Beyond Marks: What Makes a Person Intelligent?

I know I have found myself asking questions about why exams and tests are usually used as proof of knowledge, whereas the knowledge application itself is really the important thing, but then, it is what it is.

When I was growing up, the only way to prove your intelligence was by scoring higher marks in all the subjects after exams; otherwise, you were only making a mouth. No one cares to know what you can give out aside from your result as proof of your intelligence; only your result can save you, and guess what? The pressure was real!

The race to study the whole textbook, cram formulas, rush into the exam hall, and offload all in your answer street was real as well, and someone will look at your result at the end of the day and say, "Wow, this child is very intelligent," but do you think that is really intelligence? I wonder.

Someone who is good at cramming things could cram a whole lot of important points in a textbook and do excellently well in an examination, but put of the same person in a real-life case where he is expected to apply the knowledge by thinking outside the box, you will be disappointed at the outcome.

On the other hand, there are categories of people who may not perform so well during an examination, but put the same person in a real-life situation and see how incredibly good he will be at solving problems. Talk about negotiating with people; they know how to do that very well, or is it to manage people or build a business? They are good at it. They can simply find a solution in a difficult situation but may not be an exam guru person, not the type that remembers those theoretical aspects, maybe due to tension or other factors, but very practically okay to accomplish a given task, so what are we talking about?

But then, can we say that the exam does not make any sense? not really. There are always good purposes for tests and exams. Students are assessed to know the level of their understanding of subjects and maybe to test their ability to work under pressure, but let's be real, exams shouldn't be the only way to test how intelligent a child is.

Some students can struggle with a subject but are creative in many ways; some aren't good at memorizing notes but are very great at practical. Some also possess great skills but may not be good in class, but then, we commonly regard high flyers in the class as intelligent ones.

One thing is certain: real life is always about solving problems, not solving question papers. It's not enough to study communication in school, but when there is conflict, you can't communicate to resolve it; that's an error. Life is more practical than theoretical. At the end of the day, knowledge is vital, but the application is the goal.

Overall, it's fair enough to ensure the students learn theories and experiment with them, solve problems, and write exams; just do all of that. With that, we will practically see where a child's intelligence lies without ruling any child off because he or she isn't good at memorizing textbooks to pass exams