How smart are you?

My Abitur average was 2.7, but that's mostly because I didn't prepare much for the final exams and didn't pay much attention in class (I eventually started writing down what's on the blackboard, but I hardly ever payed attention to the actual class because I was too busy with programming issues).

I took one of those internet IQ tests, but only remember the score was something "above average" (well, go figure -- I get the feeling most people are rated "above average" on these things for some reason).

I have trouble concentrating lately, but it's more of a general lack of enthusiasm than a nervous lack of attention, so I doubt it's noteworthy as a mental condition.
 
2.4 GPA, 99 ASVAB, 33 ACT = smart but lazy.

Probably could have made a 34 on the ACT if I used a calculator.
 
You can't really "study" for the SAT/ACT. All you can do is practice taking it. Those test have nothing to do with how smart you are, they just measure how good you are at taking the SAT/ACT. It's more about knowing how to pace yourself and guessing technique. By the time you have to take these tests, all the material that is on it should be way behind you. You should review a couple of geometry formulas, but doing something like reading a dictionary is absolutely pointless. Also, completing the ACT science section has nothing to do with knowing any biology, physics, or chemistry. It's all about looking at data and knowing to read chart and graphs. If you don't know how to do that by the time you take these test, maybe college isn't for you.

The only reason you should worry about these tests is if you have a bad Grade point average. Colleges will definitely pay more attention to your grades throughout the years than on some test you take on one morning.

As for me, well, i have a PHD....a Pretty Huge Dick.
 
A few words on human intelligence...

BECAUSE THE TRADITIONAL understanding of intelligence assumes that our ability to learn and do things comes out of a uniform cognitive capacity, some researchers began to experiment with the possibility that such an intelligence would be fairly easy to measure - and thus be very useful in assessing students in order to place them at an appropriate academic level. At the turn of the century, the educators of Paris asked psychologist Alfred Binet to formulate a test that could be use to analyze a child's intelligence in order to uncover his or her weaknesses. The Intelligence Quotient, or IQ test, was thus born.
Though Binet's IQ test (now known as the Stanford-Binet Test) was originally used to discover a student's intellectual shortcomings (and thus used as a guide to tutor them appropriately), it quickly caught on in the US as a way to rank students as more or less capable in school. With an average score of 100, a student who scored a 131, for example could be placed in a gifted program, while another who scored 81 could be placed in special education. Though there was some reservation about coding students by a test-determined score (why, for instance, was a 131 acceptable for a gifted program, while a 127 was not?), the IQ test went on to become a near-national standard.
The measuring of raw intelligence with tests continued in all areas of education. One of the most famous examples is the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or SAT. The SAT, which analyzes a student's mathematic and grammatical abilities as well as reading comprehension and vocabulary, is used by nearly every college in America to help determine whether a student is qualified to enter that institution. Because it is assumed that the SAT can predict future achievement, certain scores could automatically dictate whether a student was in or out of a prospective program.
To this day, American education is dictated by the student's scores on a battery of intelligence tests, from kindergarten through university. Advocates of traditional education continue to push this paradigm of Uniform Schooling - an educational system based on national standards and efficient, cost-effective assessment in the form of multiple choice, number two pencil exams. Against this long-lived convention, though, many researchers, educators, even parents, have expressed reservation that such tests do nothing to judge a student's potential - they merely demonstrate that a child is or is not good at standardized tests. Students should not be judged by what they cannot do, but what they can do, and education should focus on bringing out the individual's potential. Until recently, this view was considered utopian and unrealistic, but now a new theory of learning and intelligence has finally forced educators and policymakers to reconsider the pedagogical methods of the last century - the theory of Multiple Intelligences.

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES theory, in a nutshell, is a pluralized way of understanding the intellect. Recent advances in cognitive science, developmental psychology and neuroscience suggest that each person's level of intelligence, as it has been traditionally considered, is actually made up of autonomous faculties that can work individually or in concert with other faculties. Howard Gardner originally identified seven such faculties, which he labeled as "intelligences":

Musical Intelligence
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence
Linguistic Intelligence
Spatial Intelligence
Interpersonal Intelligence
Intrapersonal Intelligence

Gardner has never ruled out the possibility that additional intelligences may also exist, for MI research is still in its infancy. Recently, he added an eighth intelligence to the list: the Naturalist Intelligence. There's also been some consideration of a ninth intelligence - existential intelligence - but the jury is still out on that one. Besides, for now at least, a great deal of new understanding may be found from within these eight faculties.

ASSUMING THIS ASSERTION of a multitude of intellects is indeed true, what does this mean for education? For starters, the most prevalent form of assessment in the United States involves multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank questions that have been developed from a given set of information that has been deemed worthy of being "necessary knowledge." For instance, the Revolutionary War and the birth of the United States has always been considered a necessary piece of knowledge that should be learned in primary and secondary school. While knowing about this part of U.S. is certainly worthy of inclusion for a multitude of reasons, a quick consideration of MI theory would suggest that schools are teaching the subject in an entirely inefficient way.
When students are lectured on a subject, they are overloaded with facts, statistics and other nuggets of information that are to be regurgitated at a later date in the form of some assessment test. But what does a student gain by completing the statement "________ was the English general who surrendered at the end of the War." An answer of Lord Cornwallis gives the student the good grade and the school administrators the statistics to wave around and say, "Another educational objective has been met. . . ."

ANSWERING 'LORD CORNWALLIS' and you get an A, write down 'Benjamin Disraeli' and you don't. So what is wrong with this picture? This correct answer, as is the case in most limited response assessment tests, does little to help students understand the subject. Though some can demonstrate their knowledge of the "facts," can they truly explain why, in what context, and with what ramifications these facts took place? Though limited response assessment gives educators and politicians an efficient means of ranking students as successful or not (and thus demonstrating whether certain educational guidelines were met), it does very little for the student in terms of understanding the subject, not to mention encouragement or guidance.

AS IT HAS BEEN SAID by many an education reformer, "taking tests merely shows that a student is good at taking tests." Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison are two of history's most well known examples of brilliant minds who were terrible at taking tests, and thus terrible at school in general. MI theory demonstrates that the ability to take tests exists almost wholly in the area of logical-mathematical intelligence. Apart from some students' ability to second guess a teacher's structuring of a test (and thus demonstrate a keen interpersonal intelligence), tests focus at best on only one-seventh of an individual's intellect.

THE IMPACT of even a single test on a student's life cannot be denied. In terms of placement, how reasonable is it to favor one child onto a gifted education track for 12 years simply because she scored a magical number on a Stanford-Binet test? More importantly, how reasonable is it to deny other children the chance to have the freedom to explore just because their scores were not up to par? Proponents of MI theory would argue that this situation - the status quo of American education - must be altered, because without significant change, every year thousands of young minds will lag behind, for our efficient methods of assessment and ranking were unable to tap them and send them into the right direction.

So, what’s your view on Multiple Intelligence theory? How does it stack with the generally accepted definition of intelligence? And, how do you think the educational system could be improved, if it needs any improvements in the first place?

The way things are done here in Croatia are far from being anywhere near satisfactory – especially so in primary schools (first eight grades), and the majority of colleges (universities), like the one I’m enrolled in. (Can’t wait to give that place the laugh…) Upon primary school graduation (usually at the age of 14), our kids enroll to high schools of their choice and are classified strictly according to their grades, regardless of the quality of knowledge and skills they may posses. What most of them have learned in the course of their 8 year education hardly had them prepared for the challenges awaiting them in certain specialized high-schools (like the one I went to (basically buffed up math, natural sciences plus a lot of computer theory and programming classes)), so it’s always kind of a roller-coaster ride during that first semester when a lot of folks flunk math or physics from that very reason.
Thankfully things got promptly remedied due to the extremely high educational standard my high school imposed on the teaching staff – though it didn’t help some from behaving like self-complacent bigots… This year we’re finally seeing some long awaited reform in our high education sector, namely the conversion to the Bologna convention. I wonder if that’ll change anything… other than a few different degree names. But I’m clearly digressing from the thread's topic now, though I’ll still post this, now that I’ve written it.

As for the Multiple Intelligence theory I’ve had sketched out here, in general it finds appreciation from my side due to my opinion that the current intelligence testing methods (like the Stanford-Binet ones) are inherently flawed when they attempt to analyze intelligence across a single value axis, or dimension if you will. I must confess, that I haven’t had the privilege of seeing their approach to the problem of intelligence quantification, though it’s pretty straightforward to guess the tests would be structured in a manner reflecting the 8-way topology of their current MI theory. The other problem with current testing methods is that almost all of them focus on singularly convergent thinking (where each problem has a “single” solution, or a set of equivalently related ones) instead of paying more attention do divergent thinking as well. And it is exactly this form of thinking which distinguishes creative people from “uncreative” ones, and reflects how well one may adapt to a new setting or environment. The only issue I find with MI is in it’s lack of emphasis on the particular faculties interconnection and interrelatedness, and I sincerely doubt any one of those deserves the epithet of being autonomous, especially so since it only adds confusion to the physiological nature of intelligence, as it’s implicitly stating that since intelligence resides in the mind, and it’s being viewed as manifold and multiform, the very structure of the brain should consequently reflect this. In addition, I’d rather have them being called aptitudes instead of intelligences, but that’s purely a semantic problem now …

And yes, I’d like to thank all who have fruitfully participated in this thread with valuable insights on their mental capacities (which I have found most satisfactory), and encourage them to continue doing so in the future. You’ve been great guys.
Cheers
 
When I was in the second grade, my tested IQ was 175. In high school I was able to meet the graduation requirements 2 years early. And, as an adult, the navy tested my IQ at an even higher value (although I have doubts about military testing standards).

I even joined Mensa, but as a young teen, I found the meetings very dull and boring. They were filled with middle-aged doctors and lawyers all chuckling about how much they screwed their clients out of money.

I hold 5 degrees (granted 3 are A.A.)
History, Computer Science
Computer Programming, English, Business.

I thought I was so smart by entering the computer field. Little did I know it would become a dead end field. Like many of the millions of displaced I.T. workers, I'm now underemployed. I've spent most past year since Interplay folded working as a bartender for half of what I was earning.
 
Corith said:
I hold 5 degrees (granted 3 are A.A.)
History, Computer Science
Computer Programming, English, Business.

So did you go to college until your mid-30's?
 
Jebus said:
So did you go to college until your mid-30's?
There are people in Germany who are 'professional students' because they get Government hand outs. I knew people at the U of C who where close to 40 and getting another degree.
 
Jebus said:
Corith said:
I hold 5 degrees (granted 3 are A.A.)
History, Computer Science
Computer Programming, English, Business.

So did you go to college until your mid-30's?

No, a few years less is more like it but I was working through school so it took a little longer. I also had a few short cuts so it sounds more impressive that it really is. At the community college Computer Programming was held under the business administration so picking up the business degree was just a few extra classes, most of which even counted as electives for the Programming degree.

When I started in History, in order to become a better writer, I took lots of English classes which I transferred back down the JC to pick up the English degree.

Since I had been working in the computer field prior to my starting the Computer Science degree, I was able to successful challenge most of the core classes and I already had all the general education done.
 
John Uskglass said:
Jebus said:
So did you go to college until your mid-30's?
There are people in Germany who are 'professional students' because they get Government hand outs. I knew people at the U of C who where close to 40 and getting another degree.

Somebody get me that number!

Corinth said:

It's still funny that, even with such a high IQ, you still chose to work at Interplay :P

Anyway, that's indeed a nifty way to get a lot of degrees. I can get degrees in Journalism, Multi-language Corporate Management etc. too with post-graduates and extra classes, so perhaps I should look into that too.
If I ever get there in the first place, that is.
 
Corith said:
...community college...

Well there's your problem. No wonder you have to work in a bar. By now i probably could have had 5 degrees if i went to a Community College. Seriously, if you were so gifted how come you didn't end up going to a higher ranked University?
 
I never quite got the hang of you Yankees and your queer education system, btw. What's the difference between community colleges and universities?
 
Community "college" is basically a set of courses people complete in order to not be dopes with no skills whatsoever. I believe it lasts two years.
 
Two years?

How can you get a degree in, say, history then? Even a Bachelor degree would take you at least three years, by international standards...
 
*shrug* I don't know. I was actually talking out of my ass.

EDIT:

Here's what Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_college

So, you can transfer from a community college to a "normal" college or a university. Also, it seems community colleges are relatively affordable compared to other educational facilities.
 
I did most of the lower end, general education, requirements at the community college (for the lower cost), and then transferred to the university to pick up the remaining courses. I picked up the first AA and the BA in 5 years while working 20+ hours.

I just couldn't see spending the higher cost for the same courses at the JC.
 
Jebus said:
I never quite got the hang of you Yankees and your queer education system, btw. What's the difference between community colleges and universities?

A community college is a lower cost learning center wherein only poor people, morons and people that want to save money go.

You can only get an AA from a community college, thus necessitating a tranfer to a university for anything higher.

Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence

What is this, exactly?

EDIT:

Just finished reading Thermopylae: The Battle For The West. How do you pronounce Themistocles?
 
Max Demian said:
So, what’s your view on Multiple Intelligence theory? How does it stack with the generally accepted definition of intelligence? And, how do you think the educational system could be improved, if it needs any improvements in the first place?

I've read two of Gardener's books, and while they have a few interesting insights in them I think overall they're pretty worthless except as a stepping stone. Multiple Intelligence theory is a better path to explore than the theories before it, but as it is now it's pretty sketchy and, dare I say, stupid. I haven't read anything on it in many years, but back when I was interested in it the conclusion I came to was that they had basically no solid, unignorable research to show that any of the theories they were putting forth were anything more than the imagination of some "educational theorist" out to make a name for himself, and that they were just publishing and making lots of hype in order to get as much funding as possible.

As for your other question, I don't think the educational system could really be improved that much. Even if they improve or change the curriculum it won't change much, unless for some reason there is any incredible surplus in the amount of brilliant, enthusiastic and wise people applying for teaching jobs, instead of people who barely made their way through college and think teaching would be an easy an secure career.
 
Jebus said:
I never quite got the hang of you Yankees and your queer education system, btw. What's the difference between community colleges and universities?

Here we go again. Only alec can incorrectly call me a yank. For the rest, you can call me that when i become an American citizen, which will hopefully happen in the next 10 years (took me 4 years to become a resident).

Well, I've done extensive research on many aspects of higher education in the USA so i know a lil somethin somethin about this.

While it is possible to go to a community college and get the general stuff out of the way for less money, you will not be able to simply transfer to just any university and finish your degree(s). Sure some colleges/universities will accept you, but the higher ranked ones will just send you a letter of apology for not being admitted. And even if a "normal" university does accept you as a transfer student, chances are they will not accept all of your credits. This way, they will force you to spend more time in their institution...making you pay more $ in the end.

But what's the difference in the long run you might ask. Well lets say that me and some other guy are applying for the same job. I have 1 Bachelor's degree from Northwestern University (currently ranked among the top 15 Universities in USA) and the other guy has all sorts of degrees from Oakton Community College. Who do you think is going to get the job? Well, sorry other guy, but most likely i will.

It might seem unfair but the system is not complete bullshit. As a Northwestern student i'm required to study my ass off during the year. Because it's such a high ranked school, theres lots of other students that are academically superior and you are in constant competition with them. You can't afford to slip up. But at the same time, i have access to many resources that Community colleges don't have (better libraries, an observatory, prestigious professors...) Community college students have time to have a part time job (and most do) and have a lot less required classes to complete their degrees. They also have poorer quality resources and faculty. I've never seen an application for a community college but i know they are not very selective. In addition to your high school diploma, you probably only need to sign your name to get in. The application for Northwestern for example has 10 pages of questions including about 4 essays and some more short answers you have to write out. IIRC, my completed application for Northwestern was about 8 typed pages plus the filled out 10 page application and $60 just for them to look at it.

Of course, Colleges like Northwestern are way way more expensive than a community college and they don't give out scholarships based on good grades, like other mediocre colleges do. But if you did very well in high school you should be able to find scholarships that will help you out with the tuition payments. If you still need help, research about some possible student loans and/or federal work-study.

That's why I'm a little surprised by Corith's academic decision. Based on your story, you were more than eligible to apply to higher ranked universities and obtain good scholarships. Don't get me wrong though, i think it's great that there are affordable higher education centers available for people. However many people that go there simply didn't have the academic standards to apply somewhere better. You had this opportunity but decided to choose an easier and cheeper path. Do you really think it was worth it?
 
Okay, so basically, community college is affordable, open for everyone, but without the prestige (nevermind the quality, prestige does not equal quality) of the much more selective and way, way, way more expensive universities. Universities that actually charge your money to look at your application.
See, all that essay writing and 10 pages of questions I can somehow, somewhere, get through my thick skull. But bloody hell, charging someone money to look at their application is pure robbery. I wouldn't even want to go to any university that charges people money to look at applications, it's supposed to be an academic institution willing to teach people that want to be taught. I can understand selecting students that are perhaps not up to it, but this is ridiculous.

As a comparison, either a college degree (with some extra courses to get you up to speed for a Masters degree), a completed first year in college (possibly with extra courses (for Bachelors degree)), or a completed high school (at the highest level) education are sufficient to get you enrolled in any university here. All have the same tuition, you always get a scholarship, and extra scholarship if your parents are too poor, so everyone can afford this education. And while this, at times, means that the universities have a lower esteem internationally speaking, it does mean that this option is always available if you want to (and are smart enough to have completed the requirements).
And no, this does not mean that the universities are worse than others. The university I attend has the third highest level of research in Europe (behind Oxford and Cambridge if I remember correctly), and it has spawned some great scientists in several fields.
 
Sander said:
The university I attend has the third highest level of research in Europe (behind Oxford and Cambridge if I remember correctly), and it has spawned some great scientists in several fields.

Leiden?


And I have to agree with Sander - that's a pretty disgusting education system. All universities should be of the same quality, and all should be allowed to give it a shot. Perhaps this *does* lead to some measure of nivellation - but damned, at least it's fair. There's absolutely no way of telling who might cut it in the university and who won't, y'know. You have people who sucked in high school and everything they did but have a brilliant academic career (like Einstein), and you have people who graduated from Latin-Math-Sciences with over 85% and then go on to suck at university (like me). Thousands of able students might not get the chance to prove their worth in the American system - and a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
 
Back
Top