Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Random order:

Goldman Sachs investment banker
Mckinsey Analyst
Google software engineer
NIH medical researcher
NASA JPL aerospace engineer
Mayo Clinic doctor
Boeing mechanical engineer
CERN physicist
BigLaw (Latham & Watkins LLP) Lawyer
ACLU lawyer

Where's Human Resources person?

Lmao.

1. KMC Star Wars critic

1. CERN physicist
2. NIH medical researcher | NASA JPL aerospace engineer
3. Google software engineer | Boeing mechanical engineer | Goldman Sachst investment banker | ACLU Lawyer
4. McKinsey analyst | Mayo Clinic doctor | BigLaw Lawyer
5. Grown up person with random good work, career, happy familly
6. Grown up person with a stable life and basic needs
7. KMC user
8. Hobo

Class 1:
NASA JPL aerospace engineer
Boeing mechanical engineer
CERN physicist

Class 2:
Goldman Sachs investment banker
Mckinsey Analyst
Google software engineer

Class 3:
BigLaw (Latham & Watkins LLP) Lawyer
ACLU lawyer
NIH medical researcher
Mayo Clinic doctor



All 3 classes have above-average intelligence members with plenty in the gifted range.

Originally posted by JKBart

7. KMC user
8. Hobo

Typing on an internet forum is harder than surviving only on your wits and surroundings?

Originally posted by Kurk
Class 1:
NASA JPL aerospace engineer
Boeing mechanical engineer
CERN physicist

Class 2:
Goldman Sachs investment banker
Mckinsey Analyst
Google software engineer

Class 3:
BigLaw (Latham & Watkins LLP) Lawyer
ACLU lawyer
NIH medical researcher
Mayo Clinic doctor



All 3 classes have above-average intelligence members with plenty in the gifted range.

Boeing over Google? mmm

Where does KMC user fit in?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Boeing over Google? mmm

Where does KMC user fit in?
meh, I could see them being in the same class now that I think of it.

KMC user is not an occupation believe it or not.

This is a Star Wars forum.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Typing on an internet forum is harder than surviving only on your wits and surroundings?



So, what about the general intelligence level of the administrator's who they these various professionals work for?

I always get a laugh when some Yalie kid talks like big corporation's are the enemy, as if they don't realize every one of their professor's answer's to Yale Corporate.

Originally posted by cdtm

So, what about the general intelligence level of the administrator's who they these various professionals work for?


In all seriousness, the administrators of the professions listed would actually have gone through similar, and often more thorough vetting processes. The exception might be with Boeing; I dunno if their managers are comparable to their engineers.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Random order:

Goldman Sachs investment banker
Mckinsey Analyst
Google software engineer
NIH medical researcher
NASA JPL aerospace engineer
Mayo Clinic doctor
Boeing mechanical engineer
CERN physicist
BigLaw (Latham & Watkins LLP) Lawyer
ACLU lawyer

Anyway,

I'm not sure how to rank them generally, but I'm fairly confident that:
- the CERN physicist is at the top
- BigLaw is at or near the bottom
- the Google engineer is probably above the Boeing engineer
- Mckinsey is probably slightly above Goldman

Anyone have some good respect threads to draw from? Feats? Accolades? Prestige scaling? Holistic intent? Sometimes it's tough to tell how canon sources are with this.

what feats do u have to compare with any of these professions

Originally posted by JKBart
what feats do u have to compare with any of these professions

How many competitors they blitzed and whether they had economic nexuses, what their most impressive products are and how quickly and independently they built them, accolades from trusted sources, calcs from selectivity of interview process, etc.

Looks like there are some respect threads online, but many come from biased sources.

^ so SW puns aside, there are probably a few mechanisms we can use to guess median IQ:

- the caliber of the average applicant
- how exclusive the selection process is
- how intellectually challenging the selection process is

With a loose litmus comparison test of whether it would be cognitively easier for one profession to do the other or vice versa.

(this is incredibly back of the envelope)

CERN physicist takes the top spot because the average applicant has a Phd in physics, which would unto itself be a mighty filtering process, and has to be incredibly distinguished at that - and both getting a phd in physics and doing meaningful research are incredibly g-loaded tasks. Likewise, CERN physicists would easily court offers from Google, Goldman or Mckinsey, and probably with Boeing too (though maybe not as an engineer). Meanwhile, none of the others would typically be remotely qualified to get into CERN.

Google, NASA and Boeing get incredibly high-caliber applicants in intellectually demanding fields. I'd say that Google and NASA are more exclusive than Boeing; surveys of most coveted engineering jobs put NASA in first place and Google in second (although IIRC this is for hardware, so for software Google is likely above NASA). It's possible that Google beats NASA because its better pay is better at attracting people and because its interview process is more intellectually focused than NASA's (which uses relatively more behavioral type questions), but NASA is, to my knowledge, smaller, potentially more prestigious, and one could argue that the actual work is more intellectually challenging (or maybe not - maybe it relies more on things like experience). It's tough to decide between the two. I'd give an edge to Google vs. NASA as a whole, but since we are talking about the jet propulsion laboratory, it's tough to parse them.

Goldman Sachs and Mckinsey are both incredibly selective and do employ intellectually related metrics. The process just isn't as cognitively exclusive; getting into a target school, getting a 3.8+, interning and networking can be done by more people than those who can do well on topcoder or win hackathons, and their interviews aren't up to Google's algorithm questions. There's also evidence (I can link if you want) that less academically successful STEM students are more likely to pursue finance than the superstars, potentially because of the less cognitively demanding work (this sounds harsh; of course I'm generalizing heavily here). In between them, Mckinsey is typically considered slightly more selective than Goldman.

NIH researchers usually have PhDs and need good research chops and other credentials. I am, again, generalizing here, but on average the intellectual firepower needed for medical research isn't as high as that needed for physics, so they aren't on the level of CERN (which is also smaller). Is medical research easier than software or hardware engineering? That's tough to say. I'd say that the NIH doesn't seem to employ the same super-interviews that Google does, and may not attract the same outliers as NASA, but it is probably harder than Goldman or Mckinsey. The fact of the matter is that getting into a good life sciences phd program and finishing it is probably a higher bar than getting a good gpa at a target and networking well.

The Mayo Clinic is the top rated hospital in the US, and so its doctors are probably really, really good. Are they above Mckinsey or Goldman? Yeah, probably. Getting into a good medical school, and/or really nailing the top medical hospital seems tougher than the 3.8+ target gpa and networking. Is it tougher than NIH researcher? Possibly, if it's a smaller cohort (is it?), but I'm not sure - I'll list them as a tie.

Getting into the ACLU is much harder than getting into a big law firm like Latham and Watkins. It is probably less precise in selecting for intelligence because they aren't as grade conscious, but that is probably more than offset by the large disparity in selectivity. Relative to the others, a biglaw lawyer comes from a high-ranking law school whose LSATs would honestly not compare to what most software engineers at Google could score. They're prob below Goldman, too, because the range of law schools drawn from is not as prestigious as the range of undergraduate schools (which are often more selective than their law school counterparts) Goldman and Mckinsey prefer. The ACLU lawyer might be above them by virtue of selectivity, balanced out slightly by the greater selection for experience.

So:

CERN physicist
Google engineer | NASA JPL engineer
Boeing engineer | NIH Medical Researcher | Mayo Clinic Doctor | ACLU Lawyer
Mckinsey Analyst
Goldman Sachs banker
BigLaw Lawyer


I do get a feeling that I'm underrating Mckinsey and Goldman, but oh well.

As someone from the field, if you're comparing the best NASA/JPL/Caltech prodigies have to offer with the best software engineers from Google, I'd give NASA a clearly decisive edge.

I even personally know an engineer that is related to Ernst Mach, academically.

Google has its prodigies too, particularly in its research labs.

The relationship to Mach is impressive.

1. KMC Users
2. Our Slaves

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The relationship to Mach is impressive.

Through the prodigious line of Hans Liepmann, Theodore von Karman and Ludwig Prandtl. University is a very humbling experience. lol

Which field are you personally referring to?

This has what to do with SW?

It relates to the question of guessing the strength of certain signals in indicating ability.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Which field are you personally referring to?

I suppose the question is for me...so he's an aerospace engineer with Phd in Aeronautics & Applied Mathematics from Caltech. Focused on hypersonic aerodynamics.

Oh, I meant yourself, if you don't mind saying.

Applied Mathematics but I'm not an academic.