The difference between intelligence testing and testing for knowledge is that intelligence tests assume that there is an innate, stable level of intelligence within each human being. Unless someone has some kind of intellectual disability, this simply is not true. Knowledge tests, on the other hand, measure learning, and learning and learning can change over time.

Intelligence tests are not useful for the most part, and have been largely discreditied, as we know intelligence is not static or innate. The ability to learn is not at all fixed. Even my own ability to learn changes day to day depending on all kinds of conditions that have absolutely nothing to do with my intelligence.

The one exception to this is with people with intellectual disabilities. In these cases, intelligence tests can be used to assess the nature and severity of the intellectual disability.

Knowledge tests, too, also can be incredibly flawed, especially if they support the idea that degrees of knowledge among learners will follow a bell curve, as they assume only a fraction of learners can master the material. And assessments of this type tend to replicate inequality. Knowledge tests are also very difficult to extricate from cultural differences, and consequently can also reproduce inequality even if the assessment is not designed to be used with a bell curve. If any part of the assessment questions or activity rely on a degree of cultural knowledge that you do not have, you will not do well even if you have the ability to master the material.

As someone who works in Learning & Development at a company, the idea that knowledge and ability would be distributed across a bell curve would be really BAD news for company performance. My job is literally to do whatever I can to support everyone in the company in excelling in their role.

And I think this presents an interesting conundrum, one which I'm not necessarily prepared to resolve. But the readings and videos frequently pointed to the fact that a lot of assessment paradigms tended to reinforce inequality. And yet, much of capitalism requires low-wage workers - ostensibly less educated workers. So while almost all companies need all their employees to excel in their roles - supporting everyone to succeed in that limited contect, we have an economic system that relies on less-educated workers in order to produce more profit.