Verna.Forristal@f71.n343.z1.fidonet.org (Verna Forristal) (05/24/91)
Index Number: 15779
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
AS> Ah - we don't believe in IQ's, do we?
We don't?
AS> I don't as I think one can learn from reading and being around
AS> people. I've never felt any type of testing gives an accurate
AS> picture of how much one knows or how good one is in a specific field,
AS> especially since one can make outstanding grades in school and do so
AS> poorly on aptitude tests.
Sorry to interrupt the conversation, but I'm a member of Mensa, and IQ can be
measured in a number of various areas using over 200 different tests, each of
which is geared to different people of different backgrounds, with different
life experiences. Mensa will accept a score in the proper percentile bracket
on any of these tests, and a candidate need only have expertise in 1 field to
qualify. If you score super in math, but get an 80 IQ rate in English,
Science, and Geography, you're still in. I doubt that many geniuses through
history could have scored high in more than a few areas. The standard
Weschler exam (in my opinion) only reflects the intelligence of a very small
minority who happen to have read the right books and are very good with manual
dexterity. For the most part, I too am opposed to standardized IQ tests that
give an average IQ rating for many different skill areas. I much prefer
specialization. I would like to see more deafies in Mensa, but I think
perhaps they are daunted by the term IQ and their encounters with the Weschler
and other standardized general informational IQ tests. If anyone would like
info on application, drop me a note.
I think, Ann, that you are an extremely bright lady, and that your reply was
an act of modesty. I salute you!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!343!71!Verna.Forristal
Internet: Verna.Forristal@f71.n343.z1.fidonet.orgmoth@dartmouth.edu (Tom Leathrum) (06/02/91)
Index Number: 15936 ------------ > AS> Ah - we don't believe in IQ's, do we? > > We don't? Well, *I* certainly don't. Details below. > > AS> I don't as I think one can learn from reading and being around > AS> people. I've never felt any type of testing gives an accurate > AS> picture of how much one knows or how good one is in a specific field, > AS> especially since one can make outstanding grades in school and do so > AS> poorly on aptitude tests. > > Sorry to interrupt the conversation, but I'm a member of Mensa, and IQ can be > measured in a number of various areas using over 200 different tests, each of > which is geared to different people of different backgrounds, with different > life experiences. Which, for me, does nothing to excuse the way IQ tests get used. I have worked for many years with developmentally disabled people, and I have seen many people labeled "severe" or "profound" simply because the examiner didn't have the patience to allow the person to finish thinking. I used to work in an alternative living unit in Baltimore, and the three residents of the unit were, in my opinion, classified exactly the *opposite* of their abilities -- the smartest one could count change without touching the coins and had, frankly, a better memory than I do, and he said he knew how to shoot craps (I never tested him on this ;-)), but he was the only one of the three classified as "profoundly" disabled. I have found, through this and other experiences, that standardized tests, including IQ tests, too often are used as an excuse for remediating or otherwise labeling students. As someone who is currently involved in a project to avoid doing just that with college freshman calculus students, I can assure you that the abuse of IQ is horribly widespread. The fundamental problem is that IQ tests take, as input, a student's intelligence, and give as output a number (I don't care how specialized the test is -- the output is a score). Now, fundamentally, a single number cannot reflect all that went into that student's effort. Regrds, Tom Leathrum moth@dartmouth.edu