PAPERS OX PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION 355 



1. Xo significant difference appears in the judgments 

 of the two groups in terms of the central tendency, 



2. Each group shows some partiality to the opposite 

 sex in estimating its intelligence; that is, the men give 

 evidence of placing a slightly higher value on the intelli- 

 gence of women than they do that of men. The women 

 appear to do the same thing in regard to the men. This 

 partiality is not striking. 



3. The type of intelligence that this group of people 

 rated should probably be termed scholastic intelligence. 

 Three of the four correlation values in Tables III. and 

 IV. having to do with scholarship are sufficiently high 

 to be significant. Scholarship is not the important fac- 

 tor in determining men's judgments of women. The 

 only instance where higher values are found is when the 

 faculty ratings were used as a criterion for correlation 

 purposes. In another study the correlation between 

 faculty judgments of intelligence and scholarship was 

 found to be .760. 



4. When the intelligence of men is estimated, the two 

 groups manifested about equal ability. If there is any 

 difference at all, it is in favor of the women. However, 

 the difference is not sufficiently large to be of any sig- 

 nificance. 



5. The women- evidenced a decided superiority in 

 judging the intelligence of women; practically all the 

 correlation values were high enough to be of significance. 



6. The men's ratings of the women were practically 

 worthless. In no instance was a significant correlation 

 found. 



The practical outcome of this study is that when men 

 are to be judged by a rating scale, either men or women 

 could be used as judges. However, when women are to 

 be rated it would appear to be wiser to employ women 

 as judges. 



