I hope this is a helpful experience to some of you

[Thomas_TGT]

I'm doing a double major in University in Music and Education. Every week, we had to blog about an issue that we came across in our volunteer placements. I ran into a kid one day who was crying in the hallways because he thought he was stupid because he wasn't getting Bs and As in class. After talking to him for a while, I found out that he was an absolutely BRILLIANT dancer and had a wicked voice, but he just couldn't do well in things like English, Science, or Math, and he thought he was stupid. Here's the blog I wrote concerning the incident that day... I hope it helps you guys as much as it helped me.

"There’s this misconception that kids who don’t do well in school are stupid. It’s pretty obvious where this idea originated from, as academic success is based upon the grades that students receive. “Smart” students receive Bs and As, while “dumb” students sit anywhere below that. Up until grade 10, I was considered a smart student. I made the honour roll every year, my teachers loved me, and I worked hard. When grade 11 rolled around, I just didn’t care about school anymore, I knew I wanted to be a musician and I figured that academics wouldn’t help me as much as practicing my instrument would. As a result of my new mentality, my grades began to slip, and for the first time in my academic career, I didn’t make the honour roll.

Think about this, when it comes to subjects like math and science, rights and wrongs are defined. 2 plus 2 will always equal four, centripetal force always acts upon objects moving in circles, inertia is constant, and A squared plus B squared will always equal the root of C. But what defines a good or bad painting? There are many pieces of art that I’ve looked at that I thought were total crap while others thought they were incredible and vice versa. I think that Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol are artistic geniuses, but other people might think they’re complete fools. I think that Alexisonfire is a great band, but my dad hates them.

So how can we give a grade to something that is immeasurable? How do you know that a kid like me is smart or not in a grades based system?

The idea here is to not judge how intelligent someone is by how well they do in the school. You judge how intelligent someone is based upon the opinions they form (and why they have them), their aptitudes, the thought that goes behind their ideas, among hundreds of other immeasurable qualities. In fact, so many immeasurable qualities make up the intelligence of a person, that it isn’t fair to say that someone is dumb because they got a 65 in physics compared to someone else who got a 95, because the aptitude and the interest just might not be there for that kid who got a 65. However, that same kid might be absolutely incredible at painting, drawing, marketing, or any number of other things.

So, before you call someone stupid, think about what else they might be good, and how you might be considered stupid compared to someone else at a totally different subject. Just cause you score perfect in science class doesn’t mean you’re a great singer. "

[MegaMadness]

So true. You are my hero.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

I've always been very good in math, sciences and social sciences, from elementary to high school to university. One's grading may not always be an accurate representation of their intelligence, however, it's not meant to, it's meant to show how knowledgeable one is in that particular course. Unfortunately, they're often misused with implications whether someone is smart and stupid. If I get 99% in a math course and you get 39%, to me it means you're not good in that course and perhaps in all of math. On the other hand, I may get 23% in an art class and you may get 99%, so even if I were to consider you stupid because of the low math mark, you've just proven me wrong by getting high marks in another course. Some people may discredit a certain course, such as scoffing at an art class as being Micky Mouse-like, but this allows you to do the very same thing to them, so in effect that line of thinking goes nowhere.

Lastly, there's a huge debate about what intelligence actually is. For example, Howard Gardner postulated a theory of multiple intelligences. Louis Leon Thurstone postulated roughly 7 "primary mental abilities". Both these men opposed the idea intelligence is a single general concept defined by math or science, or whatever else have you. Their methods and theories may be criticized but my point is, even amongst researchers who study intelligence, there's no standard agreement of what intelligence is, so for laypersons to blatantly say, "George, you're stupid, you got a low math mark", or "Marie, you suck at music, you're stupid", is absurd.

[Thomas_TGT]

The whole point is, just because you have low grades in a particular subject, doesn't mean you're stupid.

I understand what the purpose of grading is, it's just that society has bastardized it and turned it into a measure of intelligence, not knowledge. There's a difference between the two that many people have difficulties grasping.

I think Albert Einstein said it best:

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

[chickenonsteroids]

I've always thought what you wrote but what about those who can't find what makes them feel 'smart' or accomplished I think is the better word.

What you found is a special case really in my opinion, take people like myself who aren't as high in the spectrum of academic standards as honour role students ( I'm English and can't think of the alternative lol ) what would you say to them?

I'd rather push forward the fact that things are based on nurture mainly instead of base talent

[Thomas_TGT]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

I've always thought what you wrote but what about those who can't find what makes them feel 'smart' or accomplished I think is the better word.

What you found is a special case really in my opinion, take people like myself who aren't as high in the spectrum of academic standards as honour role students ( I'm English and can't think of the alternative lol ) what would you say to them?

I'd rather push forward the fact that things are based on nurture mainly instead of base talent

Everyone is good at something. Everyone. Some just aren't lucky enough to find out what they are good at until later on in life. But no one is born into this world without a basic aptitude in something. The unfortunate reality is that some talents are valued by society differently, but that doesn't mean you aren't smart.

The problem is, there are kids with many brilliant talents who don't see a use for it. Maybe you're good at skill management, or your talent is bringing the best out in people. How can that be measured? Many kids don't see the use in that because people can't hear the talent, they can't see it, and they can't get a letter grade for it. But that skill DOES have value!

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Thomas_TGT

The whole point is, just because you have low grades in a particular subject, doesn't mean you're stupid.

I understand what the purpose of grading is, it's just that society has bastardized it and turned it into a measure of intelligence, not knowledge. There's a difference between the two that many people have difficulties grasping.

I think Albert Einstein said it best:

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

You do realize I took a slightly different angle but overall agreed with what you said.

[Thomas_TGT]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

You do realize I took a slightly different angle but overall agreed with what you said.

Now I do