Cognitive Profiling

[Carol]

I can understand that many colleges...although, not all...use entrance exams becauase they get flooded with applicants and need a way to screen their students. Havard Law gets some ungodly number of applicants...50,000, or something like that...for 1500 seats (which is considered big, by law school standards)

But, in other applications...tests have become a crutch. Analytical and discovery skills are being abandoned in favor of some test. What was supposed to be a tool now facilitates the lazy by relieving them of the chore of actually getting to know an individual.

 

[Makalakumu]

What was supposed to be a tool now facilitates the lazy by relieving them of the chore of actually getting to know an individual.

Every individual may be unique and special, but they are demonstratably not equal in ever aspect. A test cannot give one a complete measure of a person, but they can measure certain things about a person that correllate well with success in society.

I find the notion that cognitive tests may strongly correlate with educational success, but somehow do not correlate well with success in life. If this really is the case, then the education system in this country is in trouble. Those two things MUST go hand in hand.

upnorthkyosa

ps - I happen to think, based on the data I've seen and posted, that there is strong correlation between test scores and education and occupational success. Thus the above point is merely a mirror that illuminates another POV.

 

[Lisa]

I remember my first year of nursing school. To be accepted into the college that I attended you had to take a reading comprehension test, meaning that you had to read at an acceptable level to be allowed into the school. Back then there was no pre-interview or anything else. Do this test, get an acceptable score and you will be allowed in.

Of the 500 or so students that started with me that fall, the one that stands out the most was a woman who spoke to herself, pretty much all the time. She didn't communicate well with others but had taken the necessary reading comprehension test, passed and was accepted. She would discuss the answers with herself on every question of the quizes that we were given during the first week of school and disrupt others during those quizzes by repeated arguing with herself even after several warnings from the professors to please stop.

I believe the professors/teachers were quite perplexed as to how to handle the situation in the beginning. I am not sure how they ended up removing her from the course, I only know that after the first month she was gone.

 

[Marginal]

I find the notion that cognitive tests may strongly correlate with educational success, but somehow do not correlate well with success in life. If this really is the case, then the education system in this country is in trouble. Those two things MUST go hand in hand.

Just smacks of another strain of social darwinism. Not that different from the mentality that gives rise to the notion "The rich are rich because they are superior examples of humankind".

Darwin's jealous cousin still shadows us today.

 

[Carol]

Every individual may be unique and special, but they are demonstratably not equal in ever aspect. A test cannot give one a complete measure of a person, but they can measure certain things about a person that correllate well with success in society.

I find the notion that cognitive tests may strongly correlate with educational success, but somehow do not correlate well with success in life. If this really is the case, then the education system in this country is in trouble. Those two things MUST go hand in hand.

upnorthkyosa

ps - I happen to think, based on the data I've seen and posted, that there is strong correlation between test scores and education and occupational success. Thus the above point is merely a mirror that illuminates another POV.

Out of curiosity, how would you apply standardized testing in real life?

 

[Makalakumu]

Standardized tests, as they stand, are assessments of learning (supposedly). These types of tests are something completely different. They partition based on cognitive ability. Something like this could be a guide in one's life...sort of like the German educational model.

 

[Brother John]

Just smacks of another strain of social darwinism. Not that different from the mentality that gives rise to the notion "The rich are rich because they are superior examples of humankind".

Darwin's jealous cousin still shadows us today.

I agree!
Human's were never meant to be pigeon-holed.

But I don't think that UpNorth was trying to get at that, not many people see that that's what lies down the road as the logical conclusion of this path.

but you Are correct! It does lead to social darwinism!!
Which is, even on a purely 'secular' level.....evil.
The "Good intentions" of cognitive profiling is OK, but the methods lead to very negative and corrosive ends.
Sort of like the "good intentions" behind communism.



Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

Standardized tests, as they stand, are assessments of learning (supposedly). These types of tests are something completely different. They partition based on cognitive ability. Something like this could be a guide in one's life...sort of like the German educational model.

Several of Thomas Eddison's teachers, later....after his massive amount of invention and discovery....said that they were Shocked, and had previously believed that the boy would never amount to much and that he never showed much capacity for "original thinking".
Good thing they didn't use this profiling....or Eintein's teachers for that matter. He was rather a dunce early on.

Also: What's the difference between an 'assessemnt of learning' and an assessment of "cognitive ability"...because from my training, learning (the ability to understand, assimilate and recall new knowledge and have it alter your future behavior) is one of the surest signs of 'cognitive ability'.

And....you said that these tests are

something completely different

... Could you tell us why they are different?? What sets them appart?
I'm REALLY not meaning to rake you over any coals or put you on the spot, just to challenge these notions and maybe provoke some good discussion.

It IS an interesting thread.

Your Brother
John

 

[heretic888]

John,

Just so you're aware, a good deal of the "research" found in The Bell Curve has been rather sharply criticized by the psychological community. At its very best, the authors' data seems to have evoked mixed results from their peers. One of the enduring critiques, apparently, was that the authors never placed their ideas under peer-reviewed scrutiny, opting to by-pass the whole process by having their work published by a non-academic publisher.

The correlation between IQ (which, along with other forms of standardized testing, basically just measures convergent thinking) and school performance is well-supported. The correlation between IQ and "success" is considerably less so. One of the issues is that much of "success" in the real world is determined in large part by divergent thinking (i.e., "creativity"), which has only a modest correlation with IQ. The convergent thinking measured by IQ tests is really little more than an individual's ability to retain information.

As it so happens, I do think there is a "bell curve" in the general population within any given domain of competence. I just oppose the ideas that this "curve" is racially determined or that competence in one domain somehow predicts competence in another.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

Also: What's the difference between an 'assessemnt of learning' and an assessment of "cognitive ability"...because from my training, learning (the ability to understand, assimilate and recall new knowledge and have it alter your future behavior) is one of the surest signs of 'cognitive ability'.

Assessment of learning is like measuring how much material went into a bowl. Assessment of cognitive ability is like measuring how much the bowl can hold. These two things are fundamentally different. Does this analogy make sense?

 

[Makalakumu]

Just so you're aware, a good deal of the "research" found in The Bell Curve has been rather sharply criticized by the psychological community. At its very best, the authors' data seems to have evoked mixed results from their peers. One of the enduring critiques, apparently, was that the authors never placed their ideas under peer-reviewed scrutiny, opting to by-pass the whole process by having their work published by a non-academic publisher.

One of the things that strikes me as I follow up on this research and do some double checking is that there is widespread opposition to it...unless one is talking to someone who has made their career around measuring thigns like this. Psychometricians seem to be standing up behind the results of these tests and the subsequent correllations. Could bias and misunderstanding be a large part of the opposition?

 

[heretic888]

One of the things that strikes me as I follow up on this research and do some double checking is that there is widespread opposition to it...unless one is talking to someone who has made their career around measuring thigns like this. Psychometricians seem to be standing up behind the results of these tests and the subsequent correllations.

In all honesty, John, I highly doubt that is the case.

In fact, I am curious as to how the authors measure for things like "success", a criteria which can vary radically from person to person.

Furthermore, how was said data analyzed?? Was it an actual meta-analysis performed by the authors, or did they just selectively choose which studies supported their premises??

Could bias and misunderstanding be a large part of the opposition?

A lot of people have problems with psychometrics. For good reason, too.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

As a caveat, I'd have to say that it has been hard to find people who would support the conclusions that there are racial differences in cognitive ability. However, the proposition that cognetive abilities are normally distributed seems to be pretty well accepted.

As you said, if one looks at the correlation between IQ and school success, there is a strong correlation. Occupational success is a different story...and it depends on how one defines success. One of the ways the authors define success is by income. More money = more success. Agree or not with the definition, it seems as if there is a correlation between IQ and this "type" of success.

As far as your questions regarding the analysis of the data, they talk about how they analyze the data in the book and they do it in more depth in the appendices in the book. They show their models and I understand how they work, but I do not know enough to tell you whether or not another model would have done a better job...so I can't really answer your question.

 

[heretic888]

As a caveat, I'd have to say that it has been hard to find people who would support the conclusions that there are racial differences in cognitive ability. However, the proposition that cognetive abilities are normally distributed seems to be pretty well accepted.

I would agree with both of these conclusions.

As you said, if one looks at the correlation between IQ and school success, there is a strong correlation. Occupational success is a different story...and it depends on how one defines success. One of the ways the authors define success is by income. More money = more success. Agree or not with the definition, it seems as if there is a correlation between IQ and this "type" of success.

Ah, and there's the rub.

This actually gets into a whole 'nudder can-o-worms, that of the correlation between socioeconomic status (SES) and a range of other variables (including ego-development, moral reasoning, education, and so on). But, to sum up things concisely, just consider this:

Children born into not-so-poor families have educational opportunities that others do not. Much of this intersects with "IQ".

As far as your questions regarding the analysis of the data, they talk about how they analyze the data in the book and they do it in more depth in the appendices in the book. They show their models and I understand how they work, but I do not know enough to tell you whether or not another model would have done a better job...so I can't really answer your question.

I understand.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm sure there have been studies comparing children of low SES and high SES when they have been given equal educational opportunities at school?

As far as what the parents can give their children, I wonder if there have been studies that have explored this as well?

I would predict that parents with higher IQs would tend to give their children more that would aid them educationally.

 

[Kacey]

I'm sure there have been studies comparing children of low SES and high SES when they have been given equal educational opportunities at school?

As far as what the parents can give their children, I wonder if there have been studies that have explored this as well?

I would predict that parents with higher IQs would tend to give their children more that would aid them educationally.

Well, yes and no... certainly, children from higher SES and/or more educated parents do, as a group, perform better on IQ tests - but the strongest correlation that has been found is that these children have a larger, more diverse vocabulary, which they learned, primarily, from their parents. The key question, which has yet to be satisfactorily answered, in my opinion, is how much of this improved vocabulary is due to inherited cognitive ability, and how much is due to hearing a wider range of vocabulary in the environment - not just from parents, although they are key, but from parents' friends and coworkers and their children.

I also rather like your analogy of the bowl - the one thing to watch out for is that not only are the tests a snapshot of the person's functioning on that one day, which can be affected by a wide variety of factors, including emotional disturbance (depression has been clinically proven to lower obtained scores on IQ tests), rapport with the assessor, investment in the assessment process, linguistic and cultural background, and so on - but, especially for those at the farther ends of the spectrum, ability and achievement often do not match. I have several students at school who have IQs in the 60-75 range, who demonstrate skills on achievement tests in the 75-90 range, and vice versa. The strengths and weaknesses in an individual's cognitive abilities can have a great deal to do with this, as can internal and external motivation, instructional methods, and so on. So to continue your analogy, some people fill their bowls to overflowing, while others only fill a fraction - but the size of the bowl varies from person to person.

Another point to ponder: IQ scores can vary widely, and tend to move toward the center over time; that is, individuals whose IQs are in the very low (<70) or gifted (>130) range at one testing will tend to have scores that move toward the average/normal of 100 - not much, but an individual who obtains a 60 during the first assessment will likely gain a few points the second time, and an individual who obtains a 140 during the first assessment will likely lose a few points. The changes are small, but statistically significant. In addition, students who are assessed for special education must have cognitive assessments done at least twice if the first assessment occurs before the age of 10, as the score variations are much greater for younger children, in both directions.