To something above average intelligence (105 – 110?) you will see a positive correlation, then a negative correlation.This means that intelligent pupils will perform worse than less intelligent pupils.
Teachers generally appreciate the pupils who can follow all the instructions well and are fairly quick to understand.Teachers value pupils who are looking for information themselves, walk ahead, quickly get bored,… Much less.
School grades rather measure how well you conform to a particular norm, rather than how good you are in a particular discipline.To be too good to say that you deviate too much from a certain norm, which translates into worse figures.
Moreover, more intelligent pupils are often also demotivated faster, which means that they are going to be underperforming.This therefore has its impact on the school figures.
I am going to write down what I see, and that does not necessarily have to be connected to actual observations.If anyone has done research on this, I like to learn.
Much of the current school system is based on the quiet sitting in a “bench” for a number of hours, in which written or image information is processed.
This gives a certain type of children an advantage: the children who can process good written and image information while sitting still.
It is also based on an age-average, a child performs in proportion to peers.This while children have a different development pace.
This creates a tension field where one child can cope better with the other.Some need more physical interaction, other children have been overcrowded, and other children are surveyed. To make the extra complex, the home situation can also have a significant role in the measured performance, for example how active parents help the child with learning, or tensions around problems and diseases.
As a result, the performance, measured in a figure, is indicative of the current development within the school system, but it does not necessarily say anything about the intelligence.
Because the entire education is arranged in this way, the bookworms go to VWO and then to the university, while the children who work with the hands go to a more practical training.The unhandedness here is that the flow to the higher educations does not fit well here, so someone has to make a jump (V) MBO-HBO which takes a little more time as the HAVO-HBO step. The road (V) MBO University has already been completed, despite the fact that someone could best do this through accelerated development.
In other words: the education system is not perfect.
However, what is more difficult is motivation.
You are supposed to go through a certain program and here are pleasant and less pleasant parts. How you deal with this is enormously important for your future development.In a “lower” training there is often a reasonable balance, but at university level it really takes some effort to get involved in certain subjects. And then you have to make choices: with which box can I compensate for not getting enough statistics? Someone with a lower education often doesn’t have to make these types of choices (or much less).
The question then is: How motivated are you on the whole training, rather than a subtopic (even though this is almost everything).
As a child and young adult, much education is quite abstract and far away.I struggled best with some topics in mathematics, to my former girlfriend they: but that’s just a sine and those we use in this or that tester.The penny became a rijksdaalder and with that I also immediately understood that subject. And geography… What should I do with it now?
Now I had the luck that I wanted to know about everything, but that was more of my own interest than the teacher (who was not bad at all).Other teachers could just motivate me better.
What I see is that there is an interaction on a number of planes:
The connection to the education system, the intrinsic motivation, the persuasion (motivation) of the teacher, and the overall intelligence level.
This makes it difficult to measure intelligence on the basis of school figures, because three other factors are still applicable.
Actually as good as nothing.That might say something about the ability to learn something or learn something from outside, but nothing about understanding (yet an important part of intelligence). My teacher Dutch (a person with a lot of insight) did a nice experiment in the classroom. He had a couple of tables put together with 6 chairs around the front in the classroom. He offered 6 people to sit there. He chose the 3 girls from the class who always won the highest scores and 3 boys who achieved the lowest scores above 50%. That the boys and girls were in opposite camps is mere coincidence, but the girls in the classroom generally scored anyway better than the boys.
Then he gave a theme and 5 minutes of reflection to enter into a debate.
The girls were not covered at all and that was not because they were gagged.No, they were totally out of it! While the boys smite things, arguments and counter arguments on the table.
What had actually happened?The high scores of in this case the girls were due to it from outside learning of matter. The matter was therefore not necessarily understood. Given that they could not have learned in advance, they were not able to give a view on the subject and they could not talk. The boys in this case puurden from their experiences, what they had taken care of in the news and filled the data with their own insights. It was a very confrontational situation. The teacher wanted to make it clear here that they had to stop to consider the people with lesser points as inferior.
I myself have acquaintances that have a son and a daughter.They were worried about the lesser performance of the son while the daughter was not having any problems given the high scores. When I said that they might have to worry more about the daughter, they looked weird. Look, suppose your daughter gets 95% on her tests because she can learn well from outside, but actually barely 20% of what is on her sheet, what is the value of the points achieved? Your son, on the other hand, achieves 55% on his tests. Without opening a book, just by catching what is told in the lesson and because he just understands the matter so far. He understands the full 100% of what he writes on his sheet. What does that say?
However, the young lady is taught 20% of 95% = 19% slim and 95%.
The young man is for 100% of 55% = 55% smart and learned.
We need both.Suppose they work together, the boy can exploit the school of his sister.
Note: Do not make a gender issue.The difference in the sexes is mere coincidence. BTW, the daughter turned out to be more than 20% of what she wrote on her magazine. It was just a thought exercise to relativate the figures.