Posted by Jed Lewison on Tue May 29, 2007 at 5:46 AM Pacific

No, the study linking SAT scores to finger lengths among 75 6 and 7 year-old British kids was not about our college entrance exam

This is a bizarre story about how an inaccurate and poorly written "news" article found its way into postings from three prominent bloggers. Here's the article:

Finger Length Predicts SAT Performance

A quick look at the lengths of children's index and ring fingers can be used to predict how well students will perform on SATs, new research claims.

Kids with longer ring fingers compared to index fingers are likely to have higher math scores than literacy or verbal scores on the college entrance exam, while children with the reverse finger-length ratio are likely to have higher reading and writing, or verbal, scores versus math scores.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that the study was conducted on 75 British 6 and 7 year-olds.

They're taking the SAT at age 6 and 7 in the UK? My gosh, I thought. I didn't take the SAT until I was 17! I wonder how old they are when they graduate from college. (Wait, aren't they called universities there?)

Then I did something stupid. Instead of just reading the LiveScience account of the research paper (which fails to mention that only 75 kids were studied), I actually went to the researcher's university and found this press release about his study. (I couldn't find the actual paper.) You know what? It turns out that the UK has something called an SAT, but it's not our college entrance exam. They call it the National Curriculum assessment, but it is also known as the standardised assessment test (SAT).

In other words, this study of 75 kids in the UK was did not say anything about our college entrance exam. It was about the British SATs.

Meanwhile, everybody in the States who had heard about this news seemed to be comparing their index and ring finger ratios trying to find out what their SAT scores were. (Hint, you can probably get the actual score from your college and maybe even from the College Board.)

In any event, it says something when a press release is better than an article.

So what are are Important bloggers saying about the study? Here's three comments, in increasing order of lameness and gullibility.

National Review's Jonah Goldberg calls it "exciting news about correlation". (Assuming that I'm understanding him correctly, I think that's pretty funny, and Goldberg wins the least gullible award.)

Award-winning economist Dr. Steven Levitt says the research is "So Strange I Actually Believe It."

Steve Sailer says it is a "a good reminder that what really makes people in the media mad about stereotypes is not when they are wrong, but when they are right. Essentially, feminism, multiculturalism, and PCism are wars against knowledge." He also adds: "My ring fingers are longer, but my Verbal SAT score was higher than my Math score."

(Gee, Steve, I thought you were an American. I didn't realize you went to school in the UK! Either that or you too were taken in by a false report in the media.)

No, the study linking SAT scores to finger lengths among 75 6 and 7 year-old British kids was not about our college entrance exam

This is a bizarre story about how an inaccurate and poorly written "news" article found its way into postings from three prominent bloggers. Here's the article:

Finger Length Predicts SAT Performance

A quick look at the lengths of children's index and ring fingers can be used to predict how well students will perform on SATs, new research claims.

Kids with longer ring fingers compared to index fingers are likely to have higher math scores than literacy or verbal scores on the college entrance exam, while children with the reverse finger-length ratio are likely to have higher reading and writing, or verbal, scores versus math scores.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that the study was conducted on 75 British 6 and 7 year-olds.

They're taking the SAT at age 6 and 7 in the UK? My gosh, I thought. I didn't take the SAT until I was 17! I wonder how old they are when they graduate from college. (Wait, aren't they called universities there?)

Then I did something stupid. Instead of just reading the LiveScience account of the research paper (which fails to mention that only 75 kids were studied), I actually went to the researcher's university and found this press release about his study. (I couldn't find the actual paper.) You know what? It turns out that the UK has something called an SAT, but it's not our college entrance exam. They call it the National Curriculum assessment, but it is also known as the standardised assessment test (SAT).

In other words, this study of 75 kids in the UK was did not say anything about our college entrance exam. It was about the British SATs.

Meanwhile, everybody in the States who had heard about this news seemed to be comparing their index and ring finger ratios trying to find out what their SAT scores were. (Hint, you can probably get the actual score from your college and maybe even from the College Board.)

In any event, it says something when a press release is better than an article.

So what are are Important bloggers saying about the study? Here's three comments, in increasing order of lameness and gullibility.

National Review's Jonah Goldberg calls it "exciting news about correlation". (Assuming that I'm understanding him correctly, I think that's pretty funny, and Goldberg wins the least gullible award.)

Award-winning economist Dr. Steven Levitt says the research is "So Strange I Actually Believe It."

Steve Sailer says it is a "a good reminder that what really makes people in the media mad about stereotypes is not when they are wrong, but when they are right. Essentially, feminism, multiculturalism, and PCism are wars against knowledge." He also adds: "My ring fingers are longer, but my Verbal SAT score was higher than my Math score."

(Gee, Steve, I thought you were an American. I didn't realize you went to school in the UK! Either that or you too were taken in by a false report in the media.)

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison