A lot of ways students are tested to determine their intelligence level are standardized testing and IQ (intelligence quotient) tests. These tests provide scores in numbers to show a person's skill levels. These are usually subjects like math, science, reading and comprehension. And depending on how the person scores in that category, it'll show those skills are lower. So then, the lower the scores, the less intelligent someone might be? I do think IQ tests could be useful in determining if someone has a cognitive disability, but is it really fair to judge intelligence on a certain number alone?
In my own personal experience, when I took IQ tests in the past, they focused on a few subjects and skill levels rather than other aspects. I'm not sure how IQ tests are done now, but most of the IQ tests I took focused primarily on math equations and science. These two are my weakest subjects, so of course I scored below average. So then, I'm not smart? What about things like emotional intelligence, creativity, problem solving skills, interpersonal skills and leadership skills? What if someone has higher skills in those areas? Shouldn't those also be a factor in determining intelligence? Everyone has different skills, talents and weaknesses, so IQ shouldn't be determined only by mathematical skills. No one is good at everything; the brain is one of the most complex organs in science. Everyone's brain works differently, and that's what makes it unique.
Standardized testing isn't that great either, especially if people are not good at certain subjects. Standardized testing tests school subjects like math, science, English, reading and comprehension, whatever. The scores show one number which is how they did. So these tests are used to determine how a student is learning in school. The lower the score, the less the student is learning? Maybe. But what if someone doesn't test well? What if they don't do well with knowledge application based tests? What if someone learns better doing things in practice, or hands on? If classes weren't mostly based on reading textbooks and then applying what's in the text to answer a question, and instead offered real world situations (maybe a class can do simulation exercises) that test someone's skills, then they might have a better chance at learning something. Just because someone doesn't do well on a test doesn't mean they don't care, or they don't understand the material. They learn it differently, and that doesn't mean someone isn't smart.
