<p>I guess I am trying to find out if there is empirical evidence that what the teacher said is true.</p>
<p>I am trying to figure out why we have these tests, what they really show and how they help people.</p>
<p>So how do they help students? Are students with IQs above 130 better students than those with lower scores? Is there evidence of this? If all the students had equal “everything else”, would a person’s IQ be the determining factor in what kind of student a person is?</p>
<p>As to how I look at scores, if my kids score higher than your kids, my kids are more intelligent than your kids. If your kids score higher, then my kids had a bad day or your kids studied for the tests; thereby, making the tests invalid. :)</p>
<p>With all due respect, Berurah, you seem to be determined to find something to be offended by regarding what this teached said. Again, here’s what you originally posted:
I’ll repeat: That statement is probably pretty accurate. In fact, it’s probably closer to accurate than the statement “The Earth is round” - except I don’t think anyone would be upset by a less than thoroughly accurate description of the planet as an oblate spheroid.</p>
<p>I agree wholeheartedly with the premise that well-adjusted, high EQ individuals with an IQ in the 125ish range are well suited for success in most occupations. (And the unspoken corrolary that people in the 150ish range tend as a group not to have as high EQ’s as those a little less cerebral by nature, for whatever reason.) But it’s probably true that most doctors are in the “gifted” range (what is that, anyway? 135 and up?) And it’s probably true that most schoolteachers are a notch below that, etc. These are facts of life. Do we really need to conceal them from kids? What other reality should be suppressed for the good of our kids’ psyches?</p>
This may be <em>the</em> most accurate statement on the entire thread! :)</p>
<p>
Well, kluge and NSM seem to believe that what she said is true. <em>I</em> believe that there is some basic truth in what she told the kids…along with a substantial enough chunk of misleading information (<strong><em>for the population she was addressing</em></strong>). I think that -Allmusic- and even NSM have addressed your question in statements such as these:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These statements would also support the things I learned in both my undergraduate and graduate programs in education and also in my own expereince as a teacher and mother.</p>
<p>dstark, you keep mixing apples and oranges, and I’m not sure why. IQ has little to do with whether one is “a better student.” A “good student” studies hard and achieves as much as he or she can with their natural abilities. But a kid with an IQ of 130 might be a “bad student” and still score better on his exams than a kid with an IQ of 100 who is a “good student”, just because Mr. 130 has a natural talent for math (or whatever.)</p>
<p>To return to your basic question: While a mere 10 point difference might be hard to detect, and while the system of measurement isn’t perfect (kid sick when taking test, etc.) after taking those limitations into account - yes, a person with a higher IQ will have an easier time organizing and analyzing certain types of common information than a person with a lower IQ. I can say from personal knowledge that my son who generally tests in the 99th percentile is “smarter” than my daughter who usually tests around the 98th percentile, although I don’t know what “IQ” numbers those percentiles might correspond to.</p>
<p>But I think you know that. So why do you keep asking? I’m figuring you have a point you want to make but I don’t know what it is.</p>
<p>kluge~
I have given a thumbs up to your opinions here:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot, though, agree with you that the teacher was “right” or that she presented this material in the best or most accurate way possible because the material is really not as simple or as cut and dried as your statements seem to suggest.</p>
<p>I did not go out in search of something to be “offended” by. Not at all. My daughter had a conversation with me, and I formed an opinion about what she and her classmates were taught. There are a good many others on this thread who seem to share my opinion about this, so I am not a lone offended party here. We can agree to disagree, and that’s fine with me.</p>
<p>BTW, as a former teacher who saw her entire fellow faculty <em>FREAKING OUT</em> when Texas institued the TECAT (a teacher certification test that was roughly on the 6th grade level, skill-wise) back in the 80’s, I would absolutely and completely DISAGREE that the MAJORITY of teachers falls into the superior range. However, since I do not have test scores on them, I will have to go by my observations alone. </p>
<p>
I am not for the concealing of this information, but rather for its full and complete disclosure with all of the nuances. In other words, MORE exposure than what was given it. As far as the kids’ psyches…well, I’ll stick with the “I Think I Can” school…it’s done WONDERS for my kids so far! ;)</p>
<p>"Originally Posted by -Allmusic- then Beraruh…</p>
<p>People with average IQs and high emotional intelligence sometimes do much better in all ways than exceptionally bright people with poor emotional intelligence or people skills. I have known some superbly intelligent people who were unable to fulfill their promise and everyone’s expectations and were really quite unhappy. Their brilliance didn’t provide contentment or satisfaction.</p>
<p>There are simply too many factors that contribute to a happy and successful life, and inherent intelligence is merely one of them"</p>
<p>I’m wondering if the “factors” even out among the different levels of IQ and we are left with…higher IQ leads to higher success. </p>
<p>Many people on this thread have stated they believe that once a person has a certain IQ (maybe 140?), EQ sometimes is lower and the person has more trouble in society.</p>
<p>I think this might be true from observing. I may be wrong though. I’m probably not around these people very much. Those people, with very high IQs, might think I am too simple to hang around. :)</p>
<p>Kluge, I am mixing apples and oranges because the schools are mixing apples and oranges. </p>
<p>If test scores don’t show which students are going to be better students, and therefore might need enrichment programs, why are test scores the criteria?</p>
<p>If my kid scores 140 and doesn’t give a crap about school, why should he get into the enrichment program over somebody who scores a 115 and loves school?</p>
<p>Dstark, there is actually very valuable information that one can glean from these tests, other than, “AHA! I AM VERY BRILLIANT!” In the context of understanding a composite of cognitive strengths and weaknesses, IQ testing can be very useful. </p>
<p>And, while one could, obstensibly “prep” for the WISC, the questions are not readily available, some of it is visual and almost impossible to describe, and professionals are bound by a code of ethics, so the information on the subtests isn’t exactly floating around. </p>
<p>Also, since it is individually administered, there are some impressions, that have to do with a person’s facility with language, circumlocution, interest, motivation, attention, persistence, etc. that are not measured with numbers, but which are diagnostically important. This information, of course, is wholly different from that gleaned from a test like the SAT, and would be impossible to be prepped for, even if prepping in other areas were effective.</p>
<p>But it is not a test that everyone needs. My own children have never had WISC testing, although I can fairly well guess their scores (within a small error margin, I think I’d be pretty much on the money).</p>
<p>"
Many people on this thread have stated they believe that once a person with a certain IQ (maybe 140?) reaches a certain threshold, EQ sometimes is lower and the person has more trouble in society."</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s true. I think that what’s probably true is that there’s a bell curve for EQ, too, and people with exceptionally high IQs who lack exceptionally high EQs have difficulty getting along with most other people because those high IQ people lack the ability to blend in with others so as to not stand out as weird.</p>
<p>Once of the smartest people whom I know is IVY educated with a JD and Ph.D., yet can get along with virtually anyone. She’s got to have a sky high EQ because she can relate to everyone, and cause virtually anyone to feel comfortable in her presence. She also seems to genuinely like most people. She’s a success in her field and in her personal life in that she’s happily married, a good mother, etc. She’s also one of the nicest people whom I know.</p>
<p>Sometimes the kid with the 140 is bored silly in school, and the enrichment from “gifted” classes may help him re-engage with learning. Sometimes his overall ability to make connections and analyze is simply more advanced than that of the kid with 115, and the gifted class can move at a more rapid clip.</p>
<p>The point of gifted education (muddied and messed up though it is) is to give those students a place to move rapidly, without being confined by slower learners. However, there are so many issues with both diagnosis and treatment of gifted kids, I’d say this is the classes don’t always meet the identified need anyway.</p>
<p>But on your last point, Dstark, I surely see what you are saying.</p>
<p>“If my kid scores 140 and doesn’t give a crap about school, why should he get the enrichment program over somebody who scores a 115 and loves school?”</p>
<p>An enrichment program isn’t a reward for good behavior or for liking school. The 140 IQ kid may not care about school because school may be too easy for him or her. The 115 IQ kid may love school because the school actually is meeting his or her needs by appropriately teaching and challenging him or her.</p>
<p>Would we expect Olympic quality athletes to be happy participating in regular school gym classes? If they hated those classes, would we suggest that any special advanced classes should only go to the klutzy kids who loved regular gym?</p>
<p>Gifted people and nongifted people learn in different ways. For instance, nongifted people require lots of repetition to learn things. Gifted people don’t need that. Gifted people also become motivated by learning how to do things that are challenging and that require creative solutions. </p>
<p>Not having repetiation, and having lots of things requiring out of the box thinking is discouraging to nongifted people.</p>
<p>I am gifted verbally, not gifted in math. I definitely need the repetition in math to learn. I was very frustrated when I was in gifted math classes that didn’t rely on repetition. I can, however, learn verbal things quickly, and without repetition, and doing worksheets and similar things is simply boring for me, and a waste of time because all I’m not learning anything,</p>
<p>The math enrichment programs that my son who is gifted in math loved were things that I would have hated to have to do. What he thought was fun would have been what I would have called unnecessary and unwanted extra work that was virtually impossible to figure out.</p>
<p>Theoretically because the enrichment program may be just the ticket to make the higher scorer get excited about school. And because the right sort of gifted program would be too hard for the 115. That’s rarely the case IRL, gifted programs aren’t generally that advanced.</p>
<p>I can see both sides - our gifted program set a very wide net with the result that it didn’t even come close to meeting the math needs of my older son. OTOH it was a great fit for my younger son.</p>
<p>Allmusic, because like many others on this bb, I have kids who score or would score high on tests like the WISC, I was kind of hoping the the test results would mean, “AHA! I AM VERY BRILLIANT!”
I understand what you are saying in post #108.</p>
<p>Berurah, to get back to why you started this thread, I think what the teacher said is fairly accurate, but not completely accurate. I don’t see why learning this from a teacher is positive or necessary. However, I would let it go. </p>
<p>I don’t expect teachers to teach what I would teach or when I would teach. I remember when my kid came home from an eighth grade science class and told me the teacher said sex was the best activity on the planet. :)</p>
<p>Let us all remember that a kid who is two standard deviations above the norm (which would be an IQ of 130) is as different from the norm as a kid who is two standard deviations below the norm (an IQ of 70-ish). That may make the reasoning behind special ed programs for the gifted (which is what “enrichment” is) more clear. By the time you hit an IQ of 144, you’re three standard deviations out. Many gifted full-time programs (as opposed to enrichment) start at 144 or that vicinity.</p>
Now <em>that</em> I would have taken no issue with! <em>ROFLMAO</em> (However, I’d have kept that on the mum 'til at LEAST <em>ninth</em> grade! :eek: )</p>
<p>about this:
I was relegated to this before I ever started this thread, but I was interested in others’ opinions of the way this teacher approached this material.</p>
<p>The researcher I know that is an expert in both career development and IQ testing is Linda Gottfredson. This is her article in Scientific American, and the graph on page 28 is probably the source where the teacher got her information from.</p>
</p>
<em>ROFLMAO</em> (However, I’d have kept that on the mum 'til at LEAST <em>ninth</em> grade! :eek: )</p>