This is essentially how China is run: you take a standardized test when you're eighteen or so, and that test determines your life. If you do well, you have power, and if you do poorly, you don't.
I wonder how China's Steve Jobs did on the standardized test when s/he was eighteen. Our Steve Jobs hadn't even met Wozniak by that point.
There are many types of intelligence and only one type is measured by standardized testing. Indeed is it probably all the other types that will become increasingly important as society adjusted to its complete saturation with technology. Ken Robinson's TED talk addresses this far better than I could: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_.... If you only watch a few TED talks, Ken's should certainly be one of them.
As you point out, the picture you paint of China is strangely appealing to those on HN (myself included). I think our types tend to be good at standardized testing and we enjoy highly efficient systems. However there is a massive cost to such a system because the Steve Jobs of the world are less likely to thrive. Once you look past the initial appeal of efficiency, it becomes a scary ideal indeed.
It's interesting though, there is a very large population of extremely bright and creative people who tend to score poorly on standardized tests as well.
Selecting people based on standardized tests means that you have selected people who are good at standardized tests not necessarily the smartest or most creative people.
There's a growing consensus that, at least at present, while China is certainly capable of producing complicated stuff (TV's, Cars, Electronics, Plastics, etc.) and very large numbers of well educated engineers, there is very little Steve Jobs type innovation happening in the country.
An excellent point, and one seldom recognized by those who implement 'tracking' students. The result is only as good as how scientific the test is. Most such tests have high levels of cultural and socio-economic bias that perpetuate the status quo.
So yes, they are great filters to keep creatives out ... and what they don't catch, the gatekeepers in colleges will. Leaders fear creativity only slightly less than compassion.
It's interesting though, there is a very large population of extremely bright and creative people who tend to score poorly on standardized tests as well.
That was the point I was trying to make. At 18 years old Steve Jobs was only just beginning to develop that intelligence of his we see so often today.
I wonder how China's Steve Jobs did on the standardized test when s/he was eighteen. Our Steve Jobs hadn't even met Wozniak by that point.
There are many types of intelligence and only one type is measured by standardized testing. Indeed is it probably all the other types that will become increasingly important as society adjusted to its complete saturation with technology. Ken Robinson's TED talk addresses this far better than I could: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_.... If you only watch a few TED talks, Ken's should certainly be one of them.
As you point out, the picture you paint of China is strangely appealing to those on HN (myself included). I think our types tend to be good at standardized testing and we enjoy highly efficient systems. However there is a massive cost to such a system because the Steve Jobs of the world are less likely to thrive. Once you look past the initial appeal of efficiency, it becomes a scary ideal indeed.