10 Highest-IQ States in the US for 2025 – What the Data Really Shows – NCHStats

Report on State-Level Cognitive Performance and its Correlation with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: An SDG-Focused Analysis of U.S. State IQ Data

This report analyzes estimated Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores across United States territories, reframing the data as an indicator of progress toward key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While IQ is a narrow metric for cognitive ability, state-level variations correlate strongly with outcomes related to SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 1 (No Poverty), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The findings suggest that high-ranking states have developed robust socioeconomic infrastructures that foster human capital development, aligning with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The analysis is based on composite data from standardized assessments including PIAAC, NAEP, and SAT/ACT scores.

State Performance Analysis: Top 10 States

1. Massachusetts (IQ Estimate: 104.3)

   • SDG 4 (Quality Education): The state demonstrates exceptional commitment to lifelong learning, with nearly 47% of adults holding a bachelor’s degree or higher. Its K-12 system consistently leads the nation in NAEP math and reading scores, reflecting high-quality primary and secondary education.
   • SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): A median household income exceeding $104,000 supports a virtuous cycle of investment in education and community resources, fostering sustainable economic growth.
   • SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): The presence of world-class research institutions like Harvard and MIT anchors an innovation ecosystem that drives economic and intellectual progress.

2. New Hampshire (IQ Estimate: 104.2)

   • SDG 4 (Quality Education): The state achieves a high school graduation rate above 90% and maintains NAEP scores above national averages, indicating effective and inclusive education systems.
   • SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): A high median household income of approximately $88,000 and a low poverty rate are critical factors that reduce inequality and provide children with a stable environment for cognitive development.

3. North Dakota (IQ Estimate: 103.8)

   • SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Economic stability rooted in the energy, agriculture, and logistics sectors provides a consistent foundation for public service funding and reduces educational disruption.
   • SDG 4 (Quality Education): The state benefits from low student-to-teacher ratios, particularly in rural areas, which facilitates more personalized and effective instruction.

4. Vermont (IQ Estimate: 103.8)

   • SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Vermont exhibits one of the nation’s smallest racial disparities in bachelor’s degree completion, demonstrating significant progress toward equitable educational outcomes.
   • SDG 4 (Quality Education): A high school completion rate of approximately 95% and consistently strong literacy and math scores underscore the state’s success in providing inclusive and quality education for all.

5. Minnesota (IQ Estimate: 103.7)

   • SDG 4 (Quality Education): The state is a consistent top performer in educational metrics, including ACT participation and NAEP scores, reflecting a high-quality public education system.
   • SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): A diversified economy and a median household income of around $92,350 contribute to a stable social infrastructure that supports long-term educational investment and achievement.

6. Maine (IQ Estimate: 103.4)

   • SDG 4 (Quality Education): Despite a highly rural population, Maine achieves a high school completion rate near 93% and above-average reading scores, demonstrating a commitment to accessible, quality education in all areas.
   • SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Population stability allows for consistent and continuous implementation of educational policies, fostering strong and reliable institutions.

7. Montana (IQ Estimate: 103.4)

   • SDG 4 (Quality Education): The state reliably surpasses national averages in NAEP reading and math scores and maintains a high school graduation rate of around 90%.
   • SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): A stable, resource-based economy supports consistent investment in public education, contributing to positive long-term outcomes.

8. Iowa (IQ Estimate: 103.2)

   • SDG 4 (Quality Education): Iowa’s strong emphasis on early literacy and the uniform high performance of both rural and suburban school districts exemplify an equitable approach to quality education.

9. Connecticut (IQ Estimate: 103.1)

   • SDG 4 & SDG 8: High median household income (over $96,000) and a concentration of elite higher-education institutions support high overall educational attainment.
   • SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The state faces challenges with significant outcome gaps between wealthy and low-income districts, highlighting an ongoing need to focus on reducing internal inequalities.

10. Wisconsin (IQ Estimate: 102.9)

    • SDG 4 (Quality Education): The state maintains a high school graduation rate near 90% and demonstrates stable, dependable performance in key educational metrics like the NAEP math assessment, supported by a strong public university system.

Key Factors Driving Performance in Relation to SDGs

Commitment to Quality Education (SDG 4)

The highest-performing states demonstrate a profound investment in creating inclusive and high-quality educational systems from early childhood through higher education.

• High Completion Rates: States like Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts report high school completion rates well above 90%.
• Advanced Educational Attainment: A large percentage of the adult population in these states holds a bachelor’s degree or higher, indicating a successful pipeline to tertiary education.
• Focus on Foundational Skills: Emphasis on early literacy and strong performance in national assessments like the NAEP are common threads.

Economic Prosperity and Reduced Inequalities (SDG 1, SDG 8, SDG 10)

Economic stability is a critical enabler of educational opportunity. States with higher cognitive scores typically exhibit stronger economies and lower levels of poverty, directly aligning with core SDG principles.

• High Household Incomes: Top-ranking states have some of the highest median household incomes, which facilitates access to educational resources and supportive learning environments.
• Poverty Reduction: A clear gap exists between the low poverty rates in high-performing states and the higher rates in lower-scoring states like Mississippi and Louisiana, underscoring the link between poverty (SDG 1) and educational outcomes.
• Economic Stability: Diversified and stable economies provide the tax base necessary for sustained public investment in schools and infrastructure.

Innovation and Strong Institutions (SDG 9 & SDG 16)

The presence of robust institutions, from universities to local governments, creates an environment conducive to learning and innovation.

• Hubs of Innovation: Major research universities in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut foster intellectual ecosystems that drive innovation (SDG 9) and attract human capital.
• Stable Governance: States with stable demographics and high levels of civic engagement often have more accountable and consistently effective school systems, reflecting the principles of strong institutions (SDG 16).

Conclusion: Cognitive Scores as a Reflection of Sustainable Development

The analysis of 2025 state-level IQ estimates reveals a clear pattern: states with the highest scores are those that have made significant long-term investments in the socioeconomic structures that underpin the Sustainable Development Goals. High performance is not a measure of innate intelligence but rather a reflection of high-opportunity environments where quality education is accessible, economies are stable, inequalities are minimized, and institutions are strong. These findings underscore that human potential is unlocked through consistent and equitable investment in education, economic stability, and community well-being. Therefore, these cognitive metrics can serve as a valuable proxy for evaluating progress toward a more sustainable and equitable future.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues directly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis of state-level IQ scores is framed around the influence of education, economic stability, and social infrastructure, which are central themes of the SDGs.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The text repeatedly emphasizes that “stronger schools, higher literacy rates, and wider access to learning consistently outperform regions where those foundations are weaker.” It analyzes various educational metrics like high school completion rates, college attainment, and standardized test scores (NAEP) as foundational reasons for high cognitive scores in certain states.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article establishes a clear link between economic hardship and cognitive outcomes. It notes that New Hampshire’s “low poverty rate plays a real role in cognitive outcomes” and contrasts this with lower-scoring states that face “Higher poverty rates, lower household incomes, and uneven school funding.” This directly addresses the goal of ending poverty and its impact on human potential.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The role of economic stability is a recurring theme. The article points to “workforce stability driven by energy, agriculture, and logistics” in North Dakota and a “diversified economy” in Minnesota as factors that reinforce educational investment and lead to better outcomes. It also extensively uses median household income as a key factor, linking economic prosperity to the resources available for education and development.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article touches upon inequalities both between and within states. It highlights the “income gaps” between high-scoring and low-scoring states and notes the “sharp contrast between wealthy districts and lower-income cities” in Connecticut. Furthermore, it praises Vermont for having “among the top for the smallest disparities in bachelor’s degree completion,” directly addressing the issue of inequality in educational opportunities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s detailed discussion, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education. This is addressed through the repeated mention of high school completion and graduation rates, such as Vermont’s “94–95 percent high-school completion rate” and New Hampshire’s graduation rate “pushes above 90 percent.”
   • Target 4.2: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education. This is implied when the article mentions that top-performing states “offer extensive access to preschool programs” and emphasize “early literacy.”
   • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. The article directly supports this by citing the percentage of adults with bachelor’s degrees as a key metric, for example, “Massachusetts: ~47 % of adults hold a bachelor’s degree.”
   • Target 4.6: By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy. This is a central point, measured by the article’s reliance on “NAEP math and reading scores” to evaluate the strength of state education systems.

2. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions. The article connects low poverty rates to positive outcomes, stating that New Hampshire’s “low poverty rate plays a real role in cognitive outcomes,” while noting that lower-scoring states face “deeper economic and structural challenges” including “Higher poverty rates.”

3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men. The article implies this target by linking “workforce stability” and “diversified economy” to positive educational and cognitive outcomes. The extensive use of “median household income” as a metric also relates to the economic well-being and quality of work available to residents.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The article addresses this by highlighting both positive and negative examples of inequality. It praises Vermont for ranking “among the top for the smallest disparities in bachelor’s degree completion” by race, while also pointing out the “sharp contrast between wealthy districts and lower-income cities” in Connecticut, which signifies economic and social inequality.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article is rich with specific quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

• For SDG 4 (Quality Education):
  • High School Completion/Graduation Rates: The article explicitly provides percentages for several states, such as “Vermont (around 95 %)” and “Massachusetts (92 %).” This is a direct indicator for Target 4.1.
  • Tertiary Education Attainment: The percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree is used as a key indicator for Target 4.3, with figures like “~47 %” for Massachusetts and “~40 %” for Connecticut.
  • Proficiency in Literacy and Numeracy: The article consistently refers to “NAEP math and reading scores” and “ACT averages” as indicators of educational quality, directly measuring progress for Target 4.6.
  • Access to Early Childhood Education: The mention of “extensive access to preschool programs” serves as a qualitative indicator for Target 4.2.
• For SDG 1 (No Poverty):
  • Poverty Rate: The article uses the “low poverty rate” in New Hampshire as a key factor and mentions “Higher poverty rates” in lower-scoring states, making it a clear, albeit qualitative, indicator for Target 1.2.
• For SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
  • Median Household Income: This is a primary indicator used throughout the article to demonstrate economic strength, with specific figures provided for multiple states (e.g., Massachusetts: “$104,000,” Connecticut: “$96,000”). This relates to Target 8.5.
  • Economic Stability: The article uses qualitative indicators like “workforce stability,” “diversified economy,” and “workforce consistency” to measure economic health.
• For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
  • Disparities in Educational Attainment: The mention of Vermont having the “smallest disparities in bachelor’s degree completion” by race is a specific indicator for measuring educational inequality (Target 10.2).
  • Income Gaps: The comparison of median household incomes between top-performing states (e.g., Massachusetts) and lower-performing states (e.g., Mississippi) serves as an indicator of interstate economic inequality.
  • Intra-state Disparities: The reference to the “sharp contrast between wealthy districts and lower-income cities” in Connecticut is a qualitative indicator of inequality within a state.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nchstats.com