mcgoogly

Um, get an intern to do it.
Or just do it idk. When you're pulling an all-nighter your productivity level decreases anyway, who cares about precise speeds.

You're talking about time management, not speed of mathematical ability.
And if anything, wouldn't that be speed of using Excel or whatever computer program? Which is quite a bit different than what SAT problems test.

Ray192

Yes, google will get interns to fix important software flaws when close to a deadline. O_o

I repeat, have you seen google's interview questions?

No, I'm talking about quick thinking. Solving non-straightforward math problems does require quick thinking. Which is why google and microsoft both ask difficult problems during interviews.

... no.

mcgoogly

.....OH dude.

And yeah dude, clearly I have seen google's interview questions. because that's what i do, i look up fortune 500 corporations' interview questions on line. if you have a point you can say it instead of repeatedly asking this question

silence_kit

I have not seen Google's interview questions, but I do know that they do not ask . . .

If V = 12R / (r + R) , then R =

A. Vr / (12 - V)
B. Vr + V /12
C. Vr - 12
D. V / r - 12
E. V (r + 1) /12

Being good at doing these problems fast isn't a very useful skill in and of itself. This is what the SAT math section tests.

What is more impressive is being able to solve a hard problem. I don't think Google is going to kick you out of the interview if you reproduce the complete solution 30 seconds slower than the other guy.

BananaSandwich15

This thread makes me sad for society

silence_kit

Why? How come?

dshinka

I think some good points have been brought up about speed at least on the math question. When you're in a math class and you're given a "real life" word problem, it's likely on whatever math technique you just learned, whether it be Gaussian elimination or partial fraction decomposition. You already know in advance what technique or you have a small set of techniques to choose from to apply to the problem you're given.

In real life, though, you have to draw upon everything you've ever learned and make sure you don't oversimplify problems and that you think of everything - that's why someone's dad who was a math major may take 15 - 20 minutes to solve an "easy" math problem from high school. When it comes to things like six sigma when you're trying to make an airplane safe who cares about quick thinking that is 99% accurate because 99% isn't good enough - what is needed is complete, thorough and accurate thinking (Six Sigma requires 99.9997%; 99% is less than Four Sigma)

dshinka

*at least on the math SECTION...

OHKID

^Hey, what's the answer to post #49? Is it E?

silence_kit

uhhhh . . . it's A.

mowmow721

I love the people who start whining about the "lack of empathy" in this thread. Do we all need to sugarcoat everything for those who can't seem to understand this-

Can you solve this problem in a reasonable amount of time?

A) Yes
B) No

If you answered A, then be happy with your high SAT scores, high GED scores, high MCAT scores. Congratulations, you are either very intelligent, or have prepared very hard, or both.

If you answered B, then... whose fault is it again? Did the multiple choice grid start screaming the wrong answer in your ear...? Sorry, you weren't capable of just DOING it. Because that's how good test scores are achieved.

And then, when you are a successful computer scientist.

Can you debug this program in a reasonable amount of time?

What changed? Absolutely nothing. So I don't get how testing can be "downplayed" because of the "I'm not a good tester" syndrome, that oddly pops up whenever tests are more challenging than the norm.

And McGoogly... what in the flying HELL does pulling all nighters and being sick have any relevance to colleges downplaying testing because of the "I'm not a good tester" syndrome. Of COURSE you won't perform well in those situations, but that's just plain bad luck, and a random occurrence, or lack of discipline. (Or chronic insomnia, which will give you a lot more hell than just tests)

Oh, and when the did this discussion become just about the SAT!?? This generalization can apply to the AIME, MCAT, LSAT... the Math Olympiad qualifiers for all I care. This is about standardized testing in general.

dreamsofivy

Firstly, to scorpioserpent, (i'm sorry to say this but grammar is a HUGE pet peeve of mine), if you're going to use the word "whom", please use it correctly.
Anyway, I think there is such a thing as a "bad test taker", but only in certain cases. I have a friend who is really smart, but has ADHD and really has trouble focusing. That makes him a bad test taker. However, the people at the top of the class in my school (generally, the exception comes with my class' valedictorian), are not like brilliant. They are the ones that read the textbook a good six-to-eight times and get good grades. However, on the SATs and ACTs, their scores are nowhere near the kids in the top 10% that don't try quite as hard but are naturally more intelligent. For example, with this year's graduating class, the top 3 were all girls. One girl is going to Tufts and had a 2200 even, another had a 2000 and is going tio Georgetown. The valedictorian, however, did not do too well on the SATs and is going to Providence College. Interestingly enough, 4 kids beneath these 3 are going to Ivy League schools (Harvard (ranked 10), Dartmouth (ranked like 15ish), Brown (ranked like 12), Cornell (ranked 4)).
The difference? The future-Ivy leaguers had higher SAT scores. The guy going to Harvard had the highest score in the class (like a 2260), and others were close.
So, in my opinion, if you get ridiculously good grades but try extremely hard, I'm sorry, but you aren't some genius child who should be getting a 2400 on the SAT. You are a hard-working individual who deserves to be commended on that, but to say you are a bad test taker is a misnomer, you just aren't exceptionally intelligent naturally.

mcgoogly

Ok let me just summarize this thread real quick.

First, mowmow begins by asking us to define what a good test taker is. Then when people offer definitions, and things that may make someone a "bad test taker," he responds by saying "No, that is [this]... or [this]...or it could be [this]... but it's not a bad test taker" using the most circular and amusing to witness logic.

I mean, your mind is already set that there is no such thing as a bad test taker, just suffering from "insomnia, ADHD, panic attacks, bad luck, lack of discipline, not being able to DO IT," and also, the unsaid thing in this thread: "plain old stupid as hell".

This is such a bullsht ethnocentrist-minded thread. I'm sure mowmow is already evaluating everyone's intelligence in this thread on a scale of 1-100.

In fact, I'm sure the next thread mowmow will start will be "Guys who is more intelligent, Shakespeare or Albert Einstein??!"

You (and I'm not just picking on you mowmow, I mean a lot of the posters in this thread, including the one above me) have this neat little quantitative system in your head where grades and SATs are a direct function of work-level and "natural intelligence". As if there's nothing else. Oh, and as if "natural intelligence" is a measurable variable.

zam614

I fully agree that it's hard to imagine how someone can simply be just a "bad test-taker". For all intents and purposes, I think that I am a relatively good test taker. Maybe even a good guesser? But the thing is that my friends and I have different perspectives on what a good guesser is. They think a good guesser is one who can just christmas tree the test and is lucky. I think I'm a good guesser b/c I really think it through and use logic. Sometimes I remember obscure facts and correlate them with others until I get some faint idea of what can or can't be the answer. it's kind of hard to explain...

Like, for simplicity, let's say the question was "Who was the President of the U.S. during World War I? Woodrow Wilson or Harry Truman?"

Even though it's easy, if I didn't know the answer, I'd think like this:

"Harry Truman succeeded FDR. FDR said "a date that will live in infamy", referring to Pearl Harbor, which caused us, among other things, to enter World War II. World War II is obviously decades after World War I, so the answer has to be Wilson"

No one taught that way of thinking to me (I believe). I just gained it through experience and logic....

About the SAT though, the essay portion is really time-crunched, especially for people who are unprepared. People who are used to writing a simple essay in one entire class period of an hour will most likely fail miserably when trying to write a magnificent essay in 25 minutes (I think that's how much they give you). There's really nothing you can't improve with studying and practice.

Good luck for any people who are taking tests soon!

zam614

* Oh one more thing, I'm not saying that some people can't have trouble concentrating on tests. Believe me, sometimes I do and I punch myself (figuratively) for that. I'm saying that everything can be improved with practice (please don't attack me with hypotheticals trying to degrade my statement.. knowing that some people on CC just breathe to do that.... --> "testing" can be improved with practice). In the end, standardized tests are but one of the numerous factors that are taken into consideration by adcoms, and I'm certain that top schools are more impressed by extracurricular activities and your passions than the fact that you got 20 pts more on the SAT than John Doe. Seriously.