I have always been tickled by the idea that one is defined as gifted (or not) by virtue of an IQ test, and the resultant score that he or she obtains from that test. During one of the training sessions that I had recently, I can't help but concur with the trainer on how superficial this type of indices is...and like what the trainer mentioned, so what if you have an IQ of 120? What is the maximum score that one can score for this? Does getting such a score, over say a theoretical value of 200 necessarily make him gifted, over say, someone who scores 119? Hmmm...
And the idea that tickled me most was the scenario that educators like me always get from some parents, and giftedness proponents, that in order for one to know that a child is gifted, he or she would have to sit for a test. So lets say the qualifying score for 'being labelled gifted' is 80%, would a child scoring 78% be any less 'ungifted' than one who scores, say 81%. Wouldn't it be even funnier if, say the former scenario happens, the parent were then to ask the child to sit for the test again? And if the child passes the mark, he or she would then be qualified to be called gifted!
So then, is giftedness just about making and reaching that particular number?
On the other hand, I do believe in the existence of natural flair, talents, abilities...but then, if this was just subsumed and labelled under a particular number, it would be such a sad state of affairs for mankind, wouldn't it?
And now just a little something for that comic relief...
No comments:
Post a Comment