Standardized Tests Delude

The practicality of time is of the essence in imparting to us the success of an individual. Whether one allocates more or less time to an activity, will ultimately describe how well that person was able to ingurgitate fully the information studied or gleaned over. 

IQ tests do not measure anything but how well a person was able to regurgitate information on a standardized test.

After noticing the array of IQ scores, one tends to vet those which confer to us their position to the left hand side of the bell curve (or below average), confounding us on why those scores fell in that position. When attempting to correlate the IQ score with later success in life, there is a discrepancy which leaves many individuals befuddled. Indeed it is true that standardized test scores serve as a descriptor of taking only one test. They describe only but a small parcel of life's challenges.

The Intelligence Quotient is an average, which is based upon a certain sample size--the data available which includes those whom solely took that test. Averages do not reflect the proficiency of an individual to absorb information taught to them, which could include the protocol a new employee learns in order to perform the repeated processes of a certain job. Most importantly it does not evince the innovative capacity of one particular individual, as ideas burgeon spontaneously and due to experiential circumstances.

Placing people into certain groupings is deletarious to both the confidence of that group or those whom associate with them, even if those people score in the upper echelons. The array of outliers, if one can attribute this label to those not falling within the average, will then also have trouble living up to the stereotypes society has formulated about those which score highest.

All one can respectfully claim is that each unique individual appropriates the necessary amount of time to recursively imbibe the information they understand will be communicated on the test. It is therefore only the individual whom finally comprehends his own capacity, as studying for the test is confirmed within the guidelines given prior to the test.

For example, all people have a designated quantity of time to study, and a specific amount of time to complete the exam. This is not a conclusive affirmation of an individual's capacity to learn as some may require more time than others to eventually imbue the information toward full aptitude. Subjectively, an adept person does not necessarily exist, as one tends to continue to build knowledge and learn things over time during which they undertake these same tasks daily.

Additionally, a person who is diligent in their study habits tends to solidify the concepts in their mind for a longer period of time than a person which has a lack of desire to learn the information does. The theories of psychology tend to denote to both of these ideas, long-term and short-term memory, respectively. This is all theoretical.

From this what can be proclaimed is that tests should be used as a marker for those whom desire receiving a certificate or permission slip of some sort. This certificate would be used to enhance a resume, build renown, or to be permitted by law to undertake certain tasks. All other purposes of using standardized tests are impractical. The intelligence quotient is thus unnecessary and as abstract as any other average resulting factor.

Every job predominantly requires recursion often and constantly. Those employers looking to hire individuals desiring to perform these repeated processes, must find a reference point of proficiency and this is where the experience becomes so vital. Experience assists those whom are hired to select employees that will learn the protocol, and essentially the duties of the job, much quicker. The employer therefore needs to allocate less time toward training this new employee to perform those specific details.

Education is different than schooling, as experience is of the greatest educator in our lives.