mowmow721

I see this excuse pop up so much... "I'm just not a good test taker...". Whether it's for the SAT, AP, Subject Tests, or ACT. So many people will just validate low scores with the classic "I'm not a good tester".

I don't understand- Does the pressure of sitting down with a College Board packet in front of someone cause them to freak out and lose all their wits? Not likely. Is there some kind of secret to bubbling a grid no one knows of? Then how can you be a "bad test taker?"

Those classic "tricks" like skipping hard questions won't get you very far, even if you know them. If you really need to skip hard questions on the SAT I, god help you on getting over a 700. Those stupid "ballparking" and "narrowing down" tricks won't help you much at all, if you want any kind of decent score. Especially since guessing is always penalized.

I mean, I could be wrong. But I think being a "bad test taker" just means you aren't prepared. I'm not arguing about the validity of these tests in being able to test their specific subjects, or the IQ for that matter- for all I know, they might be terribly written and completely useless. I'm just saying- if someone wasn't prepared, it's no fault of the test. He didn't know the information. Period.

Anyway, it should be "I didn't study/prepare enough." or "I do not understand the information easily enough." Tests are there to test how much you know about the subject they are testing, and standardized testing is no exception. If you aren't good at assimilating information for tests, well tough luck, it means you don't know thoroughly what was being tested. We don't all pop out scoring 2400s and doing super-modeling as an extracurricular.

Yakyu Spirits

Some people complain about time, especially on the ACT. But I think both the SAT and ACT give a good amount of time.

mowmow721

Well, if you complain about time... You are not reading fast enough, or solving the math fast enough. Has nothing to do with "being a good test taker". You weren't prepared if you can't do the problems in a reasonable amount of time- which is understandable, but not excusable.

I haven't tried the ACT. But the SAT gives plenty of time, for all the sections. Reading was easy enough, unless you're OCD about the choice you made and keep rechecking- which you most likely don't need to do anyway. Math is a little tougher, but nothing that can't be handled. 25 minutes, 20 questions- Over a minute for each question, especially since the first 10-15 are solvable pretty much just by taking a quick glance at the question.

spectravoid

I don't understand it either. If the student does well in school, wouldn't it imply that they are a good test taker because they still have to take times tests under pressure at school.

112358

I have been wondering the same thing for a while as well (of course, I'm biased because I'm a "good test-taker"). It'll be interesting to see how people respond.

monstor344

I understand time constraints for the ACT (never taken it but I've heard that it's essentially a speed test), but on the SAT, the only thing that I ever feel rushed on is the essay.

spectravoid

The only section without much time on the ACT is the reading

4 passages (~1000 words each)

40 mc questions (10 per passage)

mowmow721

Well, OK, I'm not going to actually say the essay "tests" your writing ability. But I suppose it DOES test how much valid material/garbage you can churn out in 25 minutes, and how cohesive you can make that paragraph of valid material/garbage, to deal with the messed up scoring system...

But I think the essay is the most flawed portion of any of the tests... but still, I haven't seen many lousy writers get 12s on the SAT essay (Although I have seen good writers get bad scores since they didn't know about the length thing, and spent too much time refining a little bit of writing...)

Morsmordre

mowmow, neither do I. If someone is not a good test taker, good luck surviving college when his or her entire grade is usually based on two midterms and a final. This is even doubly important for anyone who wishes to major in anything technical. Not doing well on these tests is almost always a sign of poor preparation for the test or a not so good high school background. Only in the cases of certain learning disabilities can I understand the "not a good test taker" refrain.

Esplin

I actually phased out my OCD by taking practice tests. It used to be so bad that I actually took like 2 minutes on the first problem of a math question, checking it over 7-8 times!

Trust me, obsessive checking will make you tired incredibly fast.
If you have OCD during tests, CRUSH it!

silence_kit

Yeah, timed writing tests blow. Good writing takes time and thought. I have no idea why schools think that these tests do a good job of measuring writing aptitude. To do well on them, you have to abandon how you usually write and fill up the lines with boilerplate, 5 paragraph essay bullcrap. ugh.

fhg

Some people are legitimately bad test takers (have trouble focusing, have major test-related anxiety, etc.), but I think that excuse is way overused.

monstor344

I agree, it's a terrible system, but the good thing is the essay score is pretty minimal in terms of calculating the writing score.

driscol

I tend to have time troubles on everything minus the essays and math sections. I just can't read or think that fast. Then my mind tends to wander because I'm discouraged. But I agree, too many people say that...

Scorpioserpent

Wow I have always wondered this. In highschool, I did at least 100 points better than my friends whom are as smart if not smarter than me. They use the bad tester excuse, but I thought it was bull....I mean either you can figure out the answer to the question or not?