This article describes a balance theory of wisdom and applies the theory to the context of schooling. First the article discusses why cognitive skills as assessed by conventional tests are an important, but not a sufficient, basis for education. Second the article discusses the concept of wisdom and why it is important for schooling. Third the article presents a balance theory of wisdom, according to which wisdom is defined as the application of intelligence, creativity, and knowledge toward

more »

... achievement of a common good through a balance in the (a) short-and (b) long-terms; among (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) extrapersonal interests; in order to achieve a balance among (a) adaptation to existing environments, (b) shaping of existing environments, and (c) selection of new environments. Fourth the article discusses how wisdom might be nurtured in schools. It is concluded that it might be worthwhile for schools to emphasize the development of wisdom. 144 R. J. Sternberg et al. Education has taken the easier, quicker route. It leads students rapidly and relatively smoothly-in the wrong direction. That wrong direction is illustrated by the high-stakes systems of testing that have come to dominate the UK as well as the US. It is not that highstakes testing is, in itself, necessarily bad. It is that what the tests measure, to a large extent, doesn't matter all that much in the long run. What matters is not only how much knowledge you have, but how you use that knowledge-whether for good ends (as for Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King) or for bad ones (as for Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin). In this article, we argue that what matters most of all is the development of wisdom. The purpose of education is to develop not only knowledge and skills, but the ability to use one's knowledge and skills effectively. Many societies today are preoccupied with the development of knowledge and basic cognitive skills in school children. But are knowledge and basic cognitive skills-the essential ingredients of intelligence as classically defined (see Herrnstein & Murray, 1994)-enough? Consider the following. Flynn (1998) has pointed out that in more than a dozen countries for which records have been available, IQs have been rising roughly at a rate of 9 points per generation (30 years). This increase has been going on for at least several generations (see also Neisser, 1998) . With IQs going up and IQ-related abilities counting more and more for success in the society, one can only conclude that the IQ-like abilities of those at the top of the socioeconomic spectrum are higher than ever before-even higher than would be predicted merely by the 'Flynn effect', because IQs have become more important for gaining access to higher education and premium jobs. But again, the rise in IQs among the socioeconomic elite does not seem to have created a happier or more harmonious society, and one only has to read the daily newspapers to see examples of the poor uses to which high IQ can be put. Judging by the amount, seriousness, and sheer scale of global conflict, perhaps not much of the increase in IQ is going towards creating a common good. Certainly there is no reason to believe that increasing IQs have improved people's or nations' relations with each other. Indeed, today there is more terrorism than at any time in recent memory. In the 1990s, there were more genocides and massacres than at any time since the Second World War. As people became smarter, they became, if anything, less wise and moved further from-rather than closer to-the pursuit of a common good.