Two Students, Two Kinds of Ability
At a Nashik school, a committee is selecting two students for different competitions: a state reasoning olympiad and a design challenge. Aarav, 13, scores 128 on a group intelligence test and is a fast, accurate solver of textbook problems, but he produces few original ideas in brainstorming. Ishita, 13, scores 104 on the same test; she generates many varied designs and has won a district poster prize, although her timed reasoning scores are average. The teacher in charge argues that Aarav should represent the school in both events because 'higher IQ means higher performance everywhere.' Separately, a parent asks the counsellor to test her six-year-old daughter, whose mental age on a standardized test is 7.2 years, so that the child can be labelled 'gifted' before admission to a private school. The counsellor is uneasy about both requests.
1. Compute the six-year-old's IQ using the ratio formula and explain what the score can and cannot tell the school.
Read the worked answer
Calculation The ratio formula is:
IQ = (mental age / chronological age) × 100
Here, mental age = 7.2 years and chronological age = 6 years:
IQ = (7.2 / 6) × 100 = 1.2 × 100 = 120
What the score can tell the school A score of 120 is above average for a six-year-old on that test. It suggests that the child is currently performing well on the abilities sampled by the test, and it may justify further observation and enrichment.
What it cannot tell the school
- It is a score on one test on one day, not a fixed property of the child.
- It does not measure creativity, motivation, social skills, musical ability or practical judgment.
- Test anxiety, language, familiarity with test items and cultural context can affect the score.
- A label such as 'gifted' can create expectations, pressure and inequality, and may be used to exclude other children.
- Modern IQ tests use deviation scores, not only the ratio formula, so the number should be interpreted with the test manual and norms.
The counsellor should explain the result cautiously, avoid a permanent label, and recommend multiple sources of evidence-teacher observations, portfolios and later reassessment-before making admission decisions.
2. Evaluate the teacher's claim that 'higher IQ means higher performance everywhere,' using at least two theories of intelligence.
Read the worked answer
The teacher's claim is too broad. A global IQ score predicts some academic tasks reasonably well, but it does not predict every kind of performance equally.
Spearman's theory Spearman proposed a general factor, g, plus specific factors, s. Aarav's high IQ suggests strong general reasoning, which helps in the olympiad. But design performance depends heavily on specific spatial, visual and divergent-thinking abilities that the group IQ test may not sample well. High g does not guarantee high s in design.
Gardner's multiple intelligences Gardner argues that intelligence is not one thing. Aarav may be strong in logical-mathematical intelligence, while Ishita may be strong in spatial and visual intelligence. Using one test to select for both competitions would ignore the profile of abilities each task requires.
Sternberg's triarchic theory Sternberg distinguishes analytical, creative and practical intelligence. Aarav looks stronger on analytical problems; Ishita looks stronger on creative generation. The design challenge needs creative intelligence, not just analytical speed.
A fair committee should therefore use task-specific selection: a reasoning test for the olympiad and a portfolio or design task with blind judging for the design challenge. It should also consider interest and opportunity to prepare, rather than assuming that one IQ score settles both decisions.
3. Distinguish aptitude from achievement and recommend a fair selection procedure for the two competitions.
Read the worked answer
Aptitude refers to a person's potential to learn or perform in a particular area with training. Achievement refers to knowledge and skill already acquired, usually through instruction. Aarav's high test score may reflect both reasoning aptitude and achievement in school mathematics. Ishita's poster prize is an achievement that also gives evidence of design aptitude, but neither student should be judged on one indicator alone.
Fair procedure
- Define the criterion: for the olympiad, use timed reasoning and problem-solving tasks; for design, use a portfolio and a supervised design brief.
- Use multiple measures: test scores, teacher ratings, samples of work, and student interest.
- Blind judging: remove names from portfolios and use more than one judge.
- Offer practice and a trial task: this reduces advantages from coaching or test familiarity.
- Avoid a single cutoff: a score of 104 does not disqualify Ishita from design, and 128 does not qualify Aarav for design.
- Record reasons: the committee should be able to explain its decision in terms of task demands, not vague impressions.
The same logic applies to the six-year-old: a high IQ score can support enrichment, but admission decisions should not rest on a label. The school should also provide opportunities for students whose strengths are not captured by group tests.