Edit: I should add, thanks for pointing out a third group - people who think the tests don’t work!
> To me, this showed that the tests are not an accurate measurement of how successful someone will be at college
The test proves you are smart enough.
Like, do you believe you were not intellectually capable of getting through college? That you flunked out for a pure lack of IQ and no other factors? From the writing in your comment alone I find that hard to believe.
There are some other factors you need to be successful in college, like interest, motivation, work ethic. Also luck - avoiding illness for example.
And I don’t think anybody is suggesting colleges should ONLY use standardised IQ tests for admittance, they should try to select for those other things too if they can do so fairly and accurately.
I can’t pretend to know you enough to know why you dropped out. But if I had to bet it wasn’t raw IQ.
> I can’t pretend to know you enough to know why you dropped out. But if I had to bet it wasn’t raw IQ.
No it almost certainly wasn't raw IQ (not that I take a lot of stock in IQ in itself anyway), it was a combination of depression and attention issues.
> The test proves you are smart enough.
I wouldn't exactly call the ACT (I never took the SAT so I cannot speak to it) an objective measure of intelligence. It's extremely formulaic, and you can get "good" at taking it just by doing a boatload of practice tests, which is what I did. If the Kaplan practice tests are anything to go on, I would have gotten about 21 (not a great score) the first time taking the test had I not studied for it. I doubt I got considerably "smarter" in a month, I think I just got better at taking ACT tests.
The 'truer' measure of your aptitude was likely your highest score. They allow multiple takes of the test because they understand that testing has errors from jitters, misunderstanding the wording, time management, a bad night of sleep, etc.
Even within the bounds of a single class, we often get better at taking tests in a class once we understand the instructor's style.
Ultimately, the score of everyone who takes the test fairly is capped by their aptitude. If we want to even the playing field, we should find a way to allow disadvantaged kids to have multiple tries at the test with some preparation. They may already have it.
> To me, this showed that the tests are not an accurate measurement of how successful someone will be at college
The test proves you are smart enough.
Like, do you believe you were not intellectually capable of getting through college? That you flunked out for a pure lack of IQ and no other factors? From the writing in your comment alone I find that hard to believe.
There are some other factors you need to be successful in college, like interest, motivation, work ethic. Also luck - avoiding illness for example.
And I don’t think anybody is suggesting colleges should ONLY use standardised IQ tests for admittance, they should try to select for those other things too if they can do so fairly and accurately.
I can’t pretend to know you enough to know why you dropped out. But if I had to bet it wasn’t raw IQ.