Lawyers fall behind in IQ study
Lawyers have become less intelligent compared to the average person over thelast decade, research from the Centre for Market and Public Organisation
(CMPO) has revealed.
Lawyers have become less intelligent compared to the average person over the last decade, research from the Centre for Market and Public Organisation
(CMPO) has revealed.
The study compared IQ scores for lawyers born in 1958 to those born in 1970 - who are currently climbing the ranks of law firms and barristers’ chambers.
Lawyers in the earlier group scored 11 per cent better than the average, but the 1970 group were just 8 per cent more intelligent.
This was a greater fall than the majority of other professions where the gap narrowed by around 1 percentage point.
Despite the shrinking ability gap, lawyers are now more likely to have come from a wealthier background than those born in the fifties, with the family income for the parents of lawyers increasing much faster than the average (TheLawyer.com 2 Feb 2009).
Lindsey Macmillan, a researcher at the Bristol University-based CMPO, said:
“Despite the fact that lawyers are looking a lot less like the average person in terms of their family income, they are looking more like the average person in terms of ability.”
The gap in IQ performance compared to the average fell for most other vocations, as well as the law. Doctors, teachers, bankers and stock brokers
all moved closer to average intelligence between the two studies.
Artists, engineers, scientist and journalists have all become more intelligent when compared to average IQ scores, the research found.
(To view a larger version, please click on image)
Source: Social mobility and the Professions, Lindsey Macmillan, CMPO, University of Bristol
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (34)
Aching Gump | 27-Feb-2009 2:38 pm
Advice
Life's like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.
That's the best darn piece of advice ah've ever heard, and I didn't need no lawyer to give it to me none.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Major Misunderstanding | 27-Feb-2009 2:42 pm
I'm outraged
This is just another example of The Lawyer's shockingly casual Communist approach to life, associating high incomes and wealth with stupidity. It is outrageous to make such a claim.
Also did you notice they could not resist saying that journalists were more clever these days? I suppose they are all getting paid less than in 1950 and living in a bloody hippy commune together. Astonishing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lionel Hutz | 27-Feb-2009 2:46 pm
I don't understand
can you repeat the article?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Luddite | 27-Feb-2009 2:50 pm
stupider lawyers
Is it because lawyers have been spending too much time on Facebook?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Feb-2009 2:51 pm
great story
The Lawyer's keen news sense remains intact - publishing all the news from 1970 as it breaks...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
City Lawyer | 27-Feb-2009 2:56 pm
The solution: Recruit Law students with solid Law degrees from good universities!
That's because in the 50s, only law students could become lawyers but now any Tom Denis and Harry can become a lawyer with any old degree or by having a rather pompous family member who is a lawyer and weaving their way into the legal system which might I add, used to be for those with the brains. It's a wonder that anyone still bothers to do 3 year law degrees. Also, there is a real need to standardise what is learnt in all the universities and Law colleges. So much emphasis is placed on getting a 2:i or 1st from Oxbridge. Such qualifications certainly improve the CV but not the IQ.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Feb-2009 2:57 pm
At Major Misunderstanding
Trying supporting lawyers Major Misunderstanding on an IT level and you might think differently
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
nana | 27-Feb-2009 2:59 pm
1+1
Use your brains, this article has been drafted in such a way to draw readers attention and increase their internet site stake !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anon | 27-Feb-2009 3:04 pm
IQ
Greatstory - You must be one of those stupid lawyers the research is talking about - it's people born in 1970 who are now being measured. Dur!
PS Athough obviously, the research is deeply flawed!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Feb-2009 3:08 pm
Drivel
I would love to see a journalist negotiate the terms of a simple, bilateral loan.
The law employs, as it has always done, the finest minds in the City.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Feb-2009 3:14 pm
hilarious
This article is actually one of the funniest things I have ever seen. There are so many things I could say to criticise it that my brain is about to explode.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Proust | 27-Feb-2009 3:31 pm
Intelligence
I would love to see lawyers negotiate the terms of a single bilateral (writer-reader) text without deliberate obfuscation as a means of making money.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris London | 27-Feb-2009 3:32 pm
IQ
I've been a City lawyer for many years and followed this article perfectly until it got to the graph, which befuddled me (I had a bit of trouble with the words too but let's not go there). No problem: I'll get a junior to pull an exec summary together for me.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Jones | 27-Feb-2009 3:37 pm
question
what is the significance of the years 1958 and 1970?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
City Lawyer | 27-Feb-2009 3:39 pm
Astonishing Accountants!
Well the one good thing this graph does is explain why my accountant is so goddamn thick.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Major Misunderstanding | 27-Feb-2009 3:45 pm
To That Chap That Responded To Me Below...
I notice that you IT people aren't included in this survey. The profession is staffed to the gills with barbarians and luddites.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Feb-2009 4:09 pm
What was the average?
Quote: "Lawyers in the earlier group scored 11 per cent better than the average, but the 1970 group were just 8 per cent more intelligent." I always thought the average IQ score was 100. On that basis the average lawyer's score would now be 108. The standard deviation for IQ is 15, which means 67% of the population have an IQ between 85 and 115. This means:
(a) either lawyers (and every group in the graph) are of "normal" intelligence; or
(b) the average in the study is not 100 (quite possible, since only results for graduates are given).
Does anyone know what the average was?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Feb-2009 4:19 pm
How the braggarts are fallen ...
Well done, The Lawyer. You send me an email linking this story, and take the opportunity to boast about how much smarter journalists are, but fail to spell "Bloggs" consistently. Own goal, much?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
'ooray Henri | 27-Feb-2009 4:34 pm
Two points
1) Firstly, what is the CMPO, and why should we take it seriously? It's not a 'known name'.
2) The fact that only the years 1958 and 1970 have been chosen suggests that there is a lack of relevant information to go on, which very much compromises this research. The years are 12 years apart, and the nearer of the two 39 years ago. What have they got to do with anything?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Feb-2009 4:47 pm
Who defines Intelligence?
What I would like to know is...who decides the scales on these so-called measures of IQ? Aren't those criteria for IQ measurement subject to "researcher's bias" by the person who created the scales? I do not believe that IQ alone defines intelligence; that is a rich statement to make! Can intelligence be defined in the first place?
What of the African tribes who survive all sorts of potentially dangerous encounters in the bush (where us Westerners would probably end up being mauled by a lion or something) but who can't read - does that make them less "intelligent?"
My "profession" isn't listed in any of the categories; I'm "only" a legal PA but would like to think, an intelligent one at that :-)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment