Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 13:24:16
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 9:26:15
> Yes, actually it does, to some extent.
> He won't be hampered in any pursuit that depends on intelligence.
So you really would take a score on a test to be predictive of future performance? :-O
> He'll likely be hampered in some pursuits that depend on other factors.
And I guess he would probably be encouraged to do so...
> Can the tests be wrong? Sure. Some kids just test poorly for one reason or another. Can they be right? Sure. Does it affect a teacher's expectations? Yes,
So I guess I'm wanting to make a fairly strong claim that the difference between an average or a slightly above average score and a higher score and a yet higher score... Affects people's perceptions of the intelligence of the person involved and that is what has the biggest impact on the future course their life is going to take. I want to say that scores in that range... Self fulfilling prophecy... If you removed that would there be much validity between a Mensa score and a slightly above average score? I wouldn't think so...
> I just don't get the big deal. I really don't.I've already said what my problem is.
> But there seems to be a movement that makes it something you almost need to apologize for, or downplay.That isn't what I'm getting at. I'm getting at the legitimacy of testing. Not just in this context.
Funny... I thought you were against standardised tests for things like... Progress in therapy... Therapy improvement... How are these tests different?
poster:special_k
thread:622738
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060322/msgs/623701.html