School and education.

[Voutare]

So, I have a Chemistry exam tomorrow, and to say the least, I'm screwed.  But this got me thinking: 

Do you all believe that your grades in school reflect your true intelligence?  I am a hardworker, and a quick learner when it comes to hands-on things, but when it comes to sitting in a class, listening to what a thermo-chemical reaction is, I am just sort of lost.

I'd much rather have someone working for me that has street knowledge, and can work under pressure, and other traits other than knowing pi to the 100th place.


When I am in the military, I know I would much rather have men next to me than can shoot a rifle, than tell me the history, origin, creator, price, and nickname of it.

 

[Orj]

Do you all believe that your grades in school reflect your true intelligence?

No. Not at all.

Grades mostly measure your ability to memorize extraneous facts, and your ability to put two and two together and get whatever number it is they want.

 

[Archonsod]

Nah. Current teaching methods fail in the first place, and most educational establishments aren't worth **** to begin with.

How useful the grades are depend on where you are and what you're doing. Most employers I've worked for wouldn't even consider someone without a year or so experience of working, ideally in a similar field, irrespective of what or where they got their academic qualifications.

In fact, I don't think this place even have my CV on file, just a reference from my previous employer.

 

[Ati]

Do you all believe that your grades in school reflect your true intelligence?

No. Not at all.

Grades mostly measure your ability to memorize extraneous facts, and your ability to put two and two together and get whatever number it is they want.

In other words, effort.  I could have good grades, but I don't give a ****, so I've been cruising through school for a while.

 

[Ruthven]

For the most part, no, but definitely if you're going to do something very advanced.

 

[Shatari]

I find the education system to extremely flawed. Back in college I took a computer hardware repair course under the mistaken impression that they would teach me the things I would need to know for the test. (I was interested in learning something about actual hardware instead of endless software classes.) Unfortunately, the college didn't provide the computers they had promised, and the text was dependent upon the students having a working PC in front of them. Needless to say, I and most of my peers would never have passed the class normally. However, because all the early quizzes and tests that were included in the course were relatively common sense, I (and about half the class) got a C+ for the course. I still don't know much about computer repair, but at least I still have my high GPA.

In fact, all of my computer courses worked this way. I can't think of a single one where I deserved the high grades that I got, but between extra credit and easy early exams I never finished with less that an A- for the course.

When I am in the military, I know I would much rather have men next to me than can shoot a rifle, than tell me the history, origin, creator, price, and nickname of it.

You might appreciate someone who remembers how to unjam one though. Some memorization is important. Also, if you're going into the American military then you'd better raise your tolerance for make-work and pointless memorization.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

So, I have a Chemistry exam tomorrow, and to say the least, I'm screwed.  But this got me thinking: 

Do you all believe that your grades in school reflect your true intelligence?

Nope, but it almost doesn't matter how smart an employee is  when that employee doesn't show up to work most of the time. School allows the employer some insight into how a person works, beyond that, you need to be near the potential employee a lot to correctly access their potential which most employers don't have the time for.

Part of what makes good grades is not memorization alone, but the work involved in memorizing them. If a person can hardly be arsed to memorize simple questions to a biology test, what's to motivate him to work hard at a job that requires more than that? I agree that most educational systems are trash in pursuing this objective, but it's the closest thing in allowing the student some freedom in what they want to do and still keeping records on how much they can be motivated to do something. The next closest system would preselect the people for their occupations before they reach adulthood, it's much more efficient, but the plebeians aren't very hot on that idea.

 

[Astor]

No, I don't believe grades are representative of intelligence - all tests prove is how good you are at taking tests and remembering stuff.

 

[Devercia]

Tests are overemphasized. Much of what a person could and should learn about a subject cannot be tested, and therefor, does not appear in the curriculum.

I am a hardworker, and a quick learner when it comes to hands-on things, but when it comes to sitting in a class, listening to what a thermo-chemical reaction is, I am just sort of lost.

People usually fit into two categories. Those that think in terms of their senses, and those that think abstractly. Judging from your quote, you seem the former. Both types demand something different from the system, and both are left wanting.  The sense driven are often given information they don't understand (abstractions like Thermo-chemical reactions) and the abstracts could not care less about memorizing petty details (Which are generally more tangible to the sense driven) that a person can flesh out on their own.

In the end you end up with a test that to the sense driven is an endless list of practical but daunting memorization of facts, and to the abstracts a list of inconsequential, irrelevant and/or tedious questions that are so disjointed from the subject matter as to not warrant prior attention.

In short, the sense driven are not taught the big picture effectively, and are forced to memorize. I often find these people take notes extensively, and forget it all when the test is over. They end up walking away with nothing but a grade.

Having gotten the big picture, the abstracts don't bother memorizing, and are forced to rely on there own reasoning to answer questions. These people take very sparse notes, usually test well, but gnash their teethe at the drop in their GPA for missing the question "Who was the author of your textbook: Quantum Mechanics and You?" If the class was challenging, they walk away with knowledge, but a deceiving grade.

 

[vadermath]

No, I don't believe grades reflect on your intelligence, but I guess that the importance of grades depends on the educational system in one's country.

 

[Sir Lulzalot]

Schools teach you what others deem to be important knowledge. Are you going to use history if you become a magician? No. But was it all a waste of time? No, since we have no ****ing clue what we are going to do when we are in school anyways. However, I don't think grades reflect the student, its just part of the growing tendency to judge someone based on their grades, scores, and "achievements" rather than their personality and worth as a human being.

 

[Adorno]

The most important determinant for doing well in school is your heritage. Children of parents with a high education will also receive a high education,
and children of people with no - or very short education - will receive a short or no education.
The school is a social system constructed in accordance with the dominant culture, favoring those children with the behaviour and interests associated with
the dominant class - being the bourgeoisie.

Intelligence - as measured with an IQ test (there are other definitions too) - follow the same pattern, that if you do well in school,
you'll do well in an IQ test.
Intelligence is also genetically determined (seen clearly among retarded people),
but only to a certain degree, so that social statistics are very accurate to measure a person's success in school.

There are obviously exceptions, but these are the general factors determining a persons success in the educational system.

 

[Sir Lulzalot]

The most important determinant for doing well in school is your heritage. Children of parents with a high education will also receive a high education,
and children of people with no - or very short education - will receive a short or no education.
The school is a social system constructed in accordance with the dominant culture, favoring those children with the behaviour and interests associated with
the dominant class - being the bourgeoisie.

Intelligence - as measured with an IQ test (there are other definitions too) - follow the same pattern, that if you do well in school,
you'll do well in an IQ test.
Intelligence is also genetically determined (seen clearly among retarded people),
but only to a certain degree, so that social statistics are very accurate to measure a person's success in school.

There are obviously exceptions, but these are the general factors determining a persons success in the educational system.

Learn your place in the social order of the world. How lovely.

 

[CrazyEyes]

Doing well in English (or your respective literature/grammar class) is important, because it helps you not sound stupid, and literature classes do, in fact, help you become a little more creative. Math grades are usually important, in my destined career anyway (computer science). History can be good to know, especially for naive idealists who think that they're awesome because they've thought up a different version of some stupid ideaology that has failed ten times in the past. Science classes are not that important, in my opinion, depending on your field of work obviously.

Intelligence, of course, is the measure of the ability to learn, not how much you know. Grades will never be an accurate reflection of the student's intelligence, because the student could simply choose not to learn. More often than not, though, they are not aiming to measure intelligence, but instead your cumulative knowledge anyway. Einstein failed in everything but physics simply because he did not give a ****.

 

[iamahorse]

Eh, no. Doing well in English only means that you just write to your teacher's tastes. You get history wrong entirely- its use stems from being able to recognise what the **** happened in the past, why it happened, the effects of that then, the current effects of it, and what possible effects may be (though the last is mostly baseless speculation). As for sciences, well, your argument applies to all of education as we hold it now beyond simple mathematics- why not just send everybody to trade school then or bring back castes and we are taught what our fathers/mothers know?

But yes, Grades are in no way a proper reflection of your intelligence. They reflect how hard you work and how well you can memorise things, though memorisation is the lowest form of intelligence so grades show -some- degree of your capabilities.

As for their importance? Let me tell you- I received **** grades in highschool mostly because I really could not be bothered to care about my school's chosen focus on math and sciences (our humanities department was severely lacking), but I still was granted numerous scholarships and even a full scholarship to my current school because I sent them my writing portfolio. So, yeah, take that how you want. Just try enough so that you do not fail out of school, I guess.

 

[kurczak]

I love how the world is full of brilliant and gifted minds who just didn't care enough to have good grades.

 

[mrcrotch]

It depends in the method in which you're taught. Some people learn differently. Some lucky bastards can sit down and just listen and sink most of it in, whereas I'd be lost. I need to physically do something to help me learn, like experiments and such.

 

[iamahorse]

I love how the world is full of brilliant and gifted minds who just didn't care enough to have good grades.

Eh, doubt me if you will- I have no reason to lie and I highly doubt by telling you all stories I would benefit from it in real life.

EDIT:
Also depends on what you count as good grades. Rather subjective, that. Tends to differ from school to school.

 

[kurczak]

I love how the world is full of brilliant and gifted minds who just didn't care enough to have good grades.

Eh, doubt me if you will- I have no reason to lie and I highly doubt by telling you all stories I would benefit from it in real life.

That wasn't adressed to you in particular and I have no need neither any reasons to doubt you. I know some people who actually are brilliant and gifted minds and don't care enough to have good grades, but if we are talking about high schools, virtually everybody could absolve them "*** laude" if he wanted. People at high school don't have bad grades, because they are apathetic geniuses, but because they are...you know...teenagers.

EDIT:
Also depends on what you count as good grades. Rather subjective, that. Tends to differ from school to school.

I don't know the anglo-saxon terminology. In my country, you get 1-5 in every subject, 1 being the best, 5 meaning you have to repeat the year. Good grades mean that arithmetic average of all your grades is below 1,5 and you don't have any 3 or worse. Or to put it simply, only 1s and 2s with more 1s than 2s

 

[iamahorse]

No, no. Good grades meaning that the effort required to get the grades differs from school to school. Some schools are better than others and higher education institutes may recognise that, valuing an A from school X over an A from school Y. It has a lot to do with socio-economics of the area, I guess, as richer areas tend to get more funding from our government and have better resources to educate the students.