Every person has a talent and their own way to demonstrate it, and the world has been eager to measure this human flair to label them as "intelligent" or "less capable"....
THINK PAD
Every person has a talent and their own way to demonstrate it, and the world has been eager to measure this human flair to label them as "intelligent" or "less capable". Therefore, humanity has developed examinations to prove its intelligence. However, whether these paper-based or computer-administered questions can really calculate intellect remains a subject of debate. These exams attempt to measure the mind through analytics and logic. In what follows, I will try to explain this articulately.
The Intelligence Quotient (IQ) system was developed to evaluate cognitive ability. It is a specialised test that, ironically, ranks the value of human intelligence. This assessment measures logical, critical and problem-solving skills. Generally, individuals with low scores are considered to have a low IQ. A low score does not mean someone is ignorant, though most people perceive it this way. It is widely accepted, and hence academic institutions have adopted this framework.
Nevertheless, in his theory of multiple intelligences (1983), Howard Gardner argued that intelligence is not a single, fixed trait but a range of distinct capacities. He described linguistic, logical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinaesthetic, interpersonal and emotional intelligence. A person can have leadership skills and creativity but still may score poorly within the traditional system. This is not to say the method is flawed, but it has some constraints that fail to measure everyone's talents. For instance, a student with good insight into music can be outperformed by a student with a strong mathematical understanding. Traditional exams assess only limited abilities such as logical reasoning and problem-solving, which can benefit analytically minded students while overlooking others.
Furthermore, traditional exams produce temporary learning. They focus on memorisation and reward students with good memory skills. Nonetheless, facing this dilemma, I must say that a learner will forget what they memorised in just seven days. The academic system ought to work on how much children are learning rather than on how much they remember. Speed, however, is not synonymous with intelligence. Some minds need time to process, which can be challenging for them under set time constraints. Subsequently, exams judge one only by a single performance. There is a need to understand that even a highly qualified person may underperform due to pressure, illness, anxiety or other problems.
Lastly, the examination framework is not bad but has some setbacks. As Gardner's theory demonstrates, intelligence is not this simple. It is something that exams can never truly evaluate. Therefore, a new system should emerge to work in a way that benefits all the intelligences. Today, the world needs people with creative minds who can adapt to challenges and communicate. In the end, students who perform poorly may simply have talent that lies elsewhere, beyond what exams are built to see.
