How useful is IQ testing as an explanation of different socio-economic groups in the education system?

Despite the theory having been tested by numerous enthusiasts in the sociological and psychological medical field, there is no evidence of any kind indicating the existence of an IQ gene. Therefore we must define IQ as what it ultimately is, a set recipe of knowledge, on the basis of which authority measures individual intelligence.

However, IQ tests are inevitably flawed. Not only are they culturally specific, but they ignore crucial factors which could explain the large range of results. IQ tests ignore creative and imaginative skills, so who then, has any right to declare Picasso a genius of the past? Art and imagination must be compensatory for a lack of worthwhile, ‘measurable' intelligence. To add to the already severely tipped scales, linguistic skills would also play a role in determining how well we fare on IQ tests. So those who struggle with the English language, or perhaps not given the opportunity to develop a sophisticated vocabulary are damned to the lower end of the IQ measurement scale, and perhaps the lower end of society, before a piece of paper is ever presented to them. On the other hand, those with cultural advantages may be taking IQ tests with an unfair vantage point, whereby their value system, on par with those who construct the tests, ensure that they remain at the top of the intelligence scale, and ultimately at the top of the societal structure.

It all leads up to the question of whether, knowing of the existence of such disadvantages, those without the social background which would aid such an intelligence test feel all too keenly the expectations of those around them. Nerves can affect our performance when undertaking any task, and results can lead to labelling. If such labels exist before any test occurs, then it could be suggested that what we see is not a range of intelligence, but a range of self-fulfilling prophecies based on the expectations of biased teachers. And the self-fulfilling prophecies we see afterwards are self-explanatory, or need only to be observed from the long line of the dole queue.

Those with the ability to train or coach their children do so, and perhaps what we see on the lower end of the IQ scale are those materially deprived children whose parents haven't the means to prepare them for the bombardment of never before encountered questions. It's a frightening thought when we must question whether a lack of intelligence leads to a low status in society… or vice versa.

The fact remains that we cannot separate innate factors from environmental factors. We can determine autism, dyslexia and retardation, but we cannot, by medical or psychological means determine how to measure individual intelligence. Is it fair then, for a group of middle class ‘scientists' in white coats to sit back smugly and do so anyway?