after reeading sj's report card thread, i started thinking about something my very unorthodox french teacher once said.
if you have someone with a good memory, who is brilliant at core subjects like maths, science and english (or the subject of their first tongue), they're 'intelligent' right? but let's say that they're no good at art, p.e., or practical creative subjects.

taking another person: they're not so good at core subjects because they forget facts and formulae easily. but they're a brilliant artist/designer/sportsman. does this automatically make them less intelligent?

especially if you take into account the fact that they could have an almost identical iq, for example.

in england, your intelligence is rated on how well you do in exams, and the core subjects are complusory. if you do bad at those, your results are going to be worse overall, even though you chose art etc and got good grades there. whereas, 'intelligent' people can do core subjects well, and choose things like ict to avoid creative subjects, and do very well overall.

i don't know about everyone else, but i think they should change the way they assess us throughout school life. especially in primary school where you're only tested on core subjects ie your SAT's.

does anyone else think the british (or american, for that matter) education system needs an overhaul??

There are almost no ways to equally test all the differennt types of learning minds. Unfortunately education is biased towards a few, but then again, life is all that way too, so these tests do train you for life in that regard.

Any education system that gives me an "A" in french seriously needs questioning!
I dont think any subjects should be compulsery at GCSE but people should be expected to know basic maths and how to talk/write properly - I mean whats the point of teaching people shakespere when they cant even spell? (like me!!)

I always thought you should be graded on how much you advanced on the subject.
P.E grades to me are worthless pieces of crap that usually just lower my G.P.A, but then again, P.E has no value because of the crooked teachers. I think that they should have an Identical test that you have to take again about a month later to see if you actually learned something. But history classes might cause a problem.

How much you advanced? Like most improved?

If that is the case, I disagree. Say you were a D average but now a B average, you are still not best in the class, even if you are most improved.

If that is not the case let me know.

i agree that the arts should be considered to be just as important as the sciences, the only problem is that the mark you get in an art class is subjective.

if you study for math really really hard, it is possible to get all the answers right, to pass with 100%. but there are no right or wrong answers in an art class, no matter how good you are, your teacher will never give you 100% on your work. i suppose you could create some criteria for artwork so that it would all be marked objectively, but art made by a rigid formula isn't art. that's like calling harliquin romance literature!

so while i would like to see art taken as seriously in school as science, it's just too difficult to grade accurately.

personally, i suck at math, but i am good at other things. while i wish i was better and math, i don't think i am less intellegent than my friends who are great with numbers but who aren't as good at art. we're just different kinds of smart. a grade on a report card is not the be all, end all of my existance.

Some people jsut aren't talented. I would definitely fail art, if it were considered important. But you automatically get 70% the minute you turn in one assignment, just for trying. Art is somethign you can learn, but if you aren't talented, you wont go anywhere. I think that anyone can do good in any core subjects (not english) just some people aren't as good learners.. my opinion.

I dunno... I'm not so sure there are people who aren't "good learners". I think everyone is capable of learning, irrespective of the quality or speed of that learning. It's not something you can quantify. There are, however, people who aren't willing to learn, and those are the people who will suffer in later life as a result of their belligerence now.

Onto the matter of exams. They are all tests of short-term memory, nothing to do with actually knowing stuff. Case in point, I got the highest mark from my entire school when I did Pascal programming at Uni, but ask me now and I can only tell you these 5 things about it:

1) Pascal is a non-Object Oriented programming language
2) Pascal has a structure to it, to prevent errors due to sloppy programming
3) I can't remember any of the commands, let alone how to use them
4) erm...
5) Pascal is my Boss' name

One of the guys in my A level classes passed his exams with flying colours, despite being on 6 pints of Guinness every night throughout. Photographic memory, you see. So in my view, the best solution is continuous assessment and spot tests, where you can be tested to see if you are improving. I had this in English Lit when I did it, and it worked really well, as in I actually graded instead of failing!!

I think standardized tests are terrible.. because you might just be having a bad day or something. I have a big one next week, and if I don't pass, I can't get into high school. But I guess it's used often because it's a way to survey the masses, and select from a number of large people.

Well firstly a few things 2 clarify about ure post;
1) u don't hav 2 choose 'core' subjects 4 As/A-levels (ie the exams that really matter) jst GSCE - which is understanable as wat if, having chosen xy&z u get 2 uni & realise u didn't want 2 do that in the first place so ure education is wasted
2) If ure an intelligent athlete/ artist etc.. there are still lots of ways u can get 2 high places; jst not the same route as someone who can remeber things & work hard (a true scholar); many dif. schemes are avaliable 4 these sorts of ppl - in fact there are so many that the 'scholar' can feel left out
3) Any 'intelligent' person i doubt would choose ict; no gd university would look pleased @ that; in fact so much so that our school does hav it claiming that its 'not acedemic enough'
4) You seem 2 assume that iq = intelligence; yet i think this is increasingly not the case - take the US where ppl pay money 4 private tution & get higher marks - not cos they're any clever than the nxt person but cos they're coached into knowing how to answer the questions and they're parents can afford the money 2 get this tution. Whereas u also assume that exams = pure knowledge; sure knowledge is a large component of it but who knows everything first off? It takes a small ability 2 retain info perhaps but also a grt deal of hard work; of lots of productive revision, techniques employed 2 help u learn better, practice etc... to pass an exam. Is this not better than jst saying "ure not 'intelligent' - even if you work hard u can't get anywhere" - and note that if intelligence is based on genetics & tution counts 4 more of it then in this world there becomes a huge class spilt between dumb = poor, intelligent = rich. Besides who's to say knowledge has nothing to do with intelligence; in fact its knowledge that is required 4 the better jobs - not necessaily being able to do well in iq tests.

In fact my belief is that both systems do have inherent faults; exams in GB r so much about the specification these days (examining the specification is partly what got me gd grades) and yes, knowledge isn't everything. Whilst in the US iq doesn't actually mean intelligence if you can pay 4 tution & what happens if you hav a bad day (GB exmas r usually spread over time & hav lots of coursework too) - they don't take into account hard work of pupils at all. Perhaps a mixture of the two would be satisfactory, but then we always hav 2 consider many others factors such as personality & other achievements which unis look @. I think however there is more than jst this 2 think about, schools should really teach more of the following:
1) Efficiency; with robots taking over more & more ppl's jobs we hav 2 keep up - yet no school i know of takes into account speed of hmw; gives credit 4 those who r faster and helps slower pupils. Im terribly slow but are neither penalised or given help because of this (of course exams do hav time limits but i can speed up jst 4 2hrs - on a day 2 day basis its a dif. story tho
2) Responsiblity, Morals & work ethic; with all this talk of 'freedom' and everyone going round exhorting money out of ppl in every way possible we hav lost sight of the things that make us human. Where is goodwill? In the bin as others sue u 4 ure every fault. Where is right & wrong? Where u can get away/ not get away with doing something. Where is responsiblity to your community, enviroment & country? On stupid leaflets noone reads & throws on littered streets. These things can only b taught @ a young age; all we get is punishment 4 bad behaviour but no incentive 4 helpful, kind, considerate behaviour, only in a chapel (which our school's lucky to hav) or occasionally a 10 minute assembly r we taught anything of morals, only once has a speaker come in to talk about work ethics; and yet this is not typical of a 'normal' school - ours is a gifted one, the best mixed school in the country - so imagine wat a normal school's like
3) The outside world; now this is probably the thing we neglect most, sure we read in the paper of schemes here & there 2 confront this but nothing uniform & compulsary. All students should leave school with knowledge of:
a) How the govt & voting system works
Important laws & taxes + rates
c) How to handle a relationship
d) How to care for & look after children
e) How to look after yourself & your body
f) How to look after the enviroment
g) How to fix/ use household things; including plumbing, heating, structure, car repair....
h) How to do everyday things; cooking, cleaning, ironing etc...
i) How to handle finaces

All these things r soooooo impotant; id trade off at least 1/2 my subjects i took last yr to learn these and yet not many ppl actually know about them till they make grave mistakes; u don't know how 2 vote till u miss out 1 year & then someone tells u, u don't know about the law till ure fined, u don't no about a relationship till u break-up, u don't no how to care for yourself/ a child till its too late... These topics ought to carry the weight of mabe 3/4 GCSE's and yet schools barely scratch the surface - govts don't seem 2 care with knowledge that it could lose them votes if ppl knew how, or money if ppl realised how much tax they pay, or they would no longer b needed if ppl had true social responsiblity & knowledge of life. Thus these r the important things in life & really should b held in jst as grt esteem as an education of intelligence testing & exams

RAMBLING TIME, KIDDIES~! I don't disagree that we shouldn't know those things you listed, Black Magic, by the time we get out of school, but a lot of that is also up to you to take the initiative. There are tons of classes outside of school, that can give you certification for all of that, such as taking a First Aid class and what not. I know at my school, every student has to take a First Aid class before they graduate, and be certified by the Red Cross, to get their diploma. And they offer basic babysitting classes, which is, essentially, taking care of a child. Plus I'm sure you can learn these things simply by asking your parents. If you ever have a child, chances are you can ask your parents / relatives / friends all of those questions etc. The only disagreement I have is with the "how to handle a relationship" statement. You can't tell me you can learn how to solve everything, or make everything great in a relationship. That comes with experience; you can't teach that. The other thing that it brought up, in the back of my mind, is are you implying that people should just always try to solve their arguements? Because if it's a verbally or physically abusive relationship, I don't suggest that, really.... But anyways, perhaps you could continue that sort of train of thought for my clarification... They are important skills, but I don't think you would necessarily need to go to school to learn them - that's just daily life.

Errrrrr, what else...? *thinks* Ah hum. My imput. ; Firstly, I don't think we're testing people properly at all. And I'm not really sure if we could, even if we re-vamped the education system and started all over again. Exams are supposed to determine intelligence. Can you honestly tell me that you know exactly what intelligence is? Without being influenced by what you've been told previously? *sarcasm* Of course~! It's being good at something, and knowing something, and that supposedly makes you smart! And you know that you're smart, because of that test grade~! *end sarcasm* But can you really judge that through a standardized test, or any other test for that matter? Take, for example, art. Who judges it to be good art? The public. Reviewers. Other artists. People that "matter", who's opinion is important to the artist in terms of whether or not they will succeed in the art world. Same for a writer, or movies in the box office - reviewer's have a huge amount of impact on whether or not something will live or die. Literally. But what makes up GOOD art?! I quite frankly don't know. Something that you LIKE, I suppose, instinctively. And it's the same way with grades, at least in art or P.E. (Physical Education) or other sort of "undefinable" subject, where there is no harsh way to grade things.

Also, about the whole idea of two "core" academics... I just don't understand why they have to be more important than subjects such as art or anything else. Because they've already been disdinguished as the "important" things to know when they shouldn't necessarily be valued more...? I think all of them should have an equal amount of value, but I guess that's not going to happen any time soon, so there's not much more to be said on that topic... And

I also just wanted to add to Ocean -- I don't think there are necessarily people who are simply "better" learners than others. A ton of your academic or "core" grades rely on your memory, and short-term memory at that, like Leopold said. I know for myself, I have a decent short-term memory but a better long-term memory, which allows me to remember and maintain the things I do learn, but I have to let all that information settle before I take a test, which doesn't usually happen. My brain just needs all the information to sink in, and take more time to remember it all. It's odd, because after that time period, my brain has it stored completely, yet I just need more time. However willing I am, and however hard I try, that's just the way my memory works, and I need to spend more time studying than others do, most of the time. Does that mean I'm a worse learner than others? I would prefer to think it doesn't, but being unable to parrot concepts and ideas makes up a lot of your grades, especially in subjects such as Math, Science, or any form of languages. Just a thought. But yes, those be my 50 billion million cents... *poof*