[thedstrat]

There are intelligent people though that don't do well on standardized tests (or at least don't get top tier results). I agree that standardized testing is a good metric to get a general idea of aptitude, but I think it hugely fails in appreciating people who are able to solve 'non-standardized' problems. And those are actually the people who should be placed in top institutions

[parineum]

> And those are actually the people who should be placed in top institutions

Do you really think there's this untapped group of "non-standardized" thinkers out there who belong in the to institutions but for standardized tests?

This sounds a lot like something I'd tell myself when I was 16 instead of dealing with the reality that I was just a lazy, underachieving high school student and would have made a lazy, underachieving college student.

In reality, those unconventional thinkers you're talking about find a way to achieve anyway by unconventional means.

[tomatowurst]

Reflecting back on my own attitude and performance in schools, I was just an underachiever who wanted more but refusing to put in the work. Now that I am an adult I can tell you what got me into this thinking and it was because of ego and unrealistic expectations that I built for myself based on what I was told.

"You have a high IQ, you are smart, you are intelligent, you don't study and you do well etc"

I let it get to my head and instead of growing, instead of recognizing what I didn't know, I focused on what I knew. Pride and ego. For a while it worked so I had no reason to doubt it. But when the sheer work load got to a point where effective time management, strong and consistent work ethic were required I couldn't pull it off.

its a downward spiral, you are not used to putting in effort and seeing good results. that is setting you up for failure.

now? people who do well on tests, who do well in school, are completely deserving because they put in the work and patience.

same with success, its not a matter of rolling dice but focus and it requires:

- knowing what i dont know

- effort & work

Yes there are really smart people out there who could really benefit from the above but many do not like to admit it. I do and now I take the time and effort to know what I don't know. This has nothing to do with race or equity but more to do with your attitude. Yes it can be influenced by our surroundings and events but everyday we get up and make the choice to believe or not believe what we don't know and know.

Having said that if you realize you are unconventional, realize why that is, because an unconventional path is riddled with false paths, pain and require faith. If you are conventional you need to rely less on faith and it is why many try to get others to follow it because it is less risky.

[jounker]

I know at least one of these people. When you give her an opportunity she hits the ball out of the park. Wherever you put her she quickly rises to the top, but she has been denied many opportunities because she doesn’t test well on standardized tests.

[welshwelsh]

The SAT measures the two skills colleges care most about: reading and math.

Reading is the most important part. Your score on this section is determined by how much time you spend reading. A student who reads for an hour a day will get a top score, while a student who doesn't read at home will get a low score. Colleges require students to be capable of reading for long periods of time, and the SAT is a great way of filtering out people who are not active readers.

A student with a low reading score might be otherwise intelligent, but intelligence does not make a scholar. A college education involves consuming copious amounts of information; it is no place for someone who struggles with reading comprehension.

[vadym909]

Is it the literal act of reading or being exposed to language? What if kids watch shows on TV and it exposes them as much to stories, communications, language?

[abecedarius]

afaik this isn't about judging only by standardized test scores, though.