| Trait | Correlation with Mental Tests | Correlation with Academic Record | Average |
| Intelligence | .62 | .52 | .57 |
| Humor | .55 | .15 | .35 |
| Refinement | .34 | .34 | .34 |
| Snobbishness | .53 | .13 | .33 |
| Neatness | .36 | .24 | .30 |
| Conceit | .54 | .03 | .28 |
| Beauty | .40 | .06 | .23 |
| Sociability | .25 | -.07 | .09 |
| Vulgarity | .29 | -.31 | -.01 |
In the case of the mental tests all the coefficients are positive and fairly high in most cases. The correlation is highest of all with estimated intelligence, whatever that may mean. As we have used the term it perhaps means the impression of general capacity which an individual makes on her associates. It is interesting to find that the mental tests, which can be administered in a few minutes, give us so close a measure of what this impression will be; a measure, it should be noted, which is higher than that afforded by the academic records, in spite of the fact that these academic records had been from term to term announced in a public way and might have been expected to contribute toward the general impression on the basis of which the judgments of intelligence were passed. The high correlation between tests and estimates suggests that the abilities displayed in these tests correspond very closely to those characteristics on which our associates base their estimates of our intelligence. This is an encouraging result for those interested in the vocational use of mental tests.
But it is equally interesting that the results of the mental test correlate to so high a degree with the estimates of various other traits, notably humor, snobbishness, conceit, beauty, neatness and refinement. This result suggests either or both of two interpretations. It may be, on the one hand, that these characteristics are only partial components of that more general trait, intelligence (with which the correlation of the tests is still higher), at least so far as the estimates of our associates are concerned. This would mean that a sense of humor, a tendency toward self-esteem, physical attractiveness and a gentle manner dispose one's associates to think favorably of her general mental endowment. On the other hand the result may mean that an individual who has sufficient distinction to stand out prominently in any of the estimated traits here considered is possessed of a nervous system which enables her to accomplish the work of these mental tests with corresponding efficiency. Such a characteristic as "general stand-out-ishness" may perhaps be a trait which calls for recognition, not only in daily life but also in the narrower categories of psychological classification.
In the case of the academic records this general tendency toward positive correlation is not present. The only high correlation is with estimated intelligence. It is impossible to say how far this high coefficient is due to general knowledge of academic attainments on the part of the individuals composing the groups. Refinement and neatness are the only other traits which show any claim at all for correlation with academic records. The positive direction of these coefficients may afford some consolation to those who put their faith in the vocational significance of academic records of college students, but their low values constitute a somewhat less encouraging commentary.
V. How do the various measures of intelligence compare with one another, and what is the reliability of these various measures? Frequent studies have been made of the relation between teachers' estimates of the general intelligence of pupils and their intelligence as shown by their performance in psychological tests. The teacher's estimate is perhaps very likely to be based on that sort of intelligence which shows itself in academic performance only, since in many cases the acquaintance is limited to contact in class room and laboratory. In our own case we have teachers' estimates only in the form of the actual class records. These are, then, not estimates of general intelligence in the strict sense, but are conditioned presumably for the most part by the student's performance in the class room.
The academic marks were reported according to a letter system, in which A means "very good," B means "good," C means "fair," D means "poor" and F means "failed." Having secured these marks for all the students in English, German, Logic, Psychology, Economics and History, we averaged the marks for each student, by giving A, B, C, D and F values of 90, 80, 70, 60 and 50. This gave us final averages for all the students, on the basis of which averages they were arranged in order of merit, the two groups being separately treated.
We have now the three following measures of intelligence:
a. The results of the psychological tests.
b. The opinion of fellow students.
c. The academic records.
The correlations between these various measures are given in the following tabulation: