Are School Results a good gauge on how 'smart' a kid is?

You misunderstand the analogy... completely.

What do the standards show?

You can spin it so many ways, but yes, that correlation is what many people ignore.
As a general consensus, go to any school, pick a D grade student, pick an A grade student. See who is more intelligent. It's not always the case, but there's a enormous difference.

So what was a good indication?

A: I'm a better swimmer than you.
B: No, I've beat you in every single race.
A: I was drunk and high, and don't care.
B: Then how do you know your better than me.
A: I just do.

So school is a tool for poor people who are bad at facing the world?
Your second sentence is a contradiction.
Intelligence is not a mass, and also, everyone know hard work beats natural talent, if natural talent doesn't work hard.

I don't like getting top results, I just do.
You presuppose the more you revise the more you raise your attainable requirements. This is not the case.

the answer is simply yes.

Intelligence, maybe not.
Knowledge, more likely.

If your omniscient, but lazy, the only real reasons you have to fail the test are:

-You don't show up purposely.
-You purposely answer the questions wrong.
-You don't answer the questions at all.

They may be the smartest person in the world, but they haven't proved it.

Could be many things.
The sky could be blue, and that's why they get good grades.

'Can not' very definitive.



Is it everyones saying that:

Grades show nothing whatsoever as to how smart a child is?

If not, modify that sentence to what you think.

 

There are two types of smartness: street smarts and book smarts. Street smarts are what people learn through experiences. Book smarts are just that, book smarts (science formulas, mathematical knowledge, grammatical correctness, etc.)

Grades do not completely determine someone's intelligence. They can, however, give a slight idea as to whether someone is book smart.

 

It's not only about knowing you're better than someone, it's proving it. When everyone in my class thought I was a druggie burn out, I honestly killed them in stantadized test scores as well as every other test score. I got honestly straight As when it came to tests, but, unfortunately in public school systems, your test scores aren't observed.

So no, I don't THINK I'm smarter than you, I KNOW I'm smarter than you. Difference there. You see, if I thought I was smarter than you, I would ramble on about something completely unrelated to the subject to seem like I am intelligent. This is the tactic of most psuedo-intilectuals.

 

I agree.

Your post structure is really incoherent.
A psuedo-intellectual is someone who thinks they are smart, but really are not.
You saying your not one of them doesn't automatically make you smart.

Go away.

 

Definitions for Smart

8.
having or showing quick intelligence or ready mental capability: a smart student.
9.
shrewd or sharp, as a person in dealing with others or as in business dealings: a smart businessman.

Therefore, i can say that school results are not a good gauge on how smart a kid is.

Two students might have both scored 5 A's for their examinations. One of them studied a total of 400 hours, the other 100. I would say the second student is smarter.

 

Smart is an ambiguous word, your attempts to semantically shift it will be fruitless.

As for your time scenario.
You cannot say the second student is smarter, you can only say the second student learns faster.

 

In response to the posts above:

However, the second student may, in fact, be more knowledgeable than the first student. By learning/studying less and still getting an A, the second student demonstrated his/her ability to make real life connections to the test material.

Can anyone expand on my idea? I'm just not thinking straight anymore!

 

Nope, I understand what your trying to do.



The thing is you went from how school can be a good gauge or not to how can one prove their intelligence. The debate changed within the first few post.

Oh and results are for the system, to see where you fit. Nothing else.

This thread is dull...=|

 

Reasoning by analogy is a logically sound form of reasoning.

This is substantiated by...

All anyone has said is 'No, use your common sense,*insert age old irrelevant analogy /thread'.
I'm not saying that school results are black and white, a perfect gauge. I am saying that they can give an indication as to how smart someone is in general terms.

 

Yes and No.

Yes because it shows the development in skills such as reading, writing, math, and such. These are measurable subjects that allow us to see a persons level, so it would be easy to see who is above who in this subject.

However,
The factors that we have to take in are those kids who are naturally gifted in one subject but completely fail in others, or those who do great on tests because they know the material but procrastinate on other aspects of the class (Homework and projects and what not) and get lower grades as a result.

So again I'd have to say yes and no. Yes because in a single idea it makes sense and it would act as a measurement of intelligence, but there are too many outside variables involved to make an accurate call. This was the reason for no.

 

Put well.

I could wager:

School is about preparing a child for the future. (We must accept this premise)
A child doesn't care about school (In relation to the above)
A child therefore doesn't care about his future.

Given that we've arrived at this, if schools primary purpose is to prepare a child for the future, the school uses test to gauge how a child is doing school, however the child doesn't care about them, then it is reasonable to conclude that the child directly or otherwise does not care about his future; we can lump this in to being 'not smart'.

I don't see much wrong with the above prescribed logic from and arguing perspective, however, I'll take the time to reiterate, I support the side I've been arguing against.

 

I think of myself as an average joe however I'm really good at taking tests over the years I've learned how to study for a test by cramming information for a 100 question test in 10 minutes I know for a fact other kids in the class know more than me but I just have a knack for test taking.

So I guess what i'm getting at is that grades have somewhat of a reflection on intelligence but as anyone who works in the real world would know they aren't always accurate.

 

I completely disagree with the above statement just because a child may not care about his grades in school does not mean he doesn't care about his future. For example a child may see school as a waist of time I mean hell look at bill gates he dropped out of highschool and your trying to tell me he didn't care about his future. Just because one might not particulary care about their grades does not mean anything about what that child thinks about his future they may learn and prepare for the future in other ways such as sports clubs etc. For instance I've always felt that if I studied the things I'm interested in opposed to what I'm forced to study I will be better prepared for my future because I will more then likely be pursuing a career in a field that interests me!

 

Well, all I know is that I graduated highschool with a 2.0 gpa and i just finished my freshman year of college with a 3.7. So does this mean i'm smart because I have a 3.7gpa? Or am I not smart because I got a 2.0gpa? I have shitty grades and good grades... I feel like you're looking for answer that no one can provide. It's like you have an answer in your head and your just waiting for someone else to say it and shutting everyone else down. Sure there may be a correlation with good grades and intelligence, but correlation does not equal causation.

What I am saying is what you said above:
"Grades show nothing whatsoever as to how smart a child is"

 

I do not believe that intelligence can be measured in G.P.A.
The reason being: Intelligence, as a whole, isn't just what's learned at school. (If you have ever been to a formal debate, you must state the definitions of the words consisting in the argument, such as; for instance; the word 'intelligence'.) So what exactly is your definition of the word? If someone had a vast knowledge in a subject consisting of something not taught in schools, and knew many different things, and was NOT doing well on his exams in school and getting 'D' grades, compared to someone who did do well and showed valor and diligence attention in school. How exactly would you be able to tell the difference between who is the more intelligent person? I don't understand your argument, at all.

 

7error I agree with you in most of your arguments however tests and GPA reflect your intelligence in the subjects you studied in, atleast somewhat. I mean your argument is valid by saying one person could be smarter in a different area and their gpa doesn't reflect their true intelligence but maybe that person should consider taking classes in the areas they know more about and maybe their gpa would better reflect their intelligene

 

Oh there's not much wrong with it at all, it was put very well however I see only one discrepancy. It revolved around what we are believing "smart" means.

If we're just going on how well a kid knows the material and if they would be able to remember and apply that knowledge to a specific problem, then your analogy might be a bit loose on deciding whether or not he is smart.

But I will agree that your analogy is a more sensible one, since you are also taking into consideration one of those variables I was talking about earlier.

 

Grades = Intelligence + Diligence

So if you have a lot of diligence but medium intelligence, you can grade-wise surpass someone with high intelligence but low diligence.

You need both to be "successful" in life.

 

It's an argument of syllogism.

Ask any parent what they want of their kid, and the answer will most likely be 'To prepare them for the future', or 'To give them the best education'. The former more likely. I'll just work on your analogy. Bill Gates lived in times we don't, all he cared about was computers essentially, and he was most certainly good at it. I don't think Bill Gates had in mind 'I want to be the richest man in the world'. However, It is reasonable for a student nowaday to say 'I want to be a doctor'.

As for the sports example, I have personal emotions so to say attached to this. Suffice to say, in some countries, no marks no sport. To be more specific, If you don't get average/decent grades, then you they won't accept you in any prelude program/league to professional sport. NBA is a good example (I'm 98% sure).

Your last sentence. So, school results are a good gauge on how smart you are, provided you only look at ones applicable to the child's future desires. Unless of course you say whether they care or not has no bearing on their marks, the amendment stands, and only adds a caveat.

'Smart' is a rather ambiguous word, especially in this context.
However, for the most part, people will often say when questions as to 'How does that make you smarter than me'. They will often respond with 'I know more than you, the tests showed it'.

I do understand completely where your coming from.
However, personally, if I were talking loosely with my friends, I would regard anyone who doesn't care about their future as 'stupid'. Your future is the majority of your life, and unfortunately, in this era, bad marks = reduced job prospects.

I've actually only debated once in grade 7, and I do know you have to define the word.

Go define intelligence and smart without it being refuted by the opposition, unless they had the exact same definition. It is folly to think you can unequivocally define smart and intelligence.

As I've said previously, school results are probably not good at measuring intelligence. However, they do an alright job in gauging knowledge.

For example.

Here's a test:

What's 76 x 11 in your head in 5 seconds.

If you don't have knowledge to do it, you will not solve this in your head (generally)
If you have intelligence, then it's possible, even if you haven't learnt about it.

I'll leave how to solve this in your head and see how 'quick' some of you are:

7+6 is 13.

Therefore the answer is 836.


It's actually a terrible test thats hardly relevant, however, if you don't have knowledge, whether you care or not, you will never past the test. NEVER.

 

This is quoted from a post made on another forum that I read,

Consider this as well, how do we measure smartness outside of school? Is it accurate?