Children Above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and Development

by Leta Stetter Hollingworth

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY

The following brief summaries of the achievement and adjustment of these twelve children may serve to suggest a few general principles that are applicable to other cases as well. [1]

SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT AND EDUCATIONAL ADJUSTMENT

Child A. This boy showed signs of precocity before his second year, reciting, classifying, and playing with words and letters; and before the age of 3 years showing interest in rhymes and stories. From first school entrance suitable placement was a recognized problem, and by the time A was 6 years old he was brought to a college clinic for educational guidance.

Throughout elementary school A was a trying problem, lacking interest in the routine program. He was behind his mental level in handwork and was not motivated to do his best work; he fitted poorly into social activities. Character traits were highly approved, except perhaps for independence and obstinacy. He resorted to imaginary lands, reading, and science and mathematics as forms of play.

The case was not followed far enough to show his final educational achievement, although it is known that he went through high school and entered college.

Child B. This girl was occupied with words by the time of her second year. Her ability was not early recognized by the schools she attended, although she passed seventh-grade standards while still in the fourth grade and her marks were always high. As she had marked social interests and aptitudes, this educational misplacement caused no serious trouble. When eventually "skipped," her size and poise kept her from being conspicuous, although the youngest in the class. She was apparently a natural leader, and in addition to the usual preoccupation with reading she had as an outlet the groups and clubs she organized.

Since she was followed only to high school, her final educational adjustment is not known.

Child C. This boy learned to read "almost as soon as he talked," and read fluently before beginning school. He was at once recognized as "odd," but in spite of perfect work he was not advanced and his ability was unappreciated by his teachers. At 9 years 6 months, with a mental age of 18, he was still in the fifth grade. He was very unhappy until the principal sought educational advice on his case and he was admitted to a segregated experimental class for rapid learners, where he quickly became adjusted and was an enthusiastic scholar.

Personal traits made social adjustment faulty, but he persisted in his educational career against heavy economic handicaps, finished high school and college with honors, and completed the medical training that admitted him to the profession that had been his ambition since childhood.

Child D. This boy was reading before he was 2 years of age, and was also interested in numbers and relationships. He made social contacts even before entering school by publishing a playground newspaper. As an exception to the prevailing rule, this boy's ability was early appreciated by his parents and it was recognized by his teachers as early as kindergarten.

His educationally interested parents supervised his instruction and sought expert advice. Various side talents in which he was versatile were also cultivated. Mathematical and scientific interests appeared early and were encouraged. Progress through school was facilitated and he entered college at 12 years 6 months of age, graduating with honors at just over 16.

In the following twelve years he became a proficient and well-trained industrial chemist, holding an important position in this field at the time of his death at the age of 28.

Child E. This child's ability also was recognized by teachers and parents at an early age, and this appreciation led to diligent supervision of his subsequent education. When he began to talk he was equally conversant with four languages. He was always accelerated in school and his superior size made this procedure feasible, at least in childhood. His whole bent was toward scholarly pursuits, and much of his study was privately conducted.

E entered college at 12 years and his precocity was widely exploited on the campus and in the press. His devotion to his work and his good sense and humor preserved him from social difficulties. He even impersonated himself in a class play.

His subsequent intellectual progress was phenomenal and he speedily became a scholarly contributor and an influential and active leader in the field of his boyhood choice.

Child F. This boy was an educational problem even in his first years in an ungraded school. Afterward teachers refused to place him in grades high enough to keep him occupied. A benign form of truancy that led him to the public library and to chess tournaments was his way out of his predicament. But in the process he developed an aversion to educational processes and to authorities of all kinds.

He was appreciated neither by his parents nor by his teachers until he was discovered in a survey that sought for just such minds for an experimental project in the education of the gifted. Traits other than intellectual made his subsequent educational history take the form of spurts, with intervening debacles. He died before the outcome of this group of circumstances could materialize.

Child G. This is a third case of early recognition by teachers and of guidance by parents, which led in childhood to an educational clinic for advice. Early interests in reading were fostered and directed, and more extrovert and social activities were devised by his parents.

G was rapidly promoted, and after entering an individual progress class he was a contented scholar. In spite of the facilitation of his progress through the grades he was not through high school until 15, and there is every evidence of satisfactory personal and social adjustment. The case record ends with his admission to college, on a scholarship, with definite and clearly defined aims and interests.

Child H. This girl's interest in words, stories, and relationships was noticed before her third year, and early recognition of her gifts appears to have come through an aunt who had special educational insight. Although H resorted to imaginary companions, she was socially minded enough to enjoy playmates.

Since the record terminates with her tenth year, there are no data on her later educational career. But her story thus far appears placid and marked by good adjustment and intelligent guidance.

Child I. This case had the advantage of a parent who also had been studied by educational experts interested in the gifted. Also her parents were themselves teachers. As early as 2 years she had been identified as exceptional and her subsequent career appears to have been guided throughout with wisdom.

I's discontent with aimless activity in the first two school grades was solved by placing her in the special experimental class for rapid learners. Her excellent progress and adaptation here constitute a clear demonstration of the advantages of early identification and intelligent educational placement.

Child J. This child's ability was recognized by her teachers from the beginning. She was accorded very rapid advancement, which was probably the only solution available under the circumstances. The parents, themselves educators, also contributed intelligent care and guidance in her development.

This favorable conjunction led to her prompt admission to an experimental group for children of her quality as soon as the regular teachers realized their inability to provide further stimulation for her. The definite service provided in this case by the Bureau of Educational Guidance is also an instructive part of the picture.

Child K. This boy's history is meagerly recorded. His picture is the usual one of early reading and native interest in learning. By his seventh year he had been appreciated by relatives who sought expert advice and guidance in his education. Such advice was then sought from time to time by his parents, and the brief record shows no untoward developments in his subsequent education up to the end of high school.

Child L. Achievement was so conspicuous in this case that as soon as L entered school he was given rapid promotion. His recommendation to the special class for rapid learners was due to the joint action of his parents and the school principal.

Once in this group, L's educational problems vanished. Expert guidance also attended his entrance to high school. As a result of these circumstances his further career appears to be propitiously launched.

The observations that seem most obviously to emerge from these brief summaries of educational history are as follows:

1. Such children as are here presented constitute difficult educational problems from their entrance in school. The problems are not only those of the teachers and educational authorities, but they are chiefly, perhaps, the problems of the children themselves.

2. Depending on the solution of these problems, such children may either be well articulated to the work of school and society and thus their remarkable talents be socially capitalized, or they may, on the other hand, develop distaste for such activities, negativism toward social projects, and personal obstinacy and recalcitrance, perhaps accompanied by bitterness.

3. The advantages of early recognition, appreciation and, if possible, measurement are apparent in the study of this small group of exceptionally intelligent children. Although all were identified fairly early in their lives, there are very different degrees of adaptation to school and society, ranging from opposition and truancy, through indifference, to rapt and enthusiastic preoccupation. To a considerable extent these variations appear to have depended on the earliness of identification of the child's intellectual quality. The valuable services of surveys, guidance clinics, and school psychologists are clearly manifested in this group of cases.

4. The cases that have achieved most contented and socially useful adaptation are those in which parents, teachers, and principals have made prompt use of special gift identification, have sought educational guidance, have personally fostered and supervised the child's development and the solution of his adjustment problems, or have taken advantage of such experimental classes for exceptional children as the schools have offered at the time.

5. Among the cases herein reported the clearest ones of easy and useful adjustment occurred when the exceptional child became a member of an experimental group comprised of others of his approximate kind. In the dozen cases cited, four different projects of this kind in the New York City schools have been referred to.

CREATIVE WORK

Is it true that children such as those herein described differ from those of less intelligence merely in having a readier and more tenacious memory? Are their distinctive achievements only the phenomenal reproduction of things they have learned—the recitation of answers they have been taught? Or do they also exhibit signs of originality and creativeness? Of their superior capacity for learning there is of course ample evidence. Is it this feature of their endowment that accounts for their high scores in conventionally standardized measures such as tests and examinations?

Ordinary records and histories are perhaps not well suited to disclose originality in childhood unless it is obtrusive. The child who devises a new way of tying his shoes, of arranging his books, of managing his pets, of sharpening his skates, may very easily get no clinical credit for these inventions. No one, indeed, except the child himself may ever know of them, and it may never occur to him that they are "creative." A boy who writes a poem, draws a steamboat, or devises a new game of checkers may immediately get credit for originality, while one who invents a technique of his own for shaving the back of his own neck may remain unheralded as a creator.

Our concept of "creativeness" has become standardized so as to suggest chiefly contributions to the conventional arts. It may nevertheless be instructive to review these case histories, looking in each for signs of activity that might in one way or another be construed as creative.

Child A. At 12 months he was classifying his blocks according to letter shapes. Before 16 months of age A tired of saying the letters of the alphabet forward and "guessed he would say them backward." He "made rhymes" of his own by the third year. He developed arithmetical principles unsuspected by either parents or teachers. He had an elaborate "imaginary land." He did not play well with other children because he always wanted to introduce new methods of playing the games. He devised elaborate schemes of his own for classifying events and objects. There is very little of the conventional interest in drawing, painting, poetry, mechanics, or music in this account, but it is clear enough that in his own way A had originality.

Child B. This child's early acquisition of the art of reading appears to have been untutored, and her passion for organizing clubs showed at least a certain type of initiative. But the record gives little evidence of other creative activity. Her chief distinction so far as noted was in the fields of excellent schoolwork and social adaptability.

Child C. This boy's earliest recognition was on the basis of what the teachers called his "phenomenal memory." But from early years his chief passion was for science, and his main interest therein was the possibility of discovering new things. There is, however, little evidence of ingenuity in the record, and C was chiefly distinguished by the mass and facility of his knowledge, learned chiefly from others.

Child D. The very curiosity of this boy might be said to have a creative or original character. "He was always asking unexpected questions." His playground newspaper was an original project in spite of its conventional character. So also was his passion for tabulation and calculation. His imaginary land was a complicated creation, as was the elaborate dictionary of its unique language. Musical composition was one of his pastimes, and he had active native talent for drawing and design. The invention of new words and new games was creative, and he had original classifications for many varieties of natural objects. His interest in science, which became uppermost, led to original experiments such as those on "the path of a tack." His final adoption of scientific work as a career is in keeping with this, and the position held at the end of his brief life was one concerned with chemical research in a relatively new industry. In a very real sense this boy's creative interests are fundamental in the picture of his development.

Child E. Originality appears among E's characteristics even in his definitions of words in the vocabulary tests. His life was, however, so harnessed to the organized pursuit of degrees that conventional fields of learning came to preoccupy him and there was little originality in his choice of an occupation, to which he appears to have been guided by solicitous elders. Such originality as he has had appeared abstractly and verbally. Thus his "constructive ability" was good but his "manual dexterity" poor. He had an imaginary country. After his escape from the hierarchy of organized education he became an active and productive scholar in his field, although it may be that theology is not a field in which creativeness is encouraged.

Child F. There is little evidence in the career of F of anything that could be called creative. He was in many ways ingenious, and he was socially nonconforming. He was a storehouse of information but not sagacious in the use of his knowledge. His ingenuity was not along original lines but in such conventionalized fields as chess, bridge, and dialectic. His capacity for intellectual work was phenomenal, but for the most part such activities were in prescribed fields, and a temporary interest in science was deflected to law—like theology, a field in which creativeness is not always an asset.

Child G. This boy's education was so scrupulously supervised and so sedulously recorded that he had little time for original projects. His questions and remarks evince a lively curiosity, and his abiding interests in chemistry and mathematics, with a research turn, perhaps point to creative trends that are poorly reflected in more elementary years. There is little evidence of unusual proficiency in any of the creative arts.

Child H. The chief interests of H as a child were in "drawing, painting, and mosaic blocks." She developed imaginary companions. She showed at an early age pronounced interests and aptitudes in stories and in versification. She was a composer of creditable childhood songs, poetry, and plays. She was followed only to her eleventh year and up to this point seems to have shown definite signs of constructive imagination.

Child I. This girl was versatile in many creative ways. She developed imaginary companions, wrote music and songs, produced dramatizations, wrote effective verses and longer poems. So far as the brief record shows, her creative interests remained close to the conventionalized arts, except for the native curiosity characteristic of most very bright children.

Child J. The data on J are so scant that little assurance as to her originality can be felt. At 7 she was in many ways an independent thinker. She composed "jingles" at the same time that she was reading Shakespearean plays, and the examiner commented on her "constructive imagery." She wrote acceptable poems before her tenth birthday. But for the most part she had been so occupied by rapid educational promotion that this is the most conspicuous feature in her description.

Child K. This boy has without doubt an enthusiasm for scholarly inquiry. He made no spontaneous collections, had no pets, no imaginary companions or lands. In a sense these traits which are lacking in K's personality are usually counted as originalities in children of such high intelligence. But data are not at hand to enable a judgment to be made of the presence or absence of creativeness in this child.

Child L. This is the case of a boy who showed such independent zeal for acquiring information that this curiosity had itself a creative tone. He is inventive and constructive even in mechanical ways—an exception in this particular group of cases. His teachers find him possessed of knowledge in mathematics which he must have derived from his own reflection. He also has marked initiative in using his knowledge, is full of constructive suggestions, makes many scientific experiments of his own, has many hobbies, and wants to do things to "advance scientific knowledge." Although he shows know unusual proficiency in the conventional arts, there can be no doubt that in affairs intellectual and scientific his mind is not only creative but also fertile.

GENERAL STATEMENT

If a general statement be attempted on the basis of such data as the descriptions and these summaries afford, it might be to the effect that one third of these highly intelligent children (A, D, H, L) show notable signs of creativeness. Another third (C, E, I, J) show such indications to a moderate degree. In the remaining third (B, F, G, K) there is at least no indication of marked constructive originality provided by these descriptions.

Certainly these creative dispositions are more conspicuous in these cases than in the general population of children. How these very rare intelligences compare in this respect with those ranging from, say, 130 to 175 IQ we cannot know. Creativeness even at best is infrequent enough. In experiences of daily life of course such creativeness might be more often found in children in the middle range of high intelligences because there are so many more of these in the population.

On the other hand, it may be that creativeness in marked degree appears in these higher ranges only. Under any circumstances it is not an all-or-none phenomenon, and the problem of the correlation of originality with intelligence scores perhaps deserves more careful study than it has received. It seems suggested at least by these few cases that very high intelligence may in some instances become directed along wholly conventional channels, showing itself in the amount of work or the rate of progress, with little or no manifestation of creative originality. If this is the case, it should be important to discover what extent this is a reflection of the regimentation of the occupation of such children by organized educational projects and close parental supervision, and to what extent it is a characteristic that is native in the individual. If it should be true that creativeness is closely dependent on such a high range of intelligence as that shown by this group of twelve children, a social order that esteems creativeness should give serious thought to the conditions of its cultivation and its development.

In this connection it is of some significance that so far as these cases are concerned, the best adjustments appear to have been made in educational arrangements that required the devotion of only one part of the child's time to established curricula, thus leaving time and providing encouragement for individual initiative and enrichment.

[1] This chapter was written by H. L. H.

PART III GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND IMPLICATIONS

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN ADULT STATUS AND PERSONALITY RATINGS

Observation of such cases as those described in the foregoing chapters suggests that children of exceptionally high intelligence do not regress toward mediocrity as they mature but maintain their initial distinguished status. Studies by other workers (Kuhlmann, Baldwin and Stechner, Terman) confirm such a conclusion. A further study of this point was reported by Hollingworth and Lorge in 1936, in which the following questions were investigated:

1. To what extent is status in IER Intelligence Scale CAVD at maturity predictable from childhood scores in Stanford-Binet?

2. How do those who tested above 180 IQ in childhood differ at maturity from those at lower levels in measures of general culture and of scientific information?

3. Is there discernable any consistent specialization in mental abilities from childhood to maturity?

4. At what degree of intelligence in terms of IQ (Stanford-Binet) is the word "genius" justifiable, if at all?

5. At what point on the scale of IQ (Stanford-Binet) obtained in childhood will individuals later prove "unmeasurable" by available tests of adult intelligence?

In 1934-1935 a group of eighteen persons whose high IQ's had been measured tweleve or thirteen years earlier (at ages 7 to 9 years) were measured in these respects and to these were added three others whose childhood IQ's were known to have been over 170. The tests used, to be reported here, were: CAVD Intelligence Scale, Levels N-Q; the Coöperative General Culture Test (Form 1933 or 1934); and the Coöperative General Science Test (Form 1933). There were also available data on most of the individuals from Army Alpha tests taken at ages 16 to 19. Of the 21 cases thus studied, nine had a childhood IQ over 170; eight over 150 [to 170]; the remaining four ranged down to 133.

ADULT STATUS OF HIGHLY INTELLIGENT CHILDREN [1]

The detailed data have been reported elsewhere and only the general results need to be recited here.

"For these gifted individuals (albeit there are so few studied) superior status on the Stanford-Binet at or near ages 7 to 9 years of age is highly predictive of status on Army Alpha at or near 16 to 19 years of age, and of status on CAVD at or near maturity. . . .

"It is clear that CAVD is more closely associated with General
Culture than with General Science. . . . There obviously is
a specificity of success for Science as compared with general
Culture. . . .

"The results for the CAVD as interpreted through norms obtained on selected populations show that highly intelligent children (of IQ 140 or above) fall within the upper quartile of the college graduate population of the United States, when they are at or near maturity."

Such results are confirmed also by a study reported two years earlier, in which over 100 children had been re-measured with Army Alpha 10 to 12 years after their initial Stanford-Binet measurements at ages 7 to 9 years. [2] All these children had IQ's over 130, and half of them were over 150, ranging up to 190. From this study the following conclusions had been drawn:

"Of 116 children testing in the top centile of the distribution of school children by Stanford-Binet, 82 per cent were found when near maturity, ten years later, to rate in the top centile of the military draft by Army Alpha. The remainder rated in high centiles. No individual of either sex regressed to or nearly to the average. . . . Girls regressed from the top centile somewhat more frequently than boys, this regression being in part but not fully accounted for by the known sex difference between medians on Army Alpha.

"This result affords a validation, by means of elapsed time, of the predictive power of available mental tests on the one hand; and on the other, a proof of the constancy of the intellectual development of gifted children in terms of centile status."

CRITIQUE OF THE CONCEPT OF "GENIUS" AS APPLIED IN TERMS OF IQ

The term "genius" has been used by Terman—and following him by many others—to denote children testing at or above 140 IQ (S-B). In the light of the developmental data herein presented, it would appear that the term "genius" is thus misapplied, unless we wish to define as "geniuses" persons who represent approximately the best fourth of all students being graduated from American colleges.

Of individuals here followed to early maturity, those who test at about 140 IQ (S-B) are found to define approximately the 75th percentile of college graduates, taking the country over. They are far from "genius," if by that term is to be meant the degree of mental ability that is capable of outstanding original intellectual achievement. It is only when we have an IQ (S-B) of at least 160 in a child, that we may begin to expect mildly noteworthy accomplishments, such as winning "honors" in a first-class college. Very rarely are "honors" won in first-class colleges by those who test below this status in childhood. The small sample of college graduates here presented is truly representative of the much larger sample in our files (not tested by our end tests) in this respect.

Of primary interest to the present investigators is the subsequent history of those who in childhood have achieved the extremely infrequent rating of 180 IQ or higher. At maturity will these persons still stand out from their contemporaries in mental tests and in achievement?

This question is answered affirmatively by our data. The five children here included, [3] who achieved IQ's (S-B) on first test in childhood of more than 180, are they who "find the tops" on CAVD at maturity. Every one of these top-rank persons is noteworthy among contemporaries. Before the age of 22 in all cases, one had prosecuted research in history, one in mathematics, one in chess, and two had become established in learned professions. One stood high in the national ranking for chess. A long list of medals and prizes had been won by them. All but one of those graduated from college had been elected to Phi Beta Kappa.

These unusual achievements show how children testing above 180 IQ rise above the generality of the college populations in adolescence and in early maturity. None of those who tested in childhood around 140, 150, or 160 IQ (S-B) approaches these others at maturity in honors and prizes won, or in test scores.

This is, perhaps, the most significant fact to be derived from our data: that the children who test at and above 180 IQ constitute the "top" among college graduates. They are the students of whom one may confidently predict that they will win honors and prizes for intellectual work.

Furthermore, it is shown that at approximately 190 IQ (S-B) individuals "go through the ceiling" of available tests for adult intelligence by the time they are 21 years old. We cannot at present distribute these persons at maturity.

Perhaps this is the point at which the term "genius" begins to apply—i.e., at or near IQ 180 (S-B)—if we adhere to the dictionary definition of the word, "Exalted intellectual power, marked by an extraordinary faculty for original creation, expression, or achievement" which is beyond the reach of available modes of measurement in its maturity.

APPLICATION OF BERNREUTER INVENTORY OF PERSONALITY TO HIGHLY INTELLIGENT ADOLESCENTS [4]

The data of the present study were obtained early in 1933, the subjects being 36 boys and 19 girls, of the average age of 18 years 6 months. The IQ's (S-B) of all had been taken in early childhood. The group ranged from 135-190 IQ (S-B) with a median at about 153 IQ (S-B). All but four of these young persons were Jewish, a factor which must be considered as of possible consequence, but which cannot be evaluated properly from any data at present in scientific literature.

The inventories were taken and scored by the investigators in person. All subjects had been personally known since childhood to the senior investigator.

The method of scoring follows Bernreuter, three categories only being found of sufficient independence to warrant recording.

SHOWS GROUP RESULTS FOR HIGHLY INTELLIGENT BOYS AND GIRLS, GIVING EVIDENCE THAT SUCH GROUPS ARE MUCH LESS NEUROTIC, MUCH MORE SELF-SUFFICIENT, AND MUCH LESS SUBMISSIVE IN ATTITUDE THAN COLLEGE STUDENTS OR ADULTS IN GENERAL ARE, ACCORDING TO THE CATEGORIES AND NORMS SET UP BY BERNREUTER

B1-N NEUROTIC TENDENCY B1-S SELF-SUFFICIENCY B1-D DOMINANCE-SUBMISSION
Statistical Highly College Adult Highly College Adult Highly College Adult
categories intelligent norm norm intelligent norm norm intelligent norm norm
boys group group boys group group boys group group

Number 36 427 86 36 427 99 36 427 100
Mean -104.9 -52.9 -69.3 54.5 24.9 38.8 87.4 46.3 52.7
σ 56.7 85.2 76.3 42.3 54.0 52.4 44.6 67.4 61.8
σ Mean 9.4 4.1 8.2 7.0 2.6 5.3 7.4 3.3 6.2
σσ 6.7 2.9 5.8 5.0 1.8 3.7 5.2 2.3 4.4
σ diff. ms. 10.2 12.5 7.5 8.8 8.1 9.6
D
———
σ diff. 5.1 2.8 3.9 2.1 5.1 3.6
Median -112.0 -70.0 -75.0 54.5 25.0 35.0 98.1 45.0 55.0

Girls Girls Girls

Number 19 317 123 19 317 126 19 317 130
Mean -45.0 -39.6 -34.2 52.0 6.9 16.8 46.5 33.1 19.2
σ 65.7 78.9 80.6 51.7 55.7 55.6 55.5 63.5 65.5
σ Mean 15.1 4.4 7.3 11.9 3.1 5.0 12.7 3.6 5.7
σσ 10.7 3.1 5.1 8.4 2.2 3.5 9.0 2.5 4.1
σ diff. ms. 15.7 16.8 12.3 12.9 13.2 13.9
D
———
σ diff. .04 .64 3.7 2.7 1.0 1.96
Median -42.6 -40.0 -30.0 52.0 5.0 0.0 40.7 33.0 15.0

The summary of results shows that the highly intelligent are less neurotic, more self-sufficient, and less submissive, as a group, than are the populations with which they are comparable. This divergence from the norms is found both for boys and for girls of the highly intelligent group, but it is much more pronounced for boys.

To one who has been familiar with the characteristics and the careers of these persons for fifteen years, the correspondence between what is found on the inventory and what is found in the actual lives is interestingly close. Boy 13, for instance (extremely high score for self-sufficiency and dominance), took ship on his own initiative as soon as he was twenty-one years old and sailed around the world as an ordinary seaman, returning to his post in the financial district of New York City when the journey was completed. Boy 35 is a well-known player in metropolitan and sectional chess tournaments, and was able to meet seasoned players when he was fifteen to seventeen years old (high scores for self-sufficiency and dominance). Boy 29 entered college at 14 years of age, "held his own" with the older students, earned money throughout his course, graduated at eighteen years of age with Phi Beta Kappa, and won a prize for research, in competition, in his junior year at medical school. Girl H won and held an appointment in public service, against heavy odds of sex, age, and general economic depression.

The indication from these data is that adolescents who as children tested from 135-190 IQ (S-B) are much less neurotic, much more self-sufficient and much less submissive than college students in general, or than adults of the mental caliber represented in the Bernreuter norms. It is to be noted in this comparison with the generality of college students that from data so far collected, the median intelligence of the group here presented reaches about Q#3# for college students, taking them the country over.

[1] For a more detailed account see Lorge and Hollingworth's "The Adult Status of Highly Intelligent Children," in Journal of Genetic Psychology (1936), Vol. 49, pages 215-226.

[2] Hollingworth and Kaunitz. "The Centile Status of Gifted Children at Maturity." Journal of Genetic Psychology (September, 1934), pages 106-120.

[3] Study made by Leta S. Hollingworth in previous years.

[4] For detailed results see the paper by this title, by Hollingworth and Rust, Journal of Psychology (1937), Vol. 4, pages 287-293.