The original tendencies of man, as distinct from his original equipment, have not been considered in this study. If the quantitative differences in endowment of this kind were added to the denominator of our accomplishment ratio formula, we would have a better measure and better results. We share in this investigation a general limitation of educational psychology—the requisite technique to measure individual differences of instincts and the ethical traits of which they are the predisposition. Industry, ambition, and initiative are not inherited units. They are, however, the rules of an economy of expression and as such are dependent upon individual differences in strength of instinct. CONCLUSIONS 1. IQ can be used as a limit of school achievement expressed as SQ. _a_ Progress in Σ(IQ-SQ)⁄_n_ may be used as a measure of school efficiency. _b_ SQ⁄IQ may be used as a measure of individual efficiency. 2. Correlations between intelligence and achievement are very different before and after the abilities are pushed. _a_ Many _r_’s are reported where conclusions are drawn as though they had been pushed. These conclusions should be restated. _b_ Intelligence and achievement are far more closely associated than has been assumed to date. 3. Disparity of school product can be reduced to individual differences in intelligence. _a_ Little specific inheritance of school abilities. _b_ Little unremovable difference in industry, conscientiousness and concentration. _c_ Intelligence is the only inherited general factor. 4. Negative association between AccR and IQ. _a_ To-day’s educational procedure involves a handicap to intelligence. _b_ The genius has been neglected. [Illustration] FOOTNOTES [1] Part of this section is reprinted with revisions from TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD, Vol. XXI, No. 5 (November, 1920). [2] For scientific purposes we want year-month means and standard deviations, that we may say that Charlie Jones is 2.1 S.D. above the mean for his age level, while Harold Smith is .1 S.D. below that mean. It is in terms such as these that we may be able to compare accomplishment in one function with accomplishment in another, progress in one with progress in another. For many of our problems we need a common denominator of measurement so that we may compare progress between tests and age-groups. The best common denominator is, I believe, S.D. in an age-group. Thus we may locate a child in any age-group in any test and compare that location with the position of any other child in any other test in his age-group. For practical purposes, however, it is for many reasons more convenient to use quotients in elementary schools. Principals would rather deal with quotients since it is easier to explain them in terms of attainment and capacity. It is the use of such quotients that this thesis discusses.