Intelligence testing often plays a large role in college admissions as well as career choices. The rationale behind this is that intelligence tests are highly reliable in predicting future outcomes. Individuals with higher IQ scores frequently have higher mental processes including the ability to better reason, understand and judge. Higher IQ scores, very stable in adulthood, are often positively correlated with success. With this being said, it is apparent why intelligence tests are used as a measure of performance across a wide variety of affairs.
Intelligence tests are often incorporated into college admissions tests which are essentially used to determine a student's potential. Admissions tests are widely accepted as these tests contain high validity. They are able to almost accurately predict academic success however; this is not always the case. Many students report experiencing testing anxiety which can severely impair a student's ability to perform well. In these cases, how can we account for inferior test takers? Many of these students know the material and can understand the concepts however, are weakened by the pressure to perform well. If admissions tests cannot account for testing anxiety or any other troubles that may arise, can it still be considered valid?
Because college admissions tests are similar to intelligence tests, is it possible to train or prepare for these tests? Many companies like The Princeton Review seek to improve scores through training and practice. In fact, these courses teach students how to take the exams. In my experience with ACT practice courses, I was told that one should not read the passages but skim the text for answers. If there are methods to performing better on college admissions tests, can these same methods be applied to IQ tests? Are intelligence tests the best way to determine one's potential?