The author argues that he is "smart" due to his performance on standardized tests ("I feel smart, my tests showed I’m smart"), but then turns around and argues

The author argues that he is "smart" due to his performance on standardized tests ("I feel smart, my tests showed I’m smart"), but then turns around and argues that a standardized measurement of performance (the GPA) does not measure "smart" ("does a 3.5+ GPA really mean that? To me it seems more like they played it safe, they didn’t push themselves hard enough"). His takeaway is that the tests are right (because he feels they are right) and that the system and the GPA have failed him. My takeaway is that there really isn't a good metric for measuring "smart" or whether someone really groks the material offered in class... and that the education system really needs to have more of an emphasis flexibility and really grooming teachers to look at students' abilities and performances holistically. I want to say that a "good" counselor would have looked at the author and said "Ok -- you've done well on your tests and I understand that the environment is disruptive for you. Why don't we set up a meeting with an AP teacher and let them gauge you?" Relying on "good" teachers and "good" counselors is scary, though. It means you have to trust human beings and not objective metrics where you can say "this is a pass" or "this is a fail."