Average IQ of Canadian Medical Students?

[orange14]

I know there is debate about IQ vs. hard work as the dominant predictor of academic/professional success but all that aside, I was wondering what people on this forum believe the average IQ of Canadian med students is? Or what IQ range is generally thought to be good enough to become a Canadian educated competent physician? I say "Canadian educated" since nearly all our med schools seem about as hard to get into as some top US schools like Penn or Stanford (with acceptance rates below 10%), which implies even higher intelligence requirements.

 

Personally, I think the average IQ for incoming med students/recent grads is 130, which is in the gifted range. But I believe that a person with an IQ of at least 115 is still capable of becoming a physician with more hard work and effort than their gifted counterparts.

 

What is your opinion?

 

FYI - I know a high IQ does NOT actually make a good physician but I think it is important in terms of completing education requirements (high undergrad GPA, MCAT, and not burning out in med school).

[nonstop]

My mind cannot comprehend the sheer ridiculousness of this post. What is this I don't even...

[NeuroPreMed]

I'd have to somewhat agree with nonstop, but at the same time this could very easily be ended. A low success rate has many variables behind it. Perhaps people with 2.7 GPAs are applying, or perhaps there are individuals who are left with nothing but they just didn't try enough to be different than the thousands of other applicants who were "alright". With an average Canadian IQ of 100 (I believe the real number is 98?), obviously only the "superior" or "gifted" will be accepted into a profession such as medicine, or law perhaps.

 

Entertaining the idea of this post I actually saw a picture a while back about average IQs. All in all, this answers and ends the conversation.

[Intrepid86]

FYI - I know a high IQ does NOT actually make a good physician but I think it is important in terms of completing education requirements (high undergrad GPA, MCAT, and not burning out in med school).

 

You don't need to be smart to be a good student. Thinking that a high IQ is necessary is one of the biggest misconceptions ever.

[hexonu]

If you judge a fish on it's ability to climb a tree, it's not very intelligent. IQ tests are flawed.

[nonstop]

You don't need to be smart to be a good student. Thinking that a high IQ is necessary is one of the biggest misconceptions ever.

 

+1. Non-quantifiable things such as work ethic and self-discipline, motivation and even things like health are essential to the success of a student. Having a good IQ is only one of dozens of prerequisites.

[Selstaar]

My mind cannot comprehend the sheer ridiculousness of this post. What is this I don't even...

 

This response literally made me LOL.

 

And, yeah, NathanS is right. Although, I don't understand why everyone's tone is so disparaging. OP had a serious question.

 

It's funning because during the school year I was having coffee with two of my profs and we were talking about this. One of them even went as far as saying that two numbers a person will always remember once told (and obviously old enough to understand them) are their birthday and IQ.

 

I think you're right in that intelligence has a role to play in one's ability to survive a rigorous undergraduate/graduate education without gaining 20 pounds from drowning your sorrows in ice cream. I think that's why professional schools look at GPAs and whatever set of standardized tests they make us take (not that these reflect intelligence). However, I will draw you attention to a number of things I took away from the coffee date:

 

(1) IQ's not static - it can change and coming to that realization's actually been positively correlated with greater success.

 

(2) Beyond a certain threshold (one WAYWAYWAY lower than 130), I'm pretty sure IQ's correlation with success is virtually nonexistent.

 

Also, I think you should pick up Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers. It's a real quick read and will probably help put better into perspective where discourse around the social determinants of health is coming from.

[NeuroPreMed]

This response literally made me LOL.

 

And, yeah, NathanS is right. Although, I don't understand why everyone's tone is so disparaging. OP had a serious question.

 

It's funning because during the school year I was having coffee with two of my profs and we were talking about this. One of them even went as far as saying that two numbers a person will always remember once told (and obviously old enough to understand them) are their birthday and IQ.

 

I think you're right in that intelligence has a role to play in one's ability to survive a rigorous undergraduate/graduate education without gaining 20 pounds from drowning your sorrows in ice cream. I think that's why professional schools look at GPAs and whatever set of standardized tests they make us take (not that these reflect intelligence). However, I will draw you attention to a number of things I took away from the coffee date:

 

(1) IQ's not static - it can change and coming to that realization's actually been positively correlated with greater success.

 

(2) Beyond a certain threshold (one WAYWAYWAY lower than 130), I'm pretty sure IQ's correlation with success is virtually nonexistent.

Also, I think you should pick up Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers. It's a real quick read and will probably help put better into perspective where discourse around the social determinants of health is coming from.

 

That's just how PM101 always sounds haha.

And I don't know if I would say waywayway lower, but definitely a substantial amount lower yes. The biggest thing is it allows you to grasp or remember things faster. So what's saying that if I have 150 IQ I'm a better doctor than the individual with 100 IQ? If I put in 1 hour of study time and get a 3.9, and the other puts in 8 hours and also gets a 3.9, are we not the same?

[Intrepid86]

(1) IQ's not static - it can change and coming to that realization's actually been positively correlated with greater success.

 

I felt my IQ drop just by reading that garbage.

[orange14]

That's just how PM101 always sounds haha.

And I don't know if I would say waywayway lower, but definitely a substantial amount lower yes. The biggest thing is it allows you to grasp or remember things faster. So what's saying that if I have 150 IQ I'm a better doctor than the individual with 100 IQ? If I put in 1 hour of study time and get a 3.9, and the other puts in 8 hours and also gets a 3.9, are we not the same?

 

No because the person who put in 1 hour has 7 hours that can be devoted to improving other areas of life (socializing, exercising, etc) making him/her a much different person (lifestyle/balance wise). The person who puts in 8 hours to get the same result will burn out way faster and not have as much time to the next item on their to do list and be disadvantaged. If you were to look at the two people on an levelled field, then you have to assess how well they will both do in 1 hour or 8 hours. Chances are: In one hour, the 1 hour person will still get 3.9 and the other person actually might fail. Similarly, if the 1 hour person put in 8 hours, they may even get a 4.0+ (depending on the grade distribution ofc).

 

This was a serious question. I think people underestimate the impact one's raw intelligence capacity can have on life. I mean, no matter how hard the person with 110 IQ tries, there will come a point when he/she simply cannot keep up with the pace of a 130 IQ person. I don't know but this just makes sense to me.

[BAMFtastic]

No because the person who put in 1 hour has 7 hours that can be devoted to improving other areas of life (socializing, exercising, etc) making him/her a much different person (lifestyle/balance wise). The person who puts in 8 hours to get the same result will burn out way faster and not have as much time to the next item on their to do list and be disadvantaged. If you were to look at the two people on an levelled field, then you have to assess how well they will both do in 1 hour or 8 hours. Chances are: In one hour, the 1 hour person will still get 3.9 and the other person actually might fail. Similarly, if the 1 hour person put in 8 hours, they may even get a 4.0+ (depending on the grade distribution ofc).

 

This was a serious question. I think people underestimate the impact one's raw intelligence capacity can have on life. I mean, no matter how hard the person with 110 IQ tries, there will come a point when he/she simply cannot keep up with the pace of a 130 IQ person. I don't know but this just makes sense to me.

 

Now isn't this a bold statement. You're basing the level of intelligence specifically on academics. I would argue that professional athletes are geniuses in their sports (they see things differently). That does not mean they have a higher IQ than someone else. Tell me, if I have a larger lung capacity than you, does that instantly mean that I have a higher IQ than you? (What? You can't compete with my voluptuous lungs Baby!)

 

But in all seriousness a great physician is more than smarts - they are people pleasers first, brains second (granted radiologist might get away with the opposite order easier than say GPs lol)

 

Everyone is gifted in some aspect of their life. Even if that is as simple as telling a really good joke. Hence, the 110 will always be able to out-compete the 130 at something, and no matter what, there will always be a person who can out-compete the 130 at anything.

[NeuroPreMed]

No because the person who put in 1 hour has 7 hours that can be devoted to improving other areas of life (socializing, exercising, etc) making him/her a much different person (lifestyle/balance wise). The person who puts in 8 hours to get the same result will burn out way faster and not have as much time to the next item on their to do list and be disadvantaged. If you were to look at the two people on an levelled field, then you have to assess how well they will both do in 1 hour or 8 hours. Chances are: In one hour, the 1 hour person will still get 3.9 and the other person actually might fail. Similarly, if the 1 hour person put in 8 hours, they may even get a 4.0+ (depending on the grade distribution ofc).

 

This was a serious question. I think people underestimate the impact one's raw intelligence capacity can have on life. I mean, no matter how hard the person with 110 IQ tries, there will come a point when he/she simply cannot keep up with the pace of a 130 IQ person. I don't know but this just makes sense to me.

 

Now isn't this a bold statement. You're basing the level of intelligence specifically on academics. I would argue that professional athletes are geniuses in their sports (they see things differently). That does not mean they have a higher IQ than someone else. Tell me, if I have a larger lung capacity than you, does that instantly mean that I have a higher IQ than you? (What? You can't compete with my voluptuous lungs Baby!)

 

But in all seriousness a great physician is more than smarts - they are people pleasers first, brains second (granted radiologist might get away with the opposite order easier than say GPs lol)

 

Everyone is gifted in some aspect of their life. Even if that is as simple as telling a really good joke. Hence, the 110 will always be able to out-compete the 130 at something, and no matter what, there will always be a person who can out-compete the 130 at anything.

 

Reminds me of a video, I'm sure people have seen.

 

[peace2012]

Reminds me of a video, I'm sure people have seen.

 

 

this video does have some very insightful points, but I think higher education not only increase your earning potential but more importantly, makes you learn more about the world and be less stupid. Plus, both Bill gates and Mark Zuckerberg both got in to Harvard, which means they are extremely smart to begin with. A normal college dropout should not be compared to these incredible geniuses to begin with.

[IamIDP]

130 seams like a reasonable assumption

[NeuroPreMed]

this video does have some very insightful points, but I think higher education not only increase your earning potential but more importantly, makes you learn more about the world and be less stupid. Plus, both Bill gates and Mark Zuckerberg both got in to Harvard, which means they are extremely smart to begin with. A normal college dropout should not be compared to these incredible geniuses to begin with.

 

I think this would be the best time to use "ignorance is bliss". To the majority of us on here, we are here because we generally thrive for knowledge. The people I worked with before school weren't the brightest people I had ever met, so to them it doesn't really matter what's going on with the world. They live their life day by day collecting a pay cheque because that's all the know and all they care about.

[medisforme]

One doesn't need to be very intelligent to study medicine, the hard part is the amount of material not the content. I am only going into second year but personally, first year calculus or physics was immensely harder than anything I learned in first year med.

My point being that hard work, motivation, organization are much more key to studying medicine compared with raw intelligence.

[rmorelan]

One doesn't need to be very intelligent to study medicine, the hard part is the amount of material not the content. I am only going into second year but personally, first year calculus or physics was immensely harder than anything I learned in first year med.

My point being that hard work, motivation, organization are much more key to studying medicine compared with raw intelligence.

 

I agree with this - for the most part medicine is not really THAT hard. The individual concepts are relatively simply - there is just a ton of them. A good long term memory is important. We also have an extremely long training time to get it down. I never viewed it as one of those extremely complicated problems to solve. I don't think the range on that first slide given was all that far off.

 

There are some areas when you are pushing the envelop that you had better have our thinking cap on

 

I think often my brain was far more stressed as a software engineer than in medicine so far.

[Jaybird]

Med students already have their own version of the IQ test - here's a hint, it starts with M and rhymes with bat.

[future_doc]

My IQ is below 115 and I am doing just fine.

[medigeek]

An IQ number measured by a test is subject to endless errors. However someone's actual intelligence (which isn't fully measurable by a test) will have a significant impact on their success no doubt.

 

You have to be above average to successfully complete university, and a step above that to get into medicine. Beyond that, things like your passion/interests along with your intelligence will determine your capacity.

 

Think of it was a cup. Intelligence is just the size of your cup. It's up to you to decide how much of it you want to use

[NeuroPreMed]

An IQ number measured by a test is subject to endless errors. However someone's actual intelligence (which isn't fully measurable by a test) will have a significant impact on their success no doubt.

 

You have to be above average to successfully complete university, and a step above that to get into medicine. Beyond that, things like your passion/interests along with your intelligence will determine your capacity.

 

Think of it was a cup. Intelligence is just the size of your cup. It's up to you to decide how much of it you want to use

 

That all depends on your definition of "successfully". There was a group of girls in one of my classes last fall who would not shut up, and come exam time surprise surprise, they didn't know anything, when they get excited a few weeks later because they got a C or C+ that's their success.

[nem90]

That all depends on your definition of "successfully". There was a group of girls in one of my classes last fall who would not shut up, and come exam time surprise surprise, they didn't know anything, when they get excited a few weeks later because they got a C or C+ that's their success.

 

Well, if "successfully" means a very competitive GPA, then having above average intelligence will make it much easier to achieve it.

[Intrepid86]

You have to be above average to successfully complete university, and a step above that to get into medicine.

 

When was the last time someone came to this forum and opened with, "I need help cuz I'm too dumb"? Once they tell their story, what they usually mean is that they've made dumb mistakes (i.e., errors in judgement). Performing well in undergrad consistently involves discipline and the correct management of time and effort - this is where 90% of people fall short, not because they're not intelligent enough. Anyone can score high on one exam in one class, but can they do it on most of their exams, in every class, for a year? 4 years? The ability to make good choices and follow through with them is more valuable than any inherent genius one may have.

[nem90]

When was the last time someone came to this forum and opened with, "I need help cuz I'm too dumb"? Once they tell their story, what they usually mean is that they've made dumb mistakes (i.e., errors in judgement). Performing well in undergrad consistently involves discipline and the correct management of time and effort - this is where 90% of people fall short, not because they're not intelligent enough. Anyone can score high on one exam in one class, but can they do it on most of their exams, in every class, for a year? 4 years? The ability to make good choices and follow through with them is more valuable than any inherent genius one may have.

 

Ok, let's be real here. Some people are gorgeous and some people are not. Similarly, the brain is a physical object, some have a good one and some don't. For some people, no matter how much discipline and dedication, they sometimes fall short. The beauty is that the system is fair in giving everyone an equal shot. Can you blame someone for their lack of focus/discipline when they can't help but constantly get side tracked (say ADHD) when others do not suffer from that problem?

[Intrepid86]

For some people, no matter how much discipline and dedication, they sometimes fall short.

 

That's stating the obvious; people reach the natural limits of their ability. However, the majority of students who perform poorly (or otherwise didn't score what they wanted), will say they could have studied more or studied better, not "I did everything I could".

 

Can you blame someone for their lack of focus/discipline when they can't help but constantly get side tracked (say ADHD) when others do not suffer from that problem?

 

Are you seriously trying to get me to compare a healthy person to someone with untreated ADHD?