According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, intelligence is "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria."  The misonception that occurs both within and from this definition is such that it defines intelligence as the ability to perform well on a test of "objective criteria."  By assuming this, as most of society does today, it is assumed that the only superb intellects of our society are those that have a high intelligence quotient (IQ)--as measured by a test--or those that have performed well on standardized tests and thus have received a better education than those who have not performed as well.

As a teenager who has started to apply for colleges, I have experienced a full-frontal blow from this concept.  As an individual whose intelligence is mroe prominently expressed creatively, such as through writing, I do not perform well on standardized tests: Advanced Placement (AP) tests, Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT), or American College Tests (ACT).  As a result, I have not (or, rather, will not) receive college credit for the college-level courses that I have already taken, even though I have more knowledge on the subject than my test score may suggest.

Real human intelligence cannot be scored by a machine and cannot be measured by a computer.  Intelligence should not be based on how educated a person seems to be but rather how they think, act, and perceive ideas, their understanding, their abilities to interact, or their ability to love.  Common sense and intelligence are often regarded as two separate concepts--I am often told, "The smarted you are, the less common sense you have"--but should they not be considered the same?

According to Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, those who have strong naturalistic intelligence, or common sense, are more likely to outlife others...where others may be those who are able to ace a test.  While there is no doubt that strong test-takers are intelligent, that high IQs haev a strong indication of success, or that those who have a high SAT score are more likely to continue into a high-profile career, there should not be any doubt that those with common sense are just as intelligent.

As a society we have formed our perception of people on what we believe their IQ may be.  If they appear to be well-dressed and carry themselves with confidence (if they appear successful), then we are more likely to engage with them and accept them.  If they are dressed in ragged clothing and have dirt on their face, we will either ignore them or spit at them.  Antoni Gaudi, Barcelona's most highly treasured architect--referred to as a genius--was killed from lack of proper medical care after being struck by a tram and assumed homeless.  It was not until people recognized him (too late) to be Gaudi, the brilliant architect, that he received proper care.  Why does the perception of intelligence have to determine with whom we interact?

Standardized tests are not illogical.  They are not evil.  They should not be banned or discontinued.  However they should be used for a greater deed than attempting to quanitfy one's intelligence.  Schools should focus on imparting knowledge through teaching and experience rather than through the regurgitation of test material.  Education in any respect is highly important, as is attaining knowledge through academia, but standardized testing does not define intelligence.