happymomof1

u§ername,

Many people who are not only smarter than you and I, but also harder working than you and I have devoted their entire professional careers to the issue of assessment. Standardized tests like the SAT are only one kind of assessment. There are many others such as practical exams, oral presentations, blood pressure measurements, etc. Each kind of assessment has its advantages, and its limitations. The primary advantage of an exam such as the SAT is that it is easy to administer in (relatively) standard conditions and easy to score. Whether or not it actually measures anything truly useful is an entirely different question. For fun reading on some issues of standardized testing in general, and the SAT in particular, you might like to visit The National Center for Fair & Open Testing | FairTest

u§ername

happymomof1,

that wasn't the issue. I never mentioned anything about whehter the SAT is effective in what it does or not. I never said the SATs were perfect.

Seriously, I'm just addressing the issue on whether there are bad test takers or not. Please stop going off topic with those "SATs are not perfect" or "SATs don't measure intelligence" statements. That's not what we're talking about. If you want to talk about that, open a different thread.

mcgoogly

username - but if you're not getting an 800 (on the math at least), then clearly you don't have enough time. I mean I don't know about you, but I'm certain that if I were given like, 2 hours per section or something crazy like that, I would easily be able to get every single math question right.
I suppose that that would be different for the CR and writing section (excluding the essay... if given *unlimited* time on that I'm sure we could both pull off at least 11s) because no matter how long you sit and look at a CR question, it's still entirely possible that you will never know the correct answer.

And also, "the SATs do/don't measure intelligence" IS the point of this thread, although it was somewhat veiled on the first page or two but quickly the point came out. I hate "that guy" who claims he got a terrible score on the SATs because he just doesn't test well (but is really a pompous stupid idiot) too, ok? But for the past 11 pages this thread has been practically single-mindedly bashing anyone who doesn't do well on the SATs as stupid. I think a couple pages ago there was someone who was saying that "those people" can become productive bureaucrats and live a nice life, but will never become CEOs or hold positions of real power. Holy sh** it was like a page out of Brave New World.

u§ername

I can probably get an 800 with 1/4th of the time, but that's beside the point.

That means the math is easy. If I gave you an IMO problem, I don't think you can solve it without help even if I gave you a year.

Ofcourse SATs don't measure success... there are many, many, many ways of being successful. Take basketball or baseball players for example. They earn more than most people can dream of, and I don't think there's a minimum SAT required for the NBA or MLB.

SATs measure knowledge within the questions that the SATs test. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can't get a high score, it means you don't know that specific knowledge well enough. Does that make you stupid? No. Does that make you lazy? No. It just makes you don't know the SAT material, nothing more, nothing less.

NOTE: What I meant by SAT material is NOT as so many people say "testing skills". That ****es me off. There are no skills required to take a test. Again, time management, skipping hard questions, ruling out choices are COMMON SENSE. They don't require any teaching.

112358

I believe that a person who arrives at the truth is more intelligent than a person who arrives at falsehood. It has nothing to do with my thought pattern or anyone else's thought pattern. It's just about arriving at truth or falsehood. Unless those concepts are too objective for you.

Gryffon5147

No... but they require "experience" that students of higher socio-economic groups are more likely to get. It's "common sense" for those that have taken long standardized tests many times in their lives but it's not the case for many students who don't have that kind of opportunity.

Unfamiliarity with the test structure (and don't tell me that a few free pity SAT courses can make up for years of educational discrepancy) will lead to higher levels of anxiety, and that very anxiety will affect testing performance. Suppose Person A has the same amount of knowledge as Person B. However, Person A comes from a social/economical/cultural background that does not encourage education, and Person B has grown up in an environment conductive to learning/testing. They still learn the same material for World History SAT. They know the same amount of facts, the dates, the names, the whole curriculum. However, Person B will be much more familiar with testing conditions and what to expect, and will thus have confidence, less stress, and will be able to focus. Person A, less familiar with such an environment, will suffer from greater anxiety, and will thus have a bigger chance of making classic testing mistakes such as rushing through the test, or skipping too many questions.

We all know that stress affects performance in any activity. Our brain is not a one way circuit for retrieving information. The knowledge may be there, factors such as anxiety will cloud that ability to recall it. Though some people may, as posted earlier, be more prone to anxiety in cases such as ADD, this would be an innate factor. However, there is also an "experience factor" that leads to anxiety, and that might be the case of why some people would be "Not a good test taker, but comparatively to others". "Not a good tester" would imply they were not able to show their knowledge at optimal levels, and I do believe that due to a variety of justifiable reasons, some people are better at tests than others.

However, I do realize that many slacker do use the "I'm not a good test taker" excuse just for the hell of it.

u§ername

um.... no.

I haven't taken many long, standrardized tests. In fact, I don't remember taking any at all. No, I haven't taken the SATs yet. I've seen the questions though.

Unless you count AMCs etc. In which case I will say the first math contest I've ever done was also the best one I've ever done.

I honestly don't believe they require experience, or anything beyond logic and common sense. Then again, common sense isn't so "common".

Gryffon5147

Your unexaminable personal experiences and anecdotes are hardly proving the OP's point. So you haven't taken the SAT yet... and you're expecting a high score. Of course not a 2400(modestly enough) but a high score nevertheless. (25 percent chance of 800 on a section) So... your point is that you were born smart, and not a product of learning. A great white slab of Tabula Rasa eh? Doing well on the AMC.. probably on your way to AIME one day. Maybe even USABO too? Good for you. Really... a genuine "knowledge accounts for all", I don't need any practice to be good, I'm just born great kind of guy. Probably don't really understand why all those other people can't just study their butts off, learn the stuff they need, and take the darn tests right? It's all out there, aren't I right? In the books, and the internet? Sure.. there are kids like those with stuff like ADD but they're just loons that really do need help. They're different after all. Common sense isn't so "common" in the American masses is it? Seems more common in the three feet radius from your heart doesn't it? Yeah... I can see that from you too. Logic and Common sense, they will pull you through all of life's adversities, believe me that they will. People wouldn't need experience if they had the sense to logically do it right in the first place, aren't I right? Of course you are. Our country needs more people like you.

happymomof1

"SATs measure knowledge within the questions that the SATs test. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can't get a high score, it means you don't know that specific knowledge well enough."

Actually no, they don't measure knowledge - or at least not just knowledge. In large part the SAT measures your ability to do well on this kind of test. If you don't "get" the logic of the testing modality, it is unlikely that you will perform as well as you would if you did "get" it. It is easy to administer and score the SAT. However, it is clear that the modality of the exam does limit some students' abilities to demonstrate their subject area knowledge.

Some people have brains that operate very well in standardized test mode - you appear to be one of them. They don't need to be told "skip the hard questions" or "eliminate the obvious wrong answers", because they figure this out for themselves very quickly. Some people don't have brains that go straight into that mode. They need specific instruction and practice in order to be able to demonstrate the knowledge that they have. Mosey on over to the International Student Forum and read about the horror of taking a US-style standardized test such as the SAT/ACT/TOEFL/GRE/GMAT when you have grown up in an educational system that relies on different types of assessments.

Yes, it is entirely possible to do well on the SAT and poorly on any number of other kinds of assessments. Even on assessments that are designed to measure the same items of knowledge as a given section of the SAT. This would make a person a "bad tester" in the not-SAT situation.

Here is an example for you to consider from a different part of life:

Debbie needs a map whenever she goes somewhere. She looks at it before the trip, and consults it occasionally along the way. If you give her written directions like take route 50 to route 60 to route 70, she will draw a map out with paper and pencil because the words alone make no sense to her. She needs a visual reference.

Susie needs to have verbal directions. She makes a quick list of route 50 to route 60 to route 70 before she leaves home, and consults it as needed. If you give her a map, she'll hand it right back and ask you to just tell her the route numbers.

Both Debbie and Susie can get to where ever it is they have to get just fine. However, if you would give them a formal exam on map reading, Debbie would ace it while Susie would probably flunk. If you would give them a formal exam that required following verbal directions, Debbie would flunk and Susie would ace it. Both would classify as "bad testers" for one type of exam and would need specific practice and training in order to bring their skills in that area up to a range that would demonstrate their ability to get from one place to another if the exam they were facing wasn't a good match for the way their brains work.

mowmow721

Happymom, you are going off the wrong track. Read my quote again. "The SAT measures knowledge within the questions that the SAT tests. " Keyword- WITHIN the questions that the SAT tests.

There is no abstract concept to this- Basically, what I said is the question you are given, whether it be "logical", or concrete mathematics, or subjective passage analysis, is what you are being tested on. You may be some kind of Calculus superstar, but if you didn't remember that a straight line is 180 degrees, then you just didn't grasp that information that was being tested.

If you are the God of rote memorization, but can't solve a logic puzzle to save your life, then... life's tough. And vice-versa.

So if you take the SAT and fail it, it will tell colleges that you are incapable of doing basic math problems in a reasonable amount of time, and can't analyze reading passages... What else could it tell them? That it isn't "your type of test"? If you fail the MCAT, then what now? What, it's "not your type of test"? It's not so black and white as with your example. Some people may be able to do marginally better than others, but in the end, the playing field is as level as it can be.

There is no secret to FINDING the correct answer.

ChoklitRain

What's the point in proving that there's no such thing as a bad test taker? I personally believe that anybody can take down the test, so I got a high score and moved on. I don't feel the need to prove that people who didn't score as high are inferior, even if they really are inferior.

silence_kit

People who overdo preparing for these things want to convince themselves that they didn't waste hours upon hours studying for an exam that will mean nothing in a few years.

u§ername

Your country also needs more people like you, who distort other people's words.

Did I ever say I did not try hard? Did I ever say I did not work hard to achieve a relatively higher score on the AMCs? Did I say that logic and common sense can solve all problems? No. I tried to leave my personal experiences out of this, but people keeping saying things such as "I'll assume you..." or "people smarter than you and I...". Besides, it's just another example, like all examples.

I'm not generalizing about life or anything else. I'm not saying the SATs are perfect or even good. But the SATs do effectively test the material that it tests.

Again, I completely disagree. Put the question 1+1, hide it all you can, but it's still 1+1, and anyone can solve it. Questions are only harder because they require a deeper understanding of the material, not because of some trick.

I didn't quote your example, but two things:
1. We're not looking at a different part of life, just the SATs which may or may not mean anything.
2. Your example is off.

What you said would be more close to Person A using this method to solve the problem while person B uses the other method of solving the problem. But it doesn't really matter how they solve it on the SATs, does it. It only matters if they can solve it.

But then your analogy might actually be good, and finally make you understand what I'm trying to convey.

Okay, so let's say Susie was forced to take an exam on map reading. You say she would flunk because she's a bad test taker. However, the actual truth is, Susie IS a bad map reader. She isn't a pro map reader but fails at tests, she IS A BAD MAP READER. The test tests map reading skills, not if you can get from point A to point B. Therefore she isn't a bad test taker.

Does this mean she can't get from point A to point B? No. Does this mean she isn't smart? No. Does it really matter that she failed at reading maps when she can still follow directions? Not really. Does this mean though, that she is bad at map reading - which was what the test was all about? Yes.

happymomof1

Good, you are finally getting there.

Susie is a bad map reader, and will likely fail at a map skills test. However, in real life, using the skill set that she does have, she can get the job done (getting from here to there). Not to mention that the specific design of that exam will affect the results. Is she given a map and told to drive to the next county and buy milk at a specific store? Is she given a map and a set of multiple choice questions about the map? Can she write on the exam sheet and make her own notes first (converting the image to a verbal description)?

A very large part of doing well on the SAT is being skilled at taking multiple-choice exams. You can know the facts. You may very well be able to get from point A to point B in whatever subject area you care to mention. However, if you are missing the exam-taking skills necessary to manage the SAT, you simply aren't going to perform as well as a student who (either by native talent or by extensive practice) does have those skills.

Multiple choice exams are notoriously difficult to design, and have a negative reputation in the education industry because of their general trickiness (that results from necessities in the design). However, they are very popular for mass administration because they are easy to administer and to score. If every college aspirant were to sit multiple subject area exams with well-designed short-answer and multiple choice questions along with requirements to give oral presentations, and to demonstrate applicable laboratory (or other practical) skills, the colleges and universities would truly have useful information about which students were better prepared for further studies in any given subject. However, the time and cost involved in administering and scoring such a set of exams is plain and simply prohibitive.

bdl108

What? Now people aren't allowed to be bad test takers? The difference between the SAT and school examinations is that the former tests logic and reasoning, the latter actual knowledge. Thus, studying for the SAT is learning and practicing test-taking techniques (which Kaplan and Princeton Review thrive on), while studying for school exams is a review of course material.

A good SAT score is not necessarily indicative of an intelligent person.