Chris Chase5 said:Unfortunately, if you want to have a serious statistical discussion about significance or data analysis, you really need to be familiar with the tools being used and the context behind them.
First off, these tests consist of both a logical-mathematical component and a verbal one. For non-native English speakers, the verbal portion can actually be the bigger hurdle when trying to master either section. Because of that, understanding how applicants are distributed across different fields of study is pretty essential.
A GRE vs. GMAT score comparison is difficult, but in general the GMAT is the harder exam. Put side-by-side, the GMAT math and reading comprehension questions are more difficult for the comparable skill level. International students may find the GRE harder because of the vocabulary required. The question of GMAT or GRE will probably be determined by the requirements of the graduate programs. Virtually all major business schools require the GMAT as well as some graduate Economics programs. The GRE is used for non-business related graduate programs.
I don't know the full breakdown of the GRE, but I am currently studying for the GMAT, so I have a decent handle on it. It doesn't really have much to do with a standard IQ test as we know it; rather, it’s almost entirely a matter of focus and practice. Besides, you can drastically improve your scores on standard IQ tests just by practicing, which means mental preparedness plays a huge role too.
Secondly, I wouldn't consider these results applicable to many environments where the educational system for physicists or mathematicians has been shaped since the Middle Ages—fields people often enter simply because they don't have many other options. In a field like Economics, for example, there is already a sort of natural selection happening right at the admissions stage, let alone later on. Though, since many science students are trained to be absolute superstars, Economics ends up being a course that 🙂
But even if we assume these results are representative and absolute, training one specific skill inevitably contributes to the development of other skills that might be impossible to measure with these tests—like emotional intelligence. I’d argue that psychologists would absolutely run circles around us, and being able to read body language is arguably a much more vital life skill than knowing quantum field theory...
Further complaining about the nature of intelligence isn't really my area of expertise, but regarding your point, I'd say this is just one metric that is essentially useless in court unless you understand how the data was collected and the context behind it. Based on research, we could conclude that, on average, PhD students in physical sciences in the USA are more intelligent than PhD students in Economics.
That's all from me. I hope this stays sufficiently on-topic...🙂 LP☕
And what exactly did you prove with that?
I don't know the full breakdown for the GRE—I'm actually prepping for the GMAT myself—but let's be real: it isn't much different from a standard IQ test. It’s not some innate measure of genius; it's strictly about concentration and putting in the reps. Besides, you can drastically boost your scores on actual IQ tests just by practicing—it really comes down to mental readiness.
Yeah? And?
Second point—I wouldn't count these results as applicable to many places where the physics and math education systems haven't seen a serious update since the Middle Ages.
What kind of environments are you even talking about?
If you're talking about the US, that’s just an insult without any actual proof. If we were to rank countries based on their h-index for physics papers versus economics papers—or even just looking at GDP per capita—the US would sit way higher on that first list than it does on the second or third. So yeah, that claim is nothing but a blatant insult.
Look, the physics and math programs at top-tier US research universities—think places like MIT—are basically the gold standard, and our curriculum follows that exact blueprint. We’re talking identical coursework, the same mandatory textbooks, and nearly identical problem sets on written exams. It’s definitely not some "medieval" level of education. So why are you even talking about this when you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Most people only enroll in this field when they've run out of actual options—there are plenty of exceptions, sure, but that's the reality.
Prove it. Without proof, you’re just peddling a prejudice—and a bad one at that. People who enroll in these programs simply because they have no other options? They don't even make it through freshman year. I guarantee it—I've seen it happen firsthand.
Take Economics, for instance—natural selection kicks in right at the admissions stage, plain and simple. Though, let's be real, most STEM students are basically trained to be super-students, which makes an Economics course feel like a breeze in comparison. 🙂
Which country are we talking about here? The US? If that's the case, you're dead wrong. Admissions for Economics involve much easier math—say, compared to a math or physics program.
Comparing selection rigor between Economics and Physics based on math is absurd. Most of the math covered in an Economics program gets brushed over in a single lecture in a physics department. Besides, I won't dwell on Economics—I don't know enough to comment without just relying on stereotypes.
But let's assume the results are representative and absolute—training one skill necessarily contributes to the development of another skill that might be unmeasurable by tests, such as emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence doesn't exist.
Where am I convincing you that psychologists would crush us, when body language recognition is more important to you than knowing quantum field theory....
Oh really? And what is it more important for? It certainly isn't for technology or the modern world.
Further lamentation regarding the topic of intelligence isn't my field, and regarding your point, I can respond that it's just one indicator which—without knowing how data is collected and the context behind it—isn't even applicable in court: Based on research, we can conclude that on average, PhD students in physical sciences in the USA are more intelligent than PhD students in Economics.
Wow. Bravo. You've clearly reached a conclusion.
By the way, what is referred to as "economics" in certain contexts is actually called Business in the USA, which is what you're actually preparing for. In the US, Economics is a mathematically demanding field—distinct from what people often mean when they say "Business."
