Intelligence is viewed as a positive trait, a compliment. It’s something that we strive for, and as a high school student, this goal most applies to academics.
I sat pondering this idea after not doing so well on an AP Chemistry test. Did receiving this grade make me any less intelligent than before? I didn’t think so. Then that got me thinking, how did I measure intelligence before? I personally didn’t base it off good grades, but I felt that many people (both teachers and students alike) did. For instance, we stereotype the students who get good grades as the “smart kids” and tend to view the students who don’t achieve such good grades as the “not-so smart kids.”
However, the following should be considered: what does a test actually measure? I think it measures two things: our ability to learn the material presented on a test and the ability to take a test. For instance, “learning the material” might encompass memorizing terms and definitions for a history test or visualizing gas laws and what it means to be an ideal gas in a chemistry class. Meanwhile, “ability to take a test” might include knowing certain strategies such as process of elimination and separating the test in terms of level of difficulty to save time, as well as carrying a sense of confidence throughout the test, which enables us to choose that logical, first answer that comes to mind – that gut answer – and proceed to answer the remaining questions in the face of the time constraint. Often, test taking ability can help answer questions that we may not know the concept behind (And some standardized tests, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test or the SAT, require a significant level of test taking strategy in order to achieve a high score).
Hence, tests, and even grades received in school, are not true measures of intelligence. They are simply snapshots of knowledge in a subject and our ability to express that knowledge in a given time frame. And intelligence is more deep and much more broad than the concepts taught in school. These concepts won’t stay in our heads permanently, and eventually we’ll have to do research to learn them again; what’s the point in holding information about Dalton’s law of partial pressures when I can read and understand it to obtain the information I need?
I think intelligence lies in these moments, or in our ability to understand and navigate the world around us. At first glance, this definition is pretty vague, so I’ll apply it to some concrete situations. For instance, intelligence may involve researching and presenting on materials science research, or applying multiple concepts in chemistry and physics to conduct experiments on engineering different materials. These long-term journeys cultivate skills – such as critical thinking in designing an experiment, perseverance – that will be much more important and defining later on in life. These are the qualitative aspects that tests, and subsequently grades, fail to measure. Thus intelligence exists in passion and perseverance. Are we passionate about the material we’re learning? Do we continue to try our best, even if we may not get the material initially?
Examining the idea of intelligence, are IQ (intelligence quotient) tests an accurate reflection of our intelligence? While they are an indicator of how different parts of our brains work and process information, they don’t measure other aspects such as creativity and social intelligence, which is what enables people to leave an impact on this world.
Going back to the idea of academics, it’s important to note that school only caters to a specific type of intelligence – the “book/lecture type”, or the ability to process information through books, notes and lectures. The reality is, for a lot of people, concepts don’t resonate this way. This is supported by Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which proposes that people process information and experience the world in different ways. The theory highlights that all people have the capacity to reach intelligence – but just in a different field. Hence it appeals to a more egalitarian view of intelligence, since IQ (a standard measure of intelligence) is considered to be innate.
Visual Representation of Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences
On a broader level, how relevant is the notion of intelligence? Even if one excels in school subjects, is that an indicator of their future success, or of the impact they’ll have on the world in the years to come? Rather, intelligence should be measured by a person’s ability to learn and achieve in a certain domain – maybe that is writing, science or math. These achievements manifest over a long time period and are dependent on passion and resilience – not on grades.
