Interesting comment on the charter school article, btw...

[conuly]

As an Army psychologist in the late Sixties, one of my jobs was administering standardized IQ tests to pre-school children from military families. One question: "Where would you go to buy milk?". The kids invariably answered, "The commissary". That's what the Army called its on-post supermarket, but it wasn't on the list of correct answers. We were powerless to apply logic to the test protocol, so who knows how many lives have been negatively affected by this and other examples of one culture imposing its view of reality on another?

I thought this wasn't supposed to happen...?

Comments

[azarias.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to figure out why that question would even be on an IQ test. I suppose "It was the 60s" is the only answer.

[siderea]

It's called the "General Knowldge" component and is still present in the WISC, the most commonly used IQ test for children. Wikipedia here.

[sayga.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what happened when I moved from England and was immediately administered an American IQ test.



"What's this?" I was asked. "A pillar." I answered. And I saw that she marked my answer wrong in her little book (because I can read upside down). At which point I decided it was pointless to answer any further and just started reading her answer book upside down and giving her the answers she wanted to hear. She caught on to that, though, and started covering her answer key. But come on. Pillar is NOT ok? Column is the only correct answer for that? Even discounting cultural language differences, a pillar is still a tall straight post, but the test wouldn't allow it.

[sayga.livejournal.com]

*ahem* Your sarcasm went over my head the first time around. I see it now. I agree it is absolutely unheard of to have one culture impose its views on other cultures and having that imposition negatively impact minority cultures. I can't imagine this scenario ever happens outside of movies and poorly written novels. LOL.

[conuly]

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic this time, though I can work with that! No, I meant, I thought that the people doing IQ tests were supposed to (though clearly this doesn't always happen) accept any reasonable answer rather than adhering slavishly to an answerbook.

[sayga.livejournal.com]

Hahaha, well, try harder next time. You're usually so good about that kind of sarcasm. :) Yes, it's hard to believe they are not allowed to use logic and accept an answer that seems logical but that doesn't fit into their book. But that's probably the problem with ADD kids in public schools too. They come up with answers and act different that what fits into "the book." It doesn't mean they didn't come up with something creative or correct or intuitive, it just means they're the hexagon block being shoved into the square hole in the toddler's shape sorter.

[siderea]

Yes, it's hard to believe they are not allowed to use logic and accept an answer that seems logical but that doesn't fit into their book.

Well, I find it hard to believe because I've received graduate level training on the administration of IQ tests, and we were told precisely that we were allowed to use logic and accept an answer that seems logical. In fact, the very standard IQ tests I got to handle didn't much have fixed lists of acceptable answers, they had lists of example correct answers.

[conuly]

That's what troubles me, because either there's something going on that *really shouldn't be*, or a person I trust is very much mistaken (I don't believe sayga is lying), and people I don't know (the commenter) are lying for the heck of it.

[siderea]

I'm now completely confused. You're talking about "something going on", in the present tense, yet you're citing a passage that talks about practice in the sixties. You say you're concerned someone you trust is mistaken, but you only name someone who has not made any assertions one way or another about how present IQ testing works. What's the problem?

[conuly]

You're right, I'm misspeaking here, but then, I don't know. Has the correct procedure for giving IQ tests changed since then?

[siderea]

I believe its changed substantially, for exactly the reasons you describe. There was enormous criticism of the cultural presumptions of the tests back in the 1960s and even more so in the 1970s; the tests themselves were -- and are, continuously -- retooled to improve them.

[conuly]

I was confused myself, because you said you found that "hard to believe", which doesn't make much sense unless the tests are largely the same today as they were then.

[lizziey.livejournal.com]

Not surprising at all. EI works on the basis of global scoring. Which is why the pretty much nonverbal toddler couldn't get any services at 2y364d old, but ~~magically~~ qualified at 3y0d old for 4d a week speech therapy, 3d a week for Occupation therapy, and 3d a week for physical therapy - TADA!! And then, when I try to explain global scoring to people, even they agree its the most stupidest thing ever.

Those tests, and their scoring systems are ridiculous. >:(

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

IQ tests measure the ability to take IQ tests, and not much more. Of course, the ability to do well on IQ tests does indicate a probable ability to do well on similar tests in school. Therefore a high IQ score can be very useful in proving that the student is not failing because he's incapable of taking tests.

This is not so useful to those failing students whose high IQ scores are used as justification for calling them lazy, irresponsible, stubborn and defiant; nor for those failing students whose low IQ scores are used as justification for calling them stupid and unteachable.