4 ms·

While I am not Indian and the only thing that I know of this is what I have read here and from having watched 3 Idiots(2009), all metricization is the same. You

While I am not Indian and the only thing that I know of this is what I have read here and from having watched 3 Idiots(2009), all metricization is the same. You can not test intelligence, you can only test knowledge. But everyone wants to know intelligence. The examples you cite are finding the farthest distance in their field, and the only people capable of going that distance are people who move fast AND work hard. It only works when the participants are geeks for exactly the thing that is being tested. As the people who study for a long time keep increasing their studying, the scores naturally improves, and therefore they need to make the test harder to keep the same pass rate. This only works so long as the juice is worth the squeeze. We see this with the interview circuit. Top engineers, instead of studying up on CICO choose to interview elsewhere where real problems are asked. They have turned down working on esoteric problems that no one faces in the real world, even though if they were to face it would easily be able to solve it - likely by themselves from first principles. We care about intelligence. The only way to learn someones intelligence is by seeing them work. It's by seeing them understand a problem new to society. Tests can not measure intelligence. Only personal accountability will work, but personal accountability doesn't scale. The key is living in a society that doesn't scale.

alex_smart 5y ago
>You can not test intelligence, you can only test knowledge. You absolutely can test for a combination of intelligence and knowledge. >But everyone wants to know intelligence. Seldom do people actually care about intelligence in isolation. What use is intelligence without the discipline and ability to apply yourself towards a goal for a considerable length of time? >As the people who study for a long time keep increasing their studying, the scores naturally improve That simply does not work. Even with the coaching industry trying to lure parents into sending kids to them since Kindergarten, year after year it turns out that the students who do best in the JEE have only had two years of dedicated preparation. Because that is all the time that is needed for a talented student to prepare for the material that is being tested. > and therefore they need to make the test harder to keep the same pass rate If anything, the JEE has gotten easier with time. Honestly, your entire argument seems to be based on dogma and not evidence. Selecting for the top 1% students by their aptitude for math/engineering, within an acceptable error margin, is not really as difficult a problem as you are making it out to be.
- ItsMonkk 5y ago
  I know more about the South Korean system. They grade to a curve. When the students get better, the test gets harder. Their students spend 16 hours a day studying for their university exams, and start at the age of 12. 46% of students are depressed. Suicide is the leading cause of death in both 10-19 and 20-29 population, mostly due to the stress. The goal of all students is to pass the test so that they can make it into Seoul University so that Samsung will hire them. The bottleneck is the test. Life afterwards is easy. Rigorous testing does not give you the best 1% of the population, it filters the people willing to go through the system down to the top 1%. Some of them will be of the .1% best, and others will be those who worked harder as they did not have to help their little sister get home, or their parents clean the restaurant after school. You can not know your false positives. You can not know your false negatives. Every Einstein born to a poor family who does not get to study is wasted potential to humanity. Every Einstein whose passion is in Machine Learning and spends all of his time on that topic will fail this test.
  - valarauko 5y ago
    While I largely agree with your argument, I'm curious if you have a solution in mind that could work in the Indian context.
    - ItsMonkk 5y ago
      Use the start-up model whenever possible. 1. Take as many bets as you can. 2. Pay a great deal of attention to those bets. Guide them. 3. As soon as you know the bet failed, let it fail. Entrance exams are an anti-pattern. They commit to much to early. This means they have to be correct, so they get more strict. This squeezes out exactly who they were hoping to find. Same problem with interviews. Same problem everywhere.
      - valarauko 5y ago
        I'm not sure I follow how this would work for students applying for college. In the specific example of the JEE, you have ~ 13K really prestigious seats that ~ 2.2 Million students are competing for, with about ~ 50K seats of decreasing desirability up for grabs. Similarly for the top medical colleges, ~ 340K applicants are competing for ~ 1200 seats. More than half of those seats are reserved for students from traditionally marginalized & oppressed communities burdened with severe economic & societal hardships. I do not understand how a startup model helps in this scenario; ie, college admissions where desirable seats are a severely scarce resource.

alex_smart 5y ago

>You can not test intelligence, you can only test knowledge. You absolutely can test for a combination of intelligence and knowledge. >But everyone wants to know intelligence. Seldom do people actually care about intelligence in isolation. What use is intelligence without the discipline and ability to apply yourself towards a goal for a considerable length of time? >As the people who study for a long time keep increasing their studying, the scores naturally improve That simply does not work. Even with the coaching industry trying to lure parents into sending kids to them since Kindergarten, year after year it turns out that the students who do best in the JEE have only had two years of dedicated preparation. Because that is all the time that is needed for a talented student to prepare for the material that is being tested. > and therefore they need to make the test harder to keep the same pass rate If anything, the JEE has gotten easier with time. Honestly, your entire argument seems to be based on dogma and not evidence. Selecting for the top 1% students by their aptitude for math/engineering, within an acceptable error margin, is not really as difficult a problem as you are making it out to be.

ItsMonkk 5y ago
I know more about the South Korean system. They grade to a curve. When the students get better, the test gets harder. Their students spend 16 hours a day studying for their university exams, and start at the age of 12. 46% of students are depressed. Suicide is the leading cause of death in both 10-19 and 20-29 population, mostly due to the stress. The goal of all students is to pass the test so that they can make it into Seoul University so that Samsung will hire them. The bottleneck is the test. Life afterwards is easy. Rigorous testing does not give you the best 1% of the population, it filters the people willing to go through the system down to the top 1%. Some of them will be of the .1% best, and others will be those who worked harder as they did not have to help their little sister get home, or their parents clean the restaurant after school. You can not know your false positives. You can not know your false negatives. Every Einstein born to a poor family who does not get to study is wasted potential to humanity. Every Einstein whose passion is in Machine Learning and spends all of his time on that topic will fail this test.
- valarauko 5y ago
  While I largely agree with your argument, I'm curious if you have a solution in mind that could work in the Indian context.
  - ItsMonkk 5y ago
    Use the start-up model whenever possible. 1. Take as many bets as you can. 2. Pay a great deal of attention to those bets. Guide them. 3. As soon as you know the bet failed, let it fail. Entrance exams are an anti-pattern. They commit to much to early. This means they have to be correct, so they get more strict. This squeezes out exactly who they were hoping to find. Same problem with interviews. Same problem everywhere.
    - valarauko 5y ago
      I'm not sure I follow how this would work for students applying for college. In the specific example of the JEE, you have ~ 13K really prestigious seats that ~ 2.2 Million students are competing for, with about ~ 50K seats of decreasing desirability up for grabs. Similarly for the top medical colleges, ~ 340K applicants are competing for ~ 1200 seats. More than half of those seats are reserved for students from traditionally marginalized & oppressed communities burdened with severe economic & societal hardships. I do not understand how a startup model helps in this scenario; ie, college admissions where desirable seats are a severely scarce resource.