I have always been interested in tests and quizzes of all kinds. When I was taking homeschool co-op classes (lots of homeschool families get together, and parents with background in certain areas teach classes that might be difficult to teach at home: band, drama, physical education, computers, foreign language, art, higher math and lab sciences, etc) we often had tests. On a test day I was always excited! I barely knew what testing anxiety was until I got to college (and even then, only rarely at first - it became a habit by the time I was a senior). To me tests were like a game, especially if the teacher gave extra credit. One time I got a perfect score on a Spanish test of 130 (out of 100), and the teacher told me that I was making her look bad. Another time in Chemistry, I think I got a 140-something on a test because the teacher told us to memorize the periodic table, and I was the only one who really tried, and she made every piece of info we could remember from that be one point extra credit. Even though I was already way over what was needed to get an A, I just thought it was fun to see how high I could go!
I also liked taking personality tests, and have enjoyed even silly email forward questionnaires and things of that sort. So, is it any surprise that I enjoyed taking self-administered IQ tests from time to time? The firt IQ test I took was from some book my parents had, written by a British author (I do not remember the title or author). I scored an IQ of 95. Now, I was probably only about 10 or 12 at the time, but the tests are supposed to be adjusted for age. However, there was alot of British wording in the tests that I wasn't used to at the time, and the questions often involved subjects with which I was completely unfamiliar at the time (ex: Rearrange some letters to form a make of car. Like I knew ANYTHING about cars back then!). Since then I have taken many, many self-administered IQ tests online, with my scores falling all over the board. The highest score I ever got was 150, which I think was the limit of that particular test, and I would have to say that it was an extremely easy test! But even at the cost of temporarily being labeled with an IQ of 95, that first book was an interesting book, none-the-less, as it familiarized me with some of the more salient points of IQ theory. The big thing to remember is that IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. A quotient is the result of a division operation. The original equation was:
IQ (intelligence quotient) = (Mental Age / Chronological Age) x 100
The mental age is either the test score itself or some derivative thereof. So, the IQ is something created from the formula, the mental age is something created from the test, and the chronological age is the subject's actual age. Note that none of the quantities is specifically meant to designate intelligence
per se. And yet, the term 'IQ' is considered synonymous with intelligence in everyday usage - which is quite a stretch in my opinion.
I have a book called "Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-Opening Tour through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science." One of the chapters is on IQ. It explains how Binet started out by measuring head circumference, thinking that more intelligent people had larger heads - and his dissatisfaction with this method led to his creation of the first IQ tests. The purpose of his original tests is that which I believe should be the purpose for all tests: to identify and target areas of weakness. In other words, a test helps you know where you need improvement. Binet himself always believed that students could improve, with good teaching; he never believed in a fixed IQ. According to the book, Binet was quite concerned about "reification" or "thingifying" of IQ, just because we have a name for something doesn't mean that it exists.
As far as I can tell, Binet pretty much only worked with normal students. Next the eugenicists got ahold of the idea, and began using it to try to weed out the 'mentally unfit.' Even today many people think of IQ as a fixed, heritable, genetic trait. This is dangerous for a number of reasons, first of all because of the seeming authority it gives to eugenicists, and second of all because people with lower IQ scores will be excused or prevented (by themselves, or those in authority over them) from improving. Furthermore, since what the IQ tests test is something fairly removed from everyday life, it is questionable whether progress towards a "high IQ" is even a useful goal.
It seems easy enough to believe that the more intelligent one is, the more successful one will be in life; and since most people believe that having a high IQ score is the same thing as having a high intelligence, therefore those with high IQ scores will succeed. Furthermore, high test scores of any kind (especially in school), are often thought of as generally representing IQ (even if they are not officially IQ tests). So, we have come to the point where tests scores in general are seen as predictors of life success (and low IQ scores as omens of future failures). This is the logic behind alot of College Entrance Examinations such as the ACT, SAT or PSAT. These tests have often been treated as intelligence tests, which is why organizations like MENSA will accept high enough scores on these tests as proof of eligibility for membership. However, for political reasons which I don't understand, these tests prefer not to be referred to as intelligence tests, and have therefore undergone a number of name changes. From the
Wikiepdia entry on SATs:
"The name originally stood for "Scholastic Aptitude Test". But in 1990, because of uncertainty about the SAT's ability to function as an intelligence test, the name was changed to Scholastic Assessment Test. In 1993 the name was changed to SAT I: Reasoning Test (with the letters not standing for anything) to distinguish it from the SAT II: Subject Tests. This change was instituted because of sharp criticism and longitudinal studies showing that the original meaning was no longer accurate; the SAT did not accurately measure what it said it was measuring. In 2004, the roman numerals on both tests were dropped, and the SAT I was renamed the SAT Reasoning Test."
Also, the idea is that an average score will be 1000. However, ever since the test was created, scores have been going down - so the scores are periodically "recentered" in order to keep the average at 1000. The claim is that as more and more underpriviledged students take the tests, averages go down. That's a nice excuse but I'm not sure I can buy it as a total explanation. I think the average student/graduate today is, quite simply, less well taught than students in past generations.
Whether you are looking at official IQ tests, or college admissions tests, the thing that stands out is that they are all about percentiles, or a bell-curve. In college I began to notice that there were two kinds of professors: those who believed in testing based on competency, and those who believe in testing based on a bell curve. The problem with bell curve testing is that some people have to fail. The professors who use bell curve grading seem to think that is their duty to "put students in their place," in other words, they think that if too many people are passing, their tests are too easy and they are letting some of the idiots slip through the net. The professors who focus on competency seem to think that it is their duty to help each student learn as much as he can. One such professor who focused on what I call competency testing was fond of remarking after a test "The average was an A. Guess I must be doing something wrong!"
Under the American system where students (or their parents or their creditors) pay for tuition, I think that anything other than the competency based view is extremely unfair. I think that teachers and professors should think of themselves as serving the students (since the students pay them), rather than as gatekeepers of the academic institutions. In other countries where all higher education is free, perhaps it makes more sense to have "gatekeepers," but then I think you might introduce unnecessary competitiveness.
Back to the idea of 'g' (general intelligence) being a heritable trait. The Dewdney book talks about a study done at some point where a particular class of kids is given an intelligence test and scores relatively low. Then they are coached, and take the test again, and score relatively high. This should prove that IQ is not fixed! In my own experiences with self-administered IQ tests, I can say that mine does not seem to be fixed (remember, I've ranged from 95 to 150). And on the 'official IQ tests' called the SAT and PSAT, here is what happened:
My older brother was preparing for college, and taking a Kaplan class to prepare for taking his SAT. My mom was trying to decide whether or not I should skip a year, so she had me take a free practice PSAT/SAT test from Kaplan, on which I scored 1080, and it was decided that was good enough for me to skip 10th grade. The following fall, I (now in 11th grade) was enrolled in a Kaplan course, and after a few months of coaching I took the PSAT, and scored an SAT equivalent 1440 (actually a 215 in the PSAT scoring system, because the PSAT had three sections instead of two, which the SAT had at the time), which qualified me for being a National Merit Scholar. So, with coaching, I gained almost 400 points in a matter of months! Then, to verify my scores, I had to take the SAT. It took me 4 tries before I finally got a 1450 (the other three were in the low 1300's). Now, there was no limit on how many times I could take the test, and Kaplan classes are completely legal too - but it just goes to show that finally achieving the National Merit Scholarship was more about work than anything I was born with.
But here's another point of view, what was all of that effort for? Well, it did pay for most of college tuition. But isn't college just more of the same, studying and taking tests? Ans since I haven't even ended up (so far) having a career in anything related to my degree, what was all of that time and effort spent for?
Reading John Taylor Gatto, I have come to the conclusion that IQ is more about compliance than brilliance. Brilliance is about doing something creative, something nobody's every done before, something which also happens to be useful in some way. Compliance is about carrying out orders efficiently without questioning their purpose. Both have their place, but I don't see much relationship between the two. Someone who works really hard to gain the approval of others on something that may or may not have any real use strikes me more as a person of compliance rather than brilliance. Brilliant people are often useful to themselves and to humanity as a whole, whereas compliant people are very, very useful to institutions. Is it coincidence that educational institutions would train people to be useful to employment institutions? I don't think so. But institutionalized people are what is wanted in the world today, though living an institutionalized life isn't very meaningful from a personal standpoint, in my opinion.
So, I am an odd duck. People often praise me for being brilliant, whereas I think that I am merely compliant. However, I do not think that I am compliant for the same reasons that most people are. I think I was simply born compliant. Really, as a child I never wanted to get into trouble, and in contrast to my other siblings I rarely did get in trouble (especially in comparison to my brothers). I was always striving to be obedient, and to garner approval because it was somehow in my nature to be that way. Many people today, I believe are compliant simply because it is pounded into them by the schools. The funny thing is, that my parents, by homeschooling me, were (partially) being very noncompliant (and therefore brilliant) towards "the system." I picked up on that, and in wanting to be compliant to them, have tried to be noncompliant with what I see as "the system." The funny thing is, that in the end, they did not approve of my compliance to (my perception of) their noncompliance (initially, when I finally started to be noncompliant with their noncompliance, they didn't like that either). This is a confusion which has plagued me, I think, for a little over the last decade. I want to follow somebody and I don't know who to follow.
I think I am finally coming to the conclusion that if I am to do anything which I consider worthwhile, then I have to stop following. And yet, as I've said, it is in my nature to be a follower. I would even go so far as to call it part of my idea of feminine identity. I am not even saying that I should be a leader (I really kind of hate the idea, actually), but merely to be more independent than I have been in the past. I do admire brilliance, and if I ever did anything truly brilliant I think I would be proud of myself for doing that. However, it would be very, very challenging for me. But, perhaps, it would be the only worthwhile challenge.
