ah ha ... a topic dear to my heart ... school psychologists love to talk about
over and underachievement ... here is my take on this
1. psychologically ... underachievement makes sense ... one can deliberately do
less than one is capable of ... for example, what about the possibility of
going into an accelerated math program ... but, the student who is smart enough
might decide that he/she does not want all that extra work so, deliberately
does poorly on some achievement test ... and appears to be an underachiever
compared to measured ability ... one CAN fake poor performance when one can
actually do the task
overachievement as a construct makes NO sense ... logically, how can one do
better than one can do?
2. the basic problem with these concepts is the notion that ability is true ...
fixed ... and is correct in its measurement (IQ for example) ... and that
achievement is the variable that can vary ... in this context, your achievement
is compared to your TRUE ability ... well, i have news for folks ... there are
more measurement problems associated with ability than achievement ... thus,
the notion that ability (measuring potential) is THE standard is an erroneous
one ... !!
3. statistically ... it is true that usually, over and underachievement are
assessed by big gaps between PREDICTED ACHIEVEMENT (using ability as the
predictor) AND ACTUAL ACHIEVEMENT
and if that gap is large enough (say 2 stan errors of estimate) ... then one is
labelled as an over or underachiever ...
but, the problem with this is that this means that the concept of over and
underachievement is definitionally ... one where it is our ERRORS of prediction
(that is, an imperfect model for the data) that are driving the definitions ...
not what the actual S is doing ...
so, really, overachievement is where WE are INcorrect by estimating that
someone is achieving at a higher level than measured ability would suggest ...
and underachievement is where WE are INcorrect in our estimates in that we are
estimating that achievement is lower than ability would predict ...
so, it is OUR fault ... a fault of the statistical model ... not some
characteristic of the S
4. an overarching problem with these concepts (besides the above) is that ...
these categorizations lead to stigmatization of the S ... if you get labelled
as an underachiever ... that is a BAD designation to have given to you and, it
is almost impossible to rid oneself of it ... and, at the other then ... if you
get stuck with the designation of OVER achiever ... than that is bad too in
that ... everyone and his/her uncle/aunt ... is expecting you to do much better
than (perhaps) you can ... both of these categorizations lead to stress
we would be a lot better off to get rid of these concepts ... they do much more
harm than good ...
ps ... i have often wanted to turn the sides on this issue and, use achievment
as the standard and let ability be the criterion so, we would have over and
under ability ... how 'bout that one?
At 01:11 AM 10/3/00 -0500, Joe Ward wrote:
>
> Hi, Graham --
>
> It's been a long time since I've heard any discussion about
> UNDERACHIEVERS and OVERACHIEVERS. I've never been able to understand
> the discussions.
==============================================================
dennis roberts, penn state university
educational psychology, 8148632401
http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
