For those who were fortunate enough to go to school, you will agree with me that there were courses in school that we weren't truly knowledgeable about, but because we have a retentive memory, we crammed and did what is popularly called “garbage in, garbage out,” and we passed.
Back then in school, I could memorize certain topics as if I was the person who formulated them, but I didn't really know the real-life applications.
In fact, if you ask me to give you a proper explanation of those things, I doubt I can. However, I had friends then who couldn't cram the way I could, but could do what I crammed practically, as though it was part of them.
It's crazy how some of them are enjoying the real applications today in diverse fields.
One thing we must understand is that learning is not said to be perfected just because someone made good grades in the field.
Passing a course with good marks doesn't mean intelligence; I have seen people cheat and do all kinds of offensive things in order to pass examinations.
Apart from cheating, some people can even be lucky; there are people who can get good grades by luck. They didn't know what they wrote, yet they passed better than everyone.
This happens a lot in objective examinations; one can just close their eyes and think of anything and luckily get good grades. Does that make them intelligent?
Considering all these disadvantages, do you think it's still wise to depend on written examinations as a true measure of intelligence?
My answer is no; examinations alone don't measure intelligence. But an intelligent person is most likely to pass examinations unless he or she doesn't prepare well or is faced with certain issues during examinations.
It hurts me terribly each time I see parents beat or harshly scold their children simply because they didn't do well in the examination.
Of course, it's painful, and the system makes it look like anyone who doesn't pass examinations is dull, but it's not entirely true.
People are different; people are good in different things. I wish intelligence would be measured based on what people are capable of and not based on written examinations.
More practicals should be considered instead of written examinations; if it's even possible, both should be administered. This will go a long way to show what people can do and what they can not do.
Because a person can not write it down doesn't mean he or she doesn't know it, and because a person doesn't know how to express himself using words doesn't mean they are not good at it either.
Test them based on the areas they are fit, and you would realize that no one is actually dull.
I used to have problems with my elder sister because of this. One of her sons had problems with writing and retaining information for a long time, so she and his teachers concluded that he was not smart.
But they failed to understand that he is a left-hander and also slow in speech. These two factors are major limitation that requires special attention for him to pick up.
Unfortunately, things are rushed in most schools, and slow learners are not given the adequate attention required; how do they expect them to catch up?
One of the things they did that made me speak out one day was calling him names that made him cry. I got really pissed off and reacted.
Everyone has their own pace in learning; we must be patient to guide them until that time. Some people can pick up early, some later, and for some it's even in adulthood.