Charles Murray classified his highest IQ group as 125+, so for the twelfth time, he has nothing to say about the highly gifted.
Dude,
Did you actually read the Charles Murray article? He confronts the often commonly held assertion that the SAT only measures affluence, and the ability of wealthy parents to send children to expensive private schools and test prep courses. He explains why IQ has a larger determinant on the SAT than parental income.
The current SAT has a low ceiling, and therefore is not very good at discriminating among high school students with IQs > ~130. But the SAT, along with the ACT are important tests with relevance to the gifted community. Both tests are excellent measures of IQ for younger test takers. And they are an important component of college admissions.
If anything, Charles Murray's article should give hope to non-wealthy parents of gifted children (particularly those that haven't discovered the Davidson Institute yet). The deck is not as stacked against them as much as it may initially seem.
Murray's article would have been better if it was published in the NY Times, which has a less affluent audience than the WSJ. I think the NY Times also has more influence nationally than the WSJ (despite the WSJ having higher readership). But I am not sure the NY Times would have published it.
