"Not a good test taker..."- I don't understand. - Page 5

zam614 · 07-03-2009, 07:18 PM

** Completely agree with mcgoogly... I couldn't have put it any better dude. Lol!

dshinka · 07-03-2009, 07:29 PM

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".

--

You mentioned logical fallacies and you kind of are using one: false dichotomy. Either: a) there's no such thing as bad test takers or b) all people who claim to be a bad test taker suffer from one of these conditions.

I contend both are false: Of all people that claim to be bad test takers, there are some that suffer from a condition that results in their performance not being a reliable measure of their actual knowledge about a subject. In my not so expert opinion, I'd say most (i.e. greater than half) of people who claim to be bad test takers are people who are just dumber than people who perform better - half of people are below average in intelligence (median) and someone, actually a lot of someones, therefore, have to comprise that lower half.

applicannot · 07-03-2009, 11:00 PM

I'm going to have to agree with mowmow. There are no good or bad test takers. You can either solve the problem / answer the question or you can't. You can either do it quickly or you can't. So, you can either score well or you can't. There are two things you can do to improve your score: work faster or learn the material better. Considering the SAT and the ACT test fairly basic knowledge (as opposed to the MCATs or the LSATs), you should be able to work quickly. It's one thing to write a software program for a company. It's something completely different to chug out ACT precalculus and below level math problems.

If you have anxiety, I apologize. But it is something you WILL have to conquer in life. The same goes for learning disorders. Yes, you should be able to have compensation. You're not on the same playing field as someone else. I'm okay with that. But you should be able to manage your learning disorder, or else it will always have you in its grip. I know it's easier said than done. Two of my very close family members have extreme dyslexia, complete with non-reading symptoms (losing items, being blinded by white walls, etc.). The male cousin manages his dyslexia through sheer power of will. My female cousin? At age thirty, she literally read for one of the first times in her life. Book of choice? Twilight.

kiterunner18 · 07-04-2009, 12:14 AM

This thread p-sses me off. It's not really relevant to anybody. It seems like this is a thread for high-scoring elitists that want to downplay the struggles of other people. Who gives a sh-t if Student X in the desk next to you claims he/she is a bad test taker? Worry about yourself, not the struggles/claims of others (even if they are illegitimate).

kiterunner18 · 07-04-2009, 12:50 AM

EDIT: It seems like this is a thread for high-scoring elitists that want to insult those who score lower than them.

Sorry for the additional post of edits.

mowmow721 · 07-04-2009, 01:08 AM

Excuse me on being "elitist"? I never said my test scores are astronomical... in fact, I perfectly accept the fact that I completely failed on the writing portion of the test. Although I am 'slightly' biased against the essay.

BUT, not because the essay on the test was some kind of unfair entity. It's because I wasn't aware of the nature of the time constraint, and the fact that longer is better. Or maybe I just am a crappy writer (although I don't think so.) So in the end, it boils down to being MY fault for not being sufficiently prepared, no one else.

That's what I'm getting at. And the fact that standardized tests in general are being downplayed a whole lot on the basis of this "bad tester syndrome"... because, I, and possibly many others have heard this at college admissions tours.

Oh, and I DO understand they are some people with anxiety disorders, ADHD, etc. that are legitimately BAD TEST TAKERS. I'm just saying those are exceedingly rare compared to the thousands of others with "Wow this passage is SO hard, since I can't understand it, I must have concentration problems... I am a bad test taker!!!"

kiterunner18 · 07-04-2009, 01:43 AM

I'm not saying you were an elitist, mowmow. I'm saying most people here appear that way when they say some of the things that have been said. I don't get how people saying "I am a bad test taker!!!" is relevant to you, me, etc. If you or anybody else finds it annoying, get over it. Some people feel a certain way about the way they test, and you'll have to deal with that. Like I said, the way Student X feels about his/her ability to test has NO bearing WHATSOEVER on my life or my application.

"That's what I'm getting at. And the fact that standardized tests in general are being downplayed a whole lot on the basis of this "bad tester syndrome"... because, I, and possibly many others have heard this at college admissions tours."

BS. I don't know what schools you're talking about, but I can almost GUARANTEE that a school like HYPS wouldn't be like "meh, he/she is a bad test taker (without valid documentation of anxiety/LD) we'll admit this student with EXCESSIVELY low scores!" (by excessive, I mean hovering in the area of average/below average) It doesn't work that way. Conversely, the admissions process is inherently holistic. So a less-than-competitive score won't keep a student out of the running, the same way a perfect score won't get a student in. Scores aren't everything.

All I'm trying to say is that one shouldn't automatically dismiss the "bad test taker" line as illegit. It may be, it may not be. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter that much to me. If a student gets in with lower scores than me, I'm sure they were well-deserving and outstanding in other aspects.

Mythbuster2000 · 07-04-2009, 02:04 AM

"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."

To repeat: could not have said it better.

"It seems like this is a thread for high-scoring elitists that want to insult those who score lower than them."

This almost says it as well.

Mowmow, why the bias against writing? Just like a math or CR question... there is a certain method and way of getting the "correct" answer. Maybe your just a bad writer. I see you claim that you were not aware of the time constraint, but weren't you clearly told you have 25 minutes to write w well though-out essay? Just had to throw that out there because you seem to love the rest of the SAT.

mowmow721 · 07-04-2009, 02:10 AM

I already said maybe I'm a bad writer. As in, what I did on the test date is MY FAULT, and MY FAULT ALONE. It doesn't matter if I'm a genuinely bad writer, or wasn't prepared for the nature of the test.

I didn't ******** some excuse "I'm a bad test taker" to sugarcoat my OWN FAILINGS. That's what I'm getting at.

u§ername · 07-04-2009, 03:58 AM

I don't care whether the SATs or ACTs or any other test is a good measurement of anything at all, but there is no such thing as a bad test taker.

Give any bad test taker a multiple choice test with 100 1+1 questions and see if they're still bad test takers. Sure, some people are more confident, but ultimately it's because they weren't prepared well enough.

dshinka · 07-04-2009, 04:15 AM

If a student gets in with lower scores than me, I'm sure they were well-deserving and outstanding in other aspects.

--

Or Affirmative Action was at work...

u§ername · 07-04-2009, 04:35 AM

Lower scores doesn't mean less deserving, but "bad test taker" is a sad excuse. Really annoys me. I've gotten bad on tests too. Doesn't mean I'm a bad test taker, just means I didn't study or I just didn't care about the subject/test/teacher.

Gryffon5147 · 07-04-2009, 10:03 AM

Of course there are bad test takers and good test takers.

It's not that cut and dry. Test taking involves many different aspects than just knowing the answer. Personality wise, some people are more like to suffer from testing anxiety and panic, which could negatively affect testing results. And I'm talking about individual human personality, not special cases such as ADD. Other aspects that may be seen as "bad test taking" can be lack of familiarity with test taking strategies such as time management and skipping difficult questions. It's not necessarily their "fault", it could just be that they are bad at applying testing strategies to real life situations. Every person's brain works in a different way... some people are good at short/long term recall memory that is useful for Multiple Choice questions... while other's are not. Some are good at structuring ideas together for a long essay... while other's are not. Definitely not techniques you pick up over a short study session.

Every person acts differently in the testing room, and those with a more active/jumpy personality may find it more difficult to concentrate on a long test than those with a more calm, focused personality. There are also social, cultural, and economic factors to consider, which may account for the test taker's familiarity and comfort in a testing situation. You really, really must be deluded if you actually think test score genuinely reflect actual knowledge. How many of us have seen complete slackers get 5's on AP tests, while seeing seemingly all knowing geniuses fail what should have been a decently easy test?

Let's not look at things too absolutely... life's not that simple. Some of the mistaken attitudes here seem to be: "You're a bad tester, so you must be lazy and making excuses won't help you... so get over it."

u§ername · 07-04-2009, 11:18 AM

No, not being able to skip the harder questions to solve the easier ones first, and not being able to manage your time wisely is a failure to use logic and common sense, not a "strategy" or a "trick" of any sort. You don't need to be taught that.

Also slacker =/= unknowledgeable
"seemingly genius" =/= knowledgeable.

I agree that with the same amount of study time, some people will do better than others. I also agree that sometimes you just don't preform your best. However if you're constantly getting the same result, that means that is your level. Also, even those who may take longer to absorb concepts can achieve a 2400 if they work hard enough. It's not like "Oh, I'm a bad test taker so a 1500 should be good enough for me".

Oh, and if you really do know everything, you wouldn't panic. Again, give me any bad test taker, and I'll see how they panic with a test consisting of only 1+1.

-Lurker- · 07-04-2009, 11:36 AM

SAT and ACT scores were a pretty good indicator of who was smart and who wasn't in my high school. Throughout the Top 10%, you had people who either took a lot of AP and Honors classes and did well in them, or people who took CP classes and fluff classes and got A+'s. When the SAT/ACT scores rolled around, it was pretty obvious who was of the higher caliber in terms of intelligence.

Everyone who had a rigorous schedule and was in the top 10 of my class got at least a 2250+. I guess they were all just good test takers or something ...