Before I begin, this discussion is about an opinion. My opinion. I understand it may be harsh/controversial, so this is just a forewarning.
Now, I have noticed both on CC and among my peers that there are certain individuals that claim they are “very intelligent” and “good students” but they score just barely above the national average on tests like the ACT and SAT. Before I go any further, I understand that these tests aren’t an accurate measure of a person’s intellect, can be prepped for, etc. HOWEVER, I find it obnoxious that some of my peers claim to be highly intelligent, as clearly by their GPA, when GPA is in fact just a reflection of time and effort put into your classes. I believe anyone has the mental ability to get all A’s in high school level courses, it is only a matter of one putting in the work. I believe the ACT and SAT are a much better measure of your raw mental abilities, since you can’t access other sources or people and take your time. I feel like I should expand my thoughts, but am a bit pressed for time. Please tell me if you would like more information on my point of view and/or reasoning.
By the way, I have a very high GPA (4.0 UW, 4.57 W) and decent test scores (32 ACT, single sitting, no study). This is not me trying to validate myself, these are my actual beliefs.
It doesn’t matter what we think of it or if others use it as an excuse. Pay attention to your own scores. If you know someone who doesn’t have good scores, either offer to help tutor them or tell them about the Fairtest website that lists test optional schools.
@RoundGenius You say that “GPA is in fact just a reflection of time and effort”. Standardized tests are exactly the same. Taking the SAT/ACT is a learnable skill. Your score on the SAT/ACT doesn’t measure aptitude…it measures your ability to take those tests…which can be learned with “time and effort”.
Well, kids with undiagnosed LDs such as low processing speeds or dyslexia who test under normal timed conditions absolutely can have lower test scores that do not reflect their actual abilities. I’ll use my ds as an example. He is dyslexic and thus a slow reader. We didn’t pursue extra time. His test scores on the ACT were consistently 5 pts lower than his SAT equivalent. It took a lot of prep to get his reading fast enough sustained over a 3 hr exam to get a score that came even close to reflect his actual abilities.
Am I confused and he really only succeeds and makes his high grades strictly due to time and effort? Only if is is normal for avg 10 yr olds to be taking alg, avg high school students to graduate with multiple 300 level college credits, and 20 yr olds to have finished all of their UG physics classes for a physics major with a 4.0 GPA.
Answering a bunch of questions rapidly is only a single perspective evaluation. There are kids who can score very high on standardized tests who don’t possess the equal ability to work through highly complex problems that might take incredibly gifted kids a couple of hours to solve. Not all evaluations are equal.
These tests only measure a single kind of “intelligence” which is one that requires quick processing of a certain set of logical problems/readings. Test takers can get faster and learn strategies for these types of questions with practice, which suggests to me that this is an intelligence that can be learned to some extent, so it’s not necessarily innate intelligence. I think one of the values that these tests have is that EVERYONE takes them, so they allow some “apples to apples” comparisons between applicants (although it’s hard to know who has prepped and who has done well the first time.) Having the “intelligence” measured by these tests may be valuable in many academic environments, but it’s hardly the be-all, end-all.
What if the test required an ability to flawlessly reproduce a drawing in an hour? That is another kind of intelligence. OR to understand what was going on in a heated argument between two people? That’s another. And of course, there are people who, with time, can make connections that aren’t the kind being measured in there tests. They are often the ones who make breakthroughs because they can “see” things that most other people can’t. If you’re a good test-taker, you’ll have an advantage in the admissions process, and you should probably just be grateful for that.
With that said, if you think you’re smarter than other people because you have this ability, you may not be as smart as you think.
Taking standardized tests is every bit as learn-able as course material. That’s why you see stories of kids who go from 1800s to 2200+ on the SAT. Standardized tests can be prepared for, it’s all a matter of how much time and effort you put into it. I do believe that some kids are innately good at test-taking, but anyone can be a good test-taker if they have enough time and resources.
“believe anyone has the mental ability to get all A’s in high school level courses, it is only a matter of one putting in the work”
You are demonstrably incorrect for several reasons. Multiple studies have demonstrated the influence of factors such as class-size, teacher resources, parental involvement, and income on GPA. In addition, you are entirely discounting the curriculum challenge range, even within a single discipline, at the high school level. And of course there are limitations, genetic, social, environmental, and otherwise, that can affect a student’s capacity, aptitude, or performance.
Just as with testing. Claiming one as more universally ‘accurate’ measure is arrogant, at best.
Actually, people with very high IQs tend to have LESS career success because they often lack the social skills needed to succeed in the workplace. Find me a reputable study that says otherwise.
IQ in isolation is also flawed. Our child that we know his IQ b/c of multiple neuropsy evaluations throughout his life falls into the very superior range of the WISC. He is also now an adult who works at Goodwill. He is autistic, suffers from disabling anxiety, and can’t cope with constantly fluctuating and open-ended situations. (He doesn’t even like to answer the phone unless he knows who is on the other end.)
People are complicated. A single piece of information will never reveal the whole picture. Work ethic, internal motivation,energy level, social skills, etc…all of those play a factor in success on top of innate ability.
Some studies have correlated scoring well on certain IQ tests with higher income…but that is, as one Forbes article noted, like pointing out that skin color also is correlated with income. Both are symptomatic of a variety of other linked causes, and corraltive, not causational.
“Some studies have correlated scoring well on certain IQ tests with higher income…but that is, as one Forbes article noted, like pointing out that skin color also is correlated with income. Both are symptomatic of a variety of other linked causes, and corraltive, not causational.”
I would like for some easy to understand, 8th grade level English, version of this to use whenever people suggest otherwise. Well put.
I think both GPA and SAT are valuable in their own ways. Both measure either how hard you worked or how well you prepared, usually a combination of the two. However, GPA measures this at the school level which puts yourself into context within your environment. The SAT puts you in context with the rest of the country since it is standardized. Both have their place in the admissions process, but I would not say either one should be everything for admissions.
I’ll say this from a collegiate background. For some perspective, I’m a Computer Science major who has pending publications through research in Computer Vision. When it comes to computers, I know what I’m doing. I’ve been programming since I was eight years old.
In my first few computer science courses, I received 199/200 on exams, 100% on assignments, etc. Later in the major, I’ve thoroughly understood the material and still had slight trouble getting a B on exams, yet was able to receive perfect scores on assignments (programming assignments are graded on actually functioning, not on completion). That is, I knew the content, but was unable to do well on the exams. That doesn’t mean I’m a bad student or a bad test taker. It just means that I didn’t do well on the exams. I commonly tutor my peers, and am thoroughly able to explain concepts. I just didn’t do well on the exams.
That being said, I’m not a bad student. I don’t think I can assess my own intelligence fairly, but most people I know seem to think that I’m fairly smart. If you went by exam scores in my last class, you might not think so, but if you ask me to explain the content, I can do it thoroughly.
It depends. You can’t judge somebody based on exam scores. You need to know the averages – if somebody performs approximately at average level, it doesn’t tell you a lot.
I guess I would be one of those students then…lol.
I managed to maintain straight A’s and I think, a good GPA.
I did very poorly on my SAT/ACT tests (So bad that I’ll just make you look at my prior threads so I don’t have to repeat it on here! )
But for the most part, yes, I like to think that I’m pretty intelligent. I love to learn about new things.
Take another example: My brother and my Dad
My brother never liked school, I think in large part of his O.D.D and his ADHD, so one could say that he’s done “poorly” in school. My Dad was like that too. Guy barely made it with C’s in HS. But here’s something crazy: They are literally some of the smartest people I know. My Dad knows SOO much about the world, history, people, it’s amazing. I seriously learn something new from him every day. My brother can create some of the most amazing things, even with just Legos. Give him a 500+ set of Legos, the kid will build you something crazy but stunning in 30 minutes.
So I guess my moral of the story is, while test scores/GPA/ grades ARE valuable for some things ( Take it from me: My low test scores couldn’t get me many scholarships) I think they can’t be the only way one can judge overall intelligence.
GPA does correlate to intelligence… does intelligence cause high GPA? Now we need to conduct a scientific study to prove that to be true or not. However, I consider myself highly knowledgeable on the topic of History. The SATII just doesn’t like it that I don’t know random facts from the Nile river civilizations.
I took that exam and bubbled everything in. Little did I know they take 1/4 point off for wrong answers. Silly me.
“GPA is in fact JUST [emphasis added] a reflection of time and effort put into your classes”? And you think that’s less important than a lackadaisical ability to get a high score on a test that does not really measure knowledge and effort? Good luck in the real world OP. I’ll pick the high GPA over someone like you any day.
@AboutTheSame
I would actually consider my GPA better than my ACT of 32. It’s a 4.6 weighted and a 4.0 unweighted. So I guess you would be “picking me any day”. If you would like to further use your unnecessarily angry tone, please message me in private.
I didn’t state this in my original post, but in my mind I meant test scores WITHOUT studying, being a better indicator of raw intelligence, analysis abilities, and processing power.
)