someon

Again, it is not the theorem itself that is true. What is true is the if-then statement. For example, if I said: If all cows are blue, then some cows are blue, assuming that you allow that step as a valid rule of inference, the statement: If all cows are blue, then some cows are blue, is true. It doesn't matter whether all cows are actually blue or not, the if-then statement is true. It doesn't matter whether the rule "P and not P is false" is true or not in some sort of metaphysical sense- it is simply an axiom, and we say: If this axiom is true, then the following theorems follow. Mathematicians don't care about whether their axioms are metaphysically true unless they are trying to apply the math to something. Most will tell you that trying to assert that some axiom is "true" is pointless.

csleslie51

Heaven help the parents who have one kid that falls into this thread's category and one who fall into an earlier one (Brilliant meets Doesn't Give a Crap!)

DillonJay

I am not a "bad" test taker but I definitely agree that there are "bad test takers"
The stress of doing so well and time really affects the way your brain works
When I take practice tests and stuff at home, I'm so much more relaxed, I'm in the right mind set and I do much better and I bet that's how most people are
Its just the stress of doing so well and yes for a lot of people it is managing time

however, I definitely see how some people use this excuse when the truth is that they just aren't too smart lol

112358

Doesn't Descartes' cogito ergo sum carry some assumptions with it as well?

Ultimately, as another poster pointed out, hyperbolic doubt is a self-contradicting system because you have to doubt the doubt itself. You have to start somewhere.

iskigates

A lot of people have test anxiety and stress themselves out before taking a test and thus call themselves bad test takers. its not that they aren't prepared or they aren't smart, they just have anxiety related issues that keep them from doing their best.

personally, i'm a really slow reader. that doesn't say anything about my intelligence or how well i can preform, it just means that it takes me longer to read a passage than most people, so sometimes i barely finish a reading section, and on the ACT i hardly finished a single section.

but it is possible to be really bad at taking standardized tests. i have a friend who has a 3.9 gpa (unweighted) with lots of APs, but only got an 1890 on her SAT because she gets anxiety and has trouble focusing.

i do agree that the term is over-used as an excuse though.

rmadden15

Guess who started this sub-topic of philosophy. This guy over here.

Oh, and username. He was my inspiration.

ChaoticOrder

lol ^. And i think i saw a similar person (username) on the AOPS forums-- coincidince?

Vehicle

I can't remember if I posted in this thread or not but I believe the flaw of standardize testing is not whether or not you can answer the problems in a reasonable amount of time but that the material being tested is irrelevant to the goal it hopes to accomplish. I fully understand the deception of "bad test takers" because multiple choice is based on whether you know the answers or not. There are some exceptions such as anxiety, learning disorders, and being physically ill but natural bad test taking abilities is far from ordinary.

What makes me upset about this thread is the notion that standardized tests determine your intellect and ability to succeed in high education. What is the tests measuring? Your math and English proficiency. So in order to be an intelligent, smart, clever, and successful individual you must be able to answer a set of English comprehension and math problems? Who determined this status quo? I'm firmly against standardized testing because it is completely irrelevant to college admissions. Academic aptitude is not measured in a four hour testing period on two of the many subjects taught in school. The idea that a test can determine your abilities is beyond be because there is no standardized template for sorting out the good from the bad. Everyone will excel in something, why dismiss those that have vast knowledge in other areas of life? They are in no means less or more intelligent than those that fit the status quo.

Being under pressure is crucial to success in most careers. I don't have sympathy for those that break under pressure since they should be trying harder to cope with that anxiety. I had anxiety issues in high school but I've tried my best to suppress them and have found ways to carry out tasks without having negative repercussions due to intense anxiety. I hate when people say it's okay to take your time. Slow people never really benefit anything.

manyman234

I fully understand and agree that a test cannot fully show the abilities and worth of a person's intellect. However, discouraging them in the college admissions process is incredibly rash aswell. Even if it is not an exact science and even very flawed, the SAT/ACT is the ONLY real mediator we have to differentiate between people across the globe.

Are you saying we should just solely based on the academic profile at the school? because the difficulty of schools throughout the nation are incredibly different and in no way can be quite as standardized as the SAT.

Are standardized tests flawless? no. Do they aid that little bit needed to go through thousands of applications? yes.