Talk:Intelligence and education
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligence and education article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Intelligence and education received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Farzan Ikhlas.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
All book name
edit9437788936 Lit Computer Math Science New hope Hindi Grammer Reader Gramber hindi 103.199.182.45 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Point of view regarding the link between education and intelligence.
editI am for education, but I am against equating credentials with intellect. There are a few studies of questionable value cited in this article. Other studies (I will not cite them, but I hope you will research them) have shown that a large portion of the student population demonstrates no measurable improvement in critical thinking skills or general intelligence between the time of college admission and graduation. I am sorry to point out that this article (at the time of this Talk entry) is essentially a propaganda piece for academic gatekeepers. It serves the personal interests of professional scholars and foments academic snobbery by suggesting that those without access to higher education, for a variety of socially valid reasons, are largely incapable of sophisticated learning and “proven” intellectual inferiors, with only “some” exceptions. Many crucial factors are totally overlooked by this narrow point of view, regardless of how you spin the data to suit the confirmation bias. This article totally discounts the growing trend toward unprovable (by institutional tradition) autodidactic education and competency-based learning. The narrative in its current form is unencyclopedic, biased, and frankly makes facile, offensive blanket claims. I wish I had the time to handle the task of contributing myself, but I tagged it in the hopes someone will take the torch. 67.82.165.69 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you can provide secondary sources for your claims I will add them. The problem is most of this is research (a primary source) and thus is not really for Wikipedia (a tertiary source). Phoenix1494 (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)