Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Gifted or Not?

So this will teach me not to delete my posts. Right after I posted that message, I posted another one saying that follow-ups have shown that IQ jumps after infancy don't last. The references are in Real Education. The evidence points to adoption at birth or soon after as being a solid driver of IQ increase. Other interventions...not so much.


The Bell Curve is big and complex, but Real Education is a much easier read (readable on a Saturday). I pulled up some of the papers Murray cited and basically agreed with his conclusions.

I'd like to hear from deacongirl; the statement still sounds absolutist to me. Could be me.

Oh, FWIW, I'm a strong advocate of ensuring that poor people have access to nutritious food and solid healthcare (especially of the pre-natal and pediatric variety) as a way of improving socioeconomic gaps.

Val

Lucconu, haven't you been paying ANY attention to the rumor mills and urban legends about IQ, and education, and etc. The racial disparity has as much to do with what the tests are testing, who's writing the tests, and what the tests are relevant to. When it comes to the final outcome I think doctors kids become doctors and mechanics kids become mechanics (or something in the same paygrade) and the stories we hear about anything different is probably the exception, not the rule. An iq's not an aptitude test, it's more of a scholarly aptitude test, right?
And that's not mentioning what I almost posted last night but I don't why I would hesitate to be so opinionated, maybe because many people HERe, probably made it on their own. Buuuut, most people I know below the middle class who got a higher education it's because their family helped them. And that's never been just for "oh, they've got a good brain, let's develop it.". It's been sacrificing and prioritizing by their family members, risk-taking outside of the family's comfort zone. Also, according to urban myth, this is why foreign kids study harder because they do owe it to their families and their parents will make them quit school and get a job if they don't get straight A's. (at least that's what they tell their friends at school.). Poor American families don't have to threaten to make the kids quit school and get a job, they have to work hard on top of everything else to also make sure the kid doesn't make that popular choice.

Val, I learned that lesson on another forum. I typed something, deleted it to post on a new thread. Someone cut it and pasted it out of context and made it look like I erased it to hide what I said, which was not the case. And then she pm'd me that you cant take back what you say in real life, neither on the webs. So I try to not edit my comments, only to add stuff.
Also, I thought I was being funny because I put your name in deacongirl's quote saying you don't know how to use the forum. Ha-ha-groan.

It's important to note here that IQ may be fairly immutable...

but IQ isn't "performance."

Tools which measure IQ are inherently flawed for that purpose since they by definition measure some form of "performance."

Because of that inherent factor, there will always be some degree of bias no matter what sort of tool is used.


One could design a perfectly valid tool for assessing 'street smarts' in urban, minority children from low-income homes. Chances are very good that my child, being suburban and fairly sheltered, would not perform well on such a test.

On the other hand, it is very obvious that measuring cognitive ability using test items which rely upon situations that my daughter is familiar with (such as purchasing produce, or a lengthy car trip) would be relatively unfamiliar to that hypothetical inner-city child.

Is I right or is I wrong that the tests in use measure academic potential? Legit question. Is that what they're for? I get that the subtests help note which skills the kid draws on more easily and what parts may be frustrating their efforts by not keeping up with them.

Well, theoretically, they do-- but the problem is that any tool for that purpose MUST use examples and problem-solving scenarios that may (and almost certainly DO) introduce bias into the tool itself.

How does one measure cognitive potential with NO reliance upon previous experience? Answer: this is a trick question, because there really isn't any good way to do that.

Someone who has seen a particular type of puzzle has a significant performance advantage over someone who has not.

Ergo-- enriched environments lead to children who 'test better.'

George Carlin said, "Some people see things that are and ask, 'Why?' Some people dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?' Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that ..."

Heehee.

True 'dat.

Yeah, but what's the point of teaching them to test better if they're only likely to follow through with an education only so far, limited in part by 1 someone putting a roof over their head past the age of eighteen, 2 peer pressure to study or get a job, car, and gas money, 3 a nagging supportive loving mother (gotta feel useful), 4 hormones and the early pregnancys and/or weddings.

That's got more to do with finishing an education than being prepped to pass a test earlier than everybody. So the test shouldn't be changed to reflect street smarts because street smarts lead to non-academic life choices. I'm sure there's a study or article somewhere to quote to prove this.

But IQ affects performance when the task at hand requires cognitive ability. And this is where people get uncomfortable.

When, schools fail to acknowledge that individual differences in IQ are real, the system fails the people it's supposed to serve. You can see this in NCLB's assumption that everyone can meet age/grade level expectations or the idea that "everyone evens out by third grade." Society fails in this regard when we promote the idea that "most people should go to college."

Some people need more time to master material. When you push them too fast, they can't learn and get permanently behind. No wonder they can't pass the high-stakes tests. This is just my speculation, but I expect that people in this situation can't develop in ways that are critically important --- not too mention the fact that many probably shut down and learn less than they would have if they'd just been allowed to slow down.

Some people need less time to master material. When schools force them to go too slowly, the same problems are created.

Finally, not everyone is smart enough for college. And this is okay, just like the idea that not everyone can earn a varsity letter is okay. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses.

Yet we have a myth that college is essential, so colleges have to offer easier courses for less-bright students. Many people go to college to earn an arbitrary credential (the BA) that is (wrongly) seen as a qualification for many jobs.

The result is indebted people with degrees who haven't learned how to think critically and who don't find jobs that excite them. I've seen studies recently saying that the number of hours spent studying in college has been declining since the 60s. This is hardly surprising if lot of people who aren't smart enough are in college. They don't have the ability. Many can't focus on English lit. for long, and many don't want to anyway. And besides, they're there for a credential and not out of curiosity or love of learning. This is not okay.

I wish we'd use our "you must go to college!" energy to help people find what they're good at and encourage them in those directions. I stand by my statements that the world needs electricians or plumbers far more than it needs more marketing managers or sales reps.