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

Applying to College
141

<p>Sorry to say it CC Lurker, but your friend certainly isn’t a genius. The only way I can see a “genius” score a 1500/2400 on the SAT is if she opens the test, and suddenly forgets EVERYTHING… not happening. </p>

<p>Did I have anxiety taking the test? Sure as hell I did- in fact, I had a lot of trouble sleeping the night before. Did it affect me negatively? Probably. But in the end, I have to say that the score I got on the test accounts for how prepared I was, and what I brought to the table that Saturday morning… </p>

<p>If you know your stuff, you will do well. Period. When the problem is in front of you, there are no excuses.</p>

142

<p>Ok I haven’t looked at this thread in like a day or two and – sorry – am not responding to like the 5-10 people who’ve responded to me. BUT just wanted to say that</p>

<p>

What’s your point? That a person can, theoretically, study for 2000-3000 hours and achieve a 2400 while another can study for .5 hours and also achieve a 2400? So? How are colleges supposed to glean any “standardized” and quantitative measure’s of applicants’ traits from these scores then?
In other words, I’m pretty sure you’ve forgotten that this thread is supposed to have some connections to reality (like, you know, to the college application process).</p>

<p>Btw, I agree that most people I know who go around saying they are bad test-takers are the typical conceited product of grade inflation that you’re all talking about. Also, the term “bad test taker” is incredibly vague and a terrible descriptor, so no, I would never say that someone is a bad-test taker.
But here’s another thing about me: I wholly hate Islamic extremists that blow up buildings, but I don’t dislike every Muslim in the world by any means nor do I hate Islam. Get the difference?</p>

143

<p>

Very simple. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve studied. It doesn’t matter how much you’ve studied. The point of this test is to see who has more knowledge on certain areas, and if you know the stuff, you know it. If you don’t, then you don’t. You can’t say you know it, but you can’t take a test on it.</p>

<p>Some people are smart, some people are stupid. You can’t “standardized” intelligence. There will always be people who can do better than others in some things. What matters is the end product, not how you got there. Who cares if you’ve only spend 10 seconds or you’ve spend 10 years? In the end, if you know the same, then you’ll get about the same mark. And who would I pick? I would rather pick the person who learned the material in 10 seconds. He has a lot more potential.</p>

144

<p>mcgoogly, I’m still waiting for you to explain how belief in different levels of intelligence necessarily leads to ethnocentrism.</p>

145

<p>

</p>

<p>But what are they looking for? Students with the ability to shine even when the odds are against him/her? Or are they looking for a wide variety of skin colors around campus?</p>

<p>AA in its current state does the latter. Is that fair? Do we really care if Harvard has more rich black kids than other top schools? How does that make an institution look better? I understand if they want to take in the poor minorities or the poor Caucasians who have made the best of their situations, but that is a whole different kind of AA. Socioeconomic AA is what should be done, if anything is done at all. Is it impractical? Perhaps it is for non-need blind schools, but if socioeconomic AA can’t be done, then no AA should be done. AA IN ITS CURRENT STATE (tip: READ THIS) is simply reverse racism.</p>

146

<p>

Oh okay, so what you’re saying is that the reason that colleges weigh the SATs fairly heavily in the application process, is because they want kids who can do algebra-level math fairly quickly, and be able to answer superficial reading analysis questions after skimming short passages?
This is the primary and overwhelming reason why colleges make their applicants take the SAT, to gauge their knowledge of algebra and vocabulary? Really?</p>

<p>Oh and by the way, where did we get this idea that being able to do something faster shows that you’re more knowledgeable in it?</p>

<p>

Oh yeah. It’s not that you think some people are brighter than others, it’s the fact that you want to pigeonhole “intellect” into being exactly what the SAT attempts to measure.
You believe that your thought pattern is the dominant one, the one that should be used to hierarchically measure intelligence. When usually, it is not even intellectually relative to another’s mindset at all.</p>

<p>By the way, I’m not implying that you are racist or discriminate against other ethnicities or whatever.</p>

147

<p>You don’t know how much SATs are worth, and the topic is not on how much SATs are worth. The point is, there are no bad test takers. </p>

<p>No, being able to do questions faster doesn’t mean you are better. But the SATs give much more than enough time. In fact, you can cut the time down in half and still have more than enough. (Essay part disregarded).</p>

148

<p>There’s nothing scientific about “being a good test taker.” But some people might be using it as an umbrella term for anxiety and time issues. Others might just be trying to excuse their poor grasp of the test content. But most people make excuses for themselves, so this doesn’t bother me.</p>

149

<p>

Essentially: yes.</p>

<p>

  1. I know, but I think that “fairly heavily” is a decent approximation for the average top school; I’m not asserting that it’s all they care about or 50% of the application or anything.</p>

<p>2)You can do it in half the time, maybe. You have more than enough time.
Although really, that’s not even true. I mean you clearly don’t, right? That is unless you have a 2400 (or core 1600), in which case I retract my statement.</p>

150

<p>If you divide the time by the total number of questions to get an average time per question, I can do every single question that I know the answer to within less than half of the given time.</p>

<p>However I am definitely not a 2400, and don’t plan to study that hard for a 2400.</p>

<p>I’m not talking about me. I’m saying if you replace the SAT questions with 1+1, same number of questions, you’ll have more than enough time right? Okay, you can say you need to read more for the SAT.</p>

<p>How about they take parts from the cat in the hat for the paragraphs instead, and ask questions like “what color was the hat”?</p>

<p>Would you not have enough time?</p>

151

<p>u§ername,</p>

<p>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</a> National Center for Fair & Open Testing | FairTest](<a href=“http://www.fairtest.org%5DThe”>http://www.fairtest.org)</p>

152

<p>happymomof1, </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

153

<p>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 <em>unlimited</em> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

154

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

155

<p>

</p>

<p>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.</p>

156

<p>

</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>However, I do realize that many slacker do use the “I’m not a good test taker” excuse just for the hell of it.</p>

157

<p>um… no.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>I honestly don’t believe they require experience, or anything beyond logic and common sense. Then again, common sense isn’t so “common”.</p>

158

<p>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.</p>

159

<p>“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.”</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Here is an example for you to consider from a different part of life:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

160

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>There is no secret to FINDING the correct answer.</p>