam. Guaranteed.
	Experts' Global - ~~$1720~~ $960 End-to-End GMAT Prep + App Support: 150+ Videos, 2000+ Questions, 15 FLTs +
	GMATWhiz - $299 ~~$499~~ Experience the course through a free trial.
	GMAT Club Tests - Free Included with every course purchase of $149+ View all deals

POLL: GMAT score and IQ

Do you think GMAT score and IQ are correlated?

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards