Schools, Marks, and Intelligence

Students of the past and present have grown up hearing different variations of this one sentence: 'If you don't get good marks, you can achieve nothing in life'. Their parents, and at times, even themselves, believe that their worth is determined by how much marks they score in their tests and examinations. This belief stems from the fact that most people think marks equals intelligence.

The concept of 'marks equals intelligence' might not exactly prove wrong in some cases. Taking, for example, an Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.) test, where the higher marks you get, the intelligent you are. And this could be from where the concept stemmed from. It could also have been originated because people thought that knowledge and intelligence meant the same, and it is known for a fact that examinations grade one's knowledge and memory.

It may seem that marks do, in fact indicate intelligence. If not of every tests, then at least of I.Q. tests. However, many argue that I.Q. tests are not true measures of intelligence either. Reasons as to why seem to differ, but they include ones such as:
'IQ tests are misleading because they do not accurately reflect intelligence, according to a study which found that a minimum of three different exams are needed to measure someone's brainpower.'

The first of I.Q. tests were developed in Europe and America with claims to measure one's cognitive ability. The first of these I.Q. tests was developed by French psychologist Alfred Binet. Binet was commissioned by the French government to identify students who would face the most difficulty in school. However, even Binet believed that IQ tests were inadequate for measurement of intelligence, as the test was unable to properly measure creativity or emotional intelligence. If the creator of I.Q. tests himself was unsure about its effectiveness, it raises a question of how much can we have faith in it.

Deviating from I.Q. tests and it's apparent failure to correctly measure one's intelligence, it is without a doubt that current examination systems are even less effective to measure how intelligent a student is. As stated before, these examinations are there to test knowledge and memory— the skills acquired through education and the ability to retain those skills respectively. Intelligence, on the other hand, is the ability to utilize these skills. These definitions clearly speak from themselves. A student who gets good marks in examinations gets it from his ability to learn skills and later, recall it. Anyone who is able to do that can be called knowledgeable, not intelligent. However, if the same student— or another one— can use this knowledge in his everyday situations, then he is certainly intelligent.

Now, with this, there arises one more question. 'Schools teach us mathematics and sciences. How can we apply those in our everyday lives? There is surely no way that mathematics can be used to fix holes in clothes.' And that is true. However, it is also just as true that schools teach us subjects that help in problem solving. Mathematics may not help patch a hole, but it does make one aware that there is a hole and to solve the problem that is the hole, one needs to patch it up. Science may not teach one how to patch the hole, but it sure does help understand that patching the hole closes it up and makes the cloth wearable. Things that students learn in schools may not come to use directly in day-to-day lives, but those sure do help indirectly. Even in this case, the difference between marks— or knowledge— and intelligence attaches itself. A knowledgeable student, one that gets good marks in exams, knows the three laws of Newton, but an intelligent one uses it to row a boat.

With all these being said, however, that is not to say that schooling system is perfect just the way it is. There are still many things that schooling system lacks in terms of educating students, that even the intelligent ones know not how to use that knowledge. Learning Newton's three laws is useless in day-to-day life, but using that knowledge to row a boat is not. This is something that was established in the previous paragraph, and for a second, it might seem that the debate has ended. However, the fault in the school system is that it doesn't teach one how to row the boat. There is enough theoretical knowledge in school system, especially in the context of Nepal, and an intelligent one knows how he can use that knowledge to in everyday life. However, all that knowledge and intelligence comes to a stop at the lack of practical education and both the knowledgeable and the intelligent one remain confused on what to do next.

In essence, marks and intelligence remain on two different sides of the spectrum. One cannot dictate the other. Certain intelligent students might get good marks in examinations, but all those who do cannot be classified as intelligent. The schooling system, till present, has been producing both knowledgeable and intelligent students, however, both will continue to remain bewildered at the face of day-to-day problems unless practical education is given as much importance as its theoretical counterpart in schools.