“Some folks think that being smart in the books is the only kind of smart, but that just isn’t so. …
Men learn a lot by doin’, and they learn by listenin’ to what others say, but when a man is workin’ on a farm or walkin’ in the woods or ridin’ across country, he can do a lot of thinking. Many a man who reads a lot just repeats what he’s read, and not what he thinks.”
(quote taken from, you guessed it, Ride the River by Louis L’Amour)
~~~~~~~~~
Dedicated to those of my friends who struggled with standarized tests, and especially dedicated to A.B.
That is so true… there are so many different kinds of smart people, so why does anyone think we can fit them in a box 3 inches square?
Standardized tests = Measure of how well a person can take standardized tests. My entire family is anti-standardized test… hehe, we’re anti-IQ too, for pretty much the same primary reason—there’s no way a single test (or multiple tests for that matter) can rate your smartness (much less your wisdom, that’s for sure!!).
Comment by Rache — November 5, 2005 @ 5:38 am
I agree.
Comment by Estel of Rohan — November 6, 2005 @ 1:55 am
I second that! Or am I thirding it?
My score on the ACT Science section improved by 10 points from the first practice test I took to the real test, and I don’t recall the diameter of my head increasing during that time. So these tests are definitely just a measure of how well you can take these tests.
Comment by Shannon — November 6, 2005 @ 1:57 am
That’s so weird–I was seconding or thirding that idea when I started typing, but by the time the computer posted my comment, I was fourthing it. LOL!
Comment by Shannon — November 6, 2005 @ 1:59 am
Thank you all for commenting!
Comment by Kitty Pryde — November 9, 2005 @ 1:10 am
Standardized tests are great for determining how well you can adapt to an externally imposed system, how quickly you can recall from memory certain kinds of facts (mostly math), how wide your vocabulary is (rather than how functional), and how easily you can be trained in esoteric skills (which comes up often in jobs); their value should not be diminished just because those aren’t your strengths, any more than my being unable to juggle makes juggling stupid (although I might have said so; dagnabit!). The problem arises, as with statistics or any kind of science, only when people think the test is telling them more than it really is, which is unfortunately often. The tests are handy as long as you only expect them to do what they are built to do. Don’t let anyone tell you that unless you are good at a certain list of skills (or if you’re only good at a certain list of skills) that you are not good enough. Vocation does not determine worth (no matter what the pay grade is telling you), and there are a lot more and diverse vocations out there than most people realize.
Comment by Professor Iwish — April 2, 2006 @ 3:17 am
I agree with the prof.
Comment by Caleb Martin — April 2, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
Same here. Unfortunately, much of society thinks too highly of those results.
Comment by Estel of Rohan — April 4, 2006 @ 1:11 am
Grrrr…that was supposed to be anonymous. Oh well. Who’s Professor Iwish?
Comment by Estel of Rohan — April 4, 2006 @ 1:13 am
Tsk tsk, you shouldn’t hide behind anonymous comments.
Comment by Caleb Martin — April 4, 2006 @ 7:28 am
Why did you want to be anonymous? isn’t your nickname anonymous enough?
the Prof is my brother, again, but under a different name.
hey, has anybody noticed the new links? or better yet, noticed and looked at them? just wondering.
Comment by Kitty Pryde — April 4, 2006 @ 4:54 pm