[3] Judd, C. H., “A Look Forward,” in _Seventeenth Yearbook_, Pt. II, of the N.S.S.E., 1918. [4] When the disadvantages of “pushing” children are discussed, the disadvantages of keeping children at their chronological age levels should be considered as well. Although it is true that a supernormal child placed in that grade for which he is mentally equipped loses much in social contact, it is also true that he loses a great deal by remaining in the grade where he physiologically belongs. There he develops habits of conceit, indolence, and carelessness. It is in all cases much better to group intelligent children and enrich the curriculum than to “push” them; but pushing may be better than leaving them where they belong by age. It is a possibility worth considering that the explanation of the “peculiarities” of genius lies in the fact that he has never associated with equals. When his fellows are mentally his equals they are physically far older and when they are physically his equals they are mentally inferior. [5] Whether only the Accomplishment Ratio as a percentage should be given the parents, or whether they should know both the IQ and all the SQ’s, is a question on which I am not prepared to give an opinion. I incline to believe that the parents should know only the final marks and am sure that I advise telling the children these only. [6] There will be reported elsewhere a fuller consideration of this aspect of the technique of derivation of norms, together with a complete presentation of the data used to obtain the age norms herein used. [7] “The Accomplishment Quotient,” _Teachers College Record_, November, 1920. [8] Or the ratio of the Subject Quotient to the Intelligence Quotient, which is the same as the ratio of the Subject Age to the Mental Age. [9] This table is too bulky for complete publication but may be found on file in Teachers College Library, Columbia University. [10] The remainder of this table is filed in Teachers College Library, Columbia University. Decimals are dropped in this table. [11] Decimals are dropped in this table. [12] Truman L. Kelley: _Statistics_, The Macmillan Co. [13] This correlation was obtained by correlating one half of the Binet against the other one half and then using Brown’s Formula to determine the correlation of a whole Binet against another whole Binet. [14] These quantities do not decrease because a perfect score on the arithmetic test was too easy to obtain at this time. The children had reached the limits of this test. [15] Table 12 is too bulky for complete publication. The first page is reproduced here and the complete table is filed at the library, Teachers College, Columbia University. [16] No arithmetic was given in 1918, therefore arithmetic was not used in these averages. [17] William Anderson McCall: _Correlations of Some Psychological and Educational Measurements_, Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 79.