To be pissed off that people who are not academic are branded as thick!

[teamcullen]

Why is it that people/children who are not academically clever are constantly branded as Thick, stupid or the underclass of society.

A person can leave school at 16 with little qualifications and work every day of their lives in McDonalds or a shop or as a labourer. They pay taxes. They contribute to society. Yet people constantly make comments on how you must be thick to work in those proffessions.

There are options in schools for children to take vocational courses, but I am always seeing comments like "No way Id let my DC take a deploma or vocational course." Or those subjects are only for the thick kids!

I understand that if a child is likely to go to uni, they need to take the traditinal route of GCSEs and A levels, but the world ecomony would quickly cease if everybody took this route.

Just because somebody is not academic, does not constitute being thick. Creative skills, patience, common sence, empathy and listening skills to name just a few are things that may not come naturatly to those with letters after their name, but are needed in many proffessions.

If a child who is not academic goes into the world at 16 and works hard in a job which needs no or little qualifications is it not unreasonable to treat tham and their proffession with a bit of respect.

I've not read the whole thread but I very recently dropped out of college (doing A-levels) not because I found it hard but because I found it boring.
I'm now working in a nursery and I find it an awful lot more tiring and 'stressful' than being in college yet all my old friends look down on me now for not staying in college and for not having any 'qualifications'.
I'm doing an NVQ and might still end up going to uni but so what if I don't? At least I'm happy and If that means I'm 'thick' (Which I really am not) then so be it.

Was it wrong to laugh at all the spelling mistakes in the op

When I hear people talk of different intelligences, I assume they are referring to Gardner's multiple intelligences, a theory that only took off in the 1980s/90s I think.

So I am surprised that you think multiple intelligences have existed as a proven theory for hundreds of years and that the concept of one definition of intelligence is recent research.

Maybe we are thinking at cross purposes.

i too believe there are different types of intellegence, and that it cant fully be measured by one means (exams) , or assumed that its a universal intellegence. some people are brilliant at just one thing , others can turn their hands to anything and accomplish high levels in whatever they try.
Other people may not score highly on iq tests or exams but have many hidden talents... my grandmother for example left school at 14 barely able to read , but give her a piece of cloth and shed return it to you as the most beautifuly made garment you`d ever owned. was she accademic or considered intellegent , no. But she was blessed with the most amazing talent.

A lot of the multiple intelligences stuff has been pretty much discredited now, iirc.

yes, runntybottom. I find Gardner's stuff a lot of mumbo jumbo. Very recent, very buzzy, very unsubstantiated.

Exactly, drlove. People have many different talents, not intelligences.

Childcare workers are concidered thick, unintellegent? . Yet ,they are left to care for the children whilst the superior ones go to their superior jobs. ironc?

Most types of intelligence and talent can be measured by some form of exam. That remains the case whether you believe in one type of intelligence or many.

The problem to me seems to be that people believe you can just be good at something effortlessly. You can't. Maths, dance painting, plumbing - they all require effort to become good at.

God I love the phrase 'mumbo jumbo' - it is so onomatopoeic and eloquent.

Yes to differnt talents and ways of taking on knowledge/ideas; yes to different interests that then encourage the taking on of new ideas. Not the same as 'differently intelligent' though.

Don't see how janeite, its well supported research that intuitively makes sense and is also indicated neuroscientifically.
Still a very popular theory. The idea that there is only one type of intelligence has been pretty much diecredited though. At the absolute least you have to differentiate between fluid and crystallised intelligence.

Agree with jane. and agree that being good at anything takes effort.

Bedtime

pointylog, people have been trying to assess intelligence by looking at several factors for a very long time. This isn't the same as the multiple intelligences theory.

If you look at a standard IQ test, for example, you will find that one is tested in four basic 'main' areas, all of which contain further sub-areas. The roots for this lie well before a century ago.

If you look at someone like me, you will find that a standard IQ test finds that I have a processing speed of below the 10th centile. My working memory is below the 5th centile. My digit span (which I really notice, since I would love to be able to remember pin numbers), is below the 1st centile.

My verbal IQ is above the 99th centile.

According to numerous psychologists, this is not even a noteworthy profile. Clearly, my 'intelligence' is all over the place - in some contexts, I look incredibly thick, and in others, quite bright. It would make no sense - practically and in terms of formal statistics - to average my IQ tests. Intelligence is clearly not quite as simple as you'd like to think.

Friends DD was dux of her school and and did a 4 year degree course in Education (Primary School teaching).

It was amazing the amount of people who commented about the fact that she was so brilliant and she ONLY wanted to be a PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER.

The general consensus was that she had "wasted" her education by just being a teacher.

Friend gave up explaining to everyone that DD had only ever wanted to be a teacher and a mother (she has 4 DC)

Millymollymoo- My DS will probably sail through life easier than DD. But thats more down to his personality and ethos to work, more than his SATs/GCSE results.

DS is one of those people who likes to please and will go out of his way to be helpful. I am not worried about him making something of himself or earning enough money.

I am not convinced that DD will earn more money on the back of a degree. Even if she does, it is not because she is a more worthy member of society. And before I get flamed, I will encourage her to go as far as she possibly can on the academic route

The point Im making is that academic results and ocupation should not be put on tier, the higher the results, the cleverer or more worthy the person.

DS is inteligent, it just doesnt show on paper and going by his interests at the moment, he would prefare and be happier in a vocational career.

V v quick google - there's much more out there:
"he (Gardner) offers virtually no statistical or psychometric support for his thesis, but relies instead almost completely on a patchwork of anecdotes and idiosyncratic impressions. The most troubling aspect of Gardner's work is that his theory is at least partially testable with currently available psychological instruments, and yet he makes no effort to obtain the necessary proof."

Gardner's resesrch is not well supported. There's a lot of new neuroscience stuff you've got to watch out for, I find. Business faddy types like to hijack it to trumpet some new theory.

No idea what fluid and crystallised means.

being good at anything takes effort.... not always ... look at mozart ...he could play from being a tiny tot...not much effort he just did.
most people need to work at something though.
i need to work at spelling because im hopeless! lol (sorry)

All that sort of intelligence is mental ability though, dragon.

Right - bedtime!

Thanks for this thread, TeamCullen. I think it's raised some really interesting ideas.

Mozart and his family put a huge amount of effort into his musical education from an early age.

Er ... yes, but pointylog, I don't think anyone has ever suggested that intelligence isn't mental ability?

What's your point?

I have no idea how much effort mozart had to put into his work.

I tend to think he'd be a bit pissed off hearing others say he put no effort at all into all that work.

Google can tell you anything. Do you have any training in psychology?
Apologies if you haeve, and I'm not trying to be rude, but you can't just google and know about 30 years of research.

Crystallised intelligence is based on past learning and experience, its learned knowledge, basically. This type of intelligence increases as we age. Fluid intelligence is more abstract, its reasoning and problem solving independent of experience. Its more analogous to what mant call common sense. It peaks by about age 35-40 and then declines.
A persons intelligence is said to be a combination of these factors.

gardner has some interesting ideas , but is a bit of a lazy fecker when it come to backing it up with proven facts.... bit like my sister . brightest most intellegent person i know , she won a place at st aloyisis school in glasgow on the merits of her intellegence. didnt want to go , couldnt be bothered - left school with only 7 gcses and 2 highers . Shes a sahm.never worked. my parents were convinced shed be a surgon/lawyer.