<p>What’s the point in proving that there’s no such thing as a bad test taker? I personally believe that anybody can take down the test, so I got a high score and moved on. I don’t feel the need to prove that people who didn’t score as high are inferior, even if they really are inferior.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People who overdo preparing for these things want to convince themselves that they didn’t waste hours upon hours studying for an exam that will mean nothing in a few years.</p>
<p>
Your country also needs more people like you, who distort other people’s words. </p>
<p>Did I ever say I did not try hard? Did I ever say I did not work hard to achieve a relatively higher score on the AMCs? Did I say that logic and common sense can solve all problems? No. I tried to leave my personal experiences out of this, but people keeping saying things such as “I’ll assume you…” or “people smarter than you and I…”. Besides, it’s just another example, like all examples. </p>
<p>I’m not generalizing about life or anything else. I’m not saying the SATs are perfect or even good. But the SATs do effectively test the material that it tests.</p>
<p>
Again, I completely disagree. Put the question 1+1, hide it all you can, but it’s still 1+1, and anyone can solve it. Questions are only harder because they require a deeper understanding of the material, not because of some trick. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t quote your example, but two things:
- We’re not looking at a different part of life, just the SATs which may or may not mean anything.
- Your example is off. </p>
<p>What you said would be more close to Person A using this method to solve the problem while person B uses the other method of solving the problem. But it doesn’t really matter how they solve it on the SATs, does it. It only matters if they can solve it. </p>
<p>But then your analogy might actually be good, and finally make you understand what I’m trying to convey.</p>
<p>Okay, so let’s say Susie was forced to take an exam on map reading. You say she would flunk because she’s a bad test taker. However, the actual truth is, Susie IS a bad map reader. She isn’t a pro map reader but fails at tests, she IS A BAD MAP READER. The test tests map reading skills, not if you can get from point A to point B. Therefore she isn’t a bad test taker. </p>
<p>Does this mean she can’t get from point A to point B? No. Does this mean she isn’t smart? No. Does it really matter that she failed at reading maps when she can still follow directions? Not really. Does this mean though, that she is bad at map reading - which was what the test was all about? Yes.</p>
<p>Good, you are finally getting there.</p>
<p>Susie is a bad map reader, and will likely fail at a map skills test. However, in real life, using the skill set that she does have, she can get the job done (getting from here to there). Not to mention that the specific design of that exam will affect the results. Is she given a map and told to drive to the next county and buy milk at a specific store? Is she given a map and a set of multiple choice questions about the map? Can she write on the exam sheet and make her own notes first (converting the image to a verbal description)? </p>
<p>A very large part of doing well on the SAT is being skilled at taking multiple-choice exams. You can know the facts. You may very well be able to get from point A to point B in whatever subject area you care to mention. However, if you are missing the exam-taking skills necessary to manage the SAT, you simply aren’t going to perform as well as a student who (either by native talent or by extensive practice) does have those skills.</p>
<p>Multiple choice exams are notoriously difficult to design, and have a negative reputation in the education industry because of their general trickiness (that results from necessities in the design). However, they are very popular for mass administration because they are easy to administer and to score. If every college aspirant were to sit multiple subject area exams with well-designed short-answer and multiple choice questions along with requirements to give oral presentations, and to demonstrate applicable laboratory (or other practical) skills, the colleges and universities would truly have useful information about which students were better prepared for further studies in any given subject. However, the time and cost involved in administering and scoring such a set of exams is plain and simply prohibitive.</p>
<p>What? Now people aren’t allowed to be bad test takers? The difference between the SAT and school examinations is that the former tests logic and reasoning, the latter actual knowledge. Thus, studying for the SAT is learning and practicing test-taking techniques (which Kaplan and Princeton Review thrive on), while studying for school exams is a review of course material.</p>
<p>A good SAT score is not necessarily indicative of an intelligent person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm… No. I’m not “finally getting there”. You’re forcing me to agree with you on something that’s completely OFFTOPIC. </p>
<p>As I’ve said again and again, I don’t give if people can succeed without the SATs okay? That’s not the topic!!! I suggest you read the title 100 times. Perhaps then you will actually understand what I’m talking about. I never said people can’t be successful without the SATs!!!</p>
<p>Can you understand that? I don’t give how good the SATs are. I don’t give if people can succeed without the SATs. </p>
<p>And no. I don’t see any math question saying “You have to use AM-GM to solve this problem”. Or “you have to use combinatorics”. </p>
<p>You can do it anyway you want. As long as you get to the answer. </p>
<p>
The former tests a form of knowledge, the latter tests another form of knowledge.</p>
<p>What form of knowledge does the SAT test? Well… I don’t know. But school tests certainly does not test “actual knowledge”. School only tests how much you memorize, and for math, how well you can use a calculator. No understanding is involed whatsoever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about your school… but sure, it’s another valuable personal anecdote from you.</p>
<p>Why don’t you give some proof otherwise then? Instead of just attacking me, perhaps you can actually say something useful?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The 10+ readily available released exams from Collegeboard should more than enough make up for a lack of standardized testing during elementary school. I think most families can afford to spend $20 on a BB, or at least get to a library to borrow one.</p>
<p>I know personal experiences don’t prove much, but I found that CB practice tests helped me much more than my experience from past standardized tests. I took my PSAT without taking any CB practice tests, and made numerous silly mistakes because, even though I had taken a number of standardized tests before, I was unfamiliar with the specific structure of that test. Each test has a totally different format and content type, so the experience from one test doesn’t really carry over to the next. When I took my SAT after going through the BB, I did much better, not because I had more experience taking tests, but because I had grown much more familiar with the specific format and quesitons of the specific test I was taking. </p>
<p>Experience aside, basic testing strategies like POE can easily be mastered through practice. Once you get in the higher score ranges, such strategies don’t help much anyway. It’s not like the kids who score high are constantly gaming the test and using cheap tricks and POE’ing every question and doing things that poor kids have never heard of. To do well, you have to be able to get the answer right most of the time without resorting to tricks. And it’s not as though elementary school kids are thinking of testing strategies at that age, anyway, so experience doesn’t help in that sense.</p>
<p>Besides, students generally don’t take standardized tests very seriously until high school. Either they’re too young to understand what’s going on, or they know that the tests aren’t going to affect them in any meaningful way. So even kids with lots of testing experience still have to deal with the stress of taking the first standardized test that really matters.</p>
<p>I’m also not sure where you’re getting the idea that wealthy kids have more exposure to standardized tests in the first place. I have attended both public and private schools, and took many, many more standardized tests at the public schools than at the private schools. From what I know, many states mandate standardized testing for public schools, but such regulations do no apply to private schools.</p>
<p>Again, this is all form personal experience so perhaps I am missing something major. But I think you need to provide more support for your position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a difference. There are other options in life besides reading maps. I’m not so sure there is an alternative to knowing basic reading, writing, and math skills.</p>
<p>Perhaps you will say creativity is important – fine, that’s why we submit essays. Perhaps you will say hard work is necessary as well – GPA measures that. Maybe you will say that successful people need to be able to make a good impression on others – that’s what rec letters are for. The anti-SAT group on this thread is ignoring the fact that many other factors play a role in admissions. If the SAT was the only determinant, I would indeed object. But as a measurement of a particular type of intellectual ability, I think it has an important place in the application process, just as every other aspect of the application plays an important role, even though none of them provides a perfect and complete assessment of a person’s intellectual capabilities.</p>
<p>Username,why are you so sure there are no bad test takers? Other than “common sense” how do you know? I just find your certainty to be puzzling. It makes you seem a little narrow-minded, which may well not be the case.</p>
<p>I see kids who did much better on practice tests than they ended up doing on the real one, I have seen kids that got answers wrong to questions they clearly knew when asked about it later, I have had kids say they ran out of time on some of the sections, etc, etc. sometimes the problem seems to be lack of preparation, or lack of academic ability but often it is not clear what went wrong. How can you be so sure that not one single person is a bad test taker.</p>
<p>PS, I don’t know if you are looking at it differently, but I would define bad test takers as those for whom their actual knowledge, skills, aptitude (or whatever that particular test is designed to measure) is not reflected in their score, assuming they have done a reasonable amount of preparation.</p>
<p>Until you can give me an actual bad test taker, I’ll still believe there are no bad test takers. It’s the conclusion I got after using induction. Perhaps there are bad test takers in the world, but I will doubt it until you show me one. </p>
<p>As I’ve said before, the SATs may or may not test “actual knowledge”. I’m not the one to say whether it does or not. However, getting a lower mark on the SATs means that You aren’t 100% comfortable with the material the SATs are testing. Whether that’s actual knowledge or skill, or none of the above, I don’t care. The SATs could be a bogus test that’s absolutely meaningless. However, a low score on the SATs does mean a lack of understanding of the SATs, and never “bad test taking abilities”. My opinion.</p>
<p>Again, not a lack of 'test taking skills", just the knowledge that is tested by the SATs.</p>
<p>I hear what you are saying about believing that there are bad test takers if you ever actually saw one, but seriously, how would you know one if you saw one? I mean, I could show you a kid I know (in my D’s class) who got very good grades (3.8 -4.0) thoughout high school at a very competitive school which regularly sends kids to Ivy League, had a lot of ECs including varsity and club sports, took an SAT prep class, did multiple practice tests and ended up scoring around 1500 or 1550 out of 2400. She also took AP classes and did poorly on 2 of the AP exam. It is not a matter of grade inflation, she was in the top 15% of the class. I don’t have all the answers, but could this be a bad test taker?</p>
<p>As I’ve said, if you can do fine on a test with just 1+1 or something to that effect, then you’re not a bad test taker.</p>
<p>I really have no faith in GPA at all. Bad personal experiences, but still. I don’t believe GPA shows anything; not even how hard working you are. I mean GPA in some schools are definitely very useful and indicative, but it’s hard to identify those.</p>
<p>^ I worked my a$$ for my GPA, but I had a “average” (only slightly above the national average) SAT score. =(</p>
<p>yes, while other people can slack off and still get a high GPA. Do you think that’s fair? I don’t think it shows much.</p>
<p>By other people I mean people with similar abilities as you in different schools.</p>
<p>^ there you are saying that GPA should be based on effort? I don’t think many would agree. edit: I see, you are saying that the differences in schools’ GPA system account for this?</p>
<p>Anyway, to get to the main point-- I don’t have a strong personal stance on this topic, so I’m curious as to whether we might be able to find a satisfactory answer to the question of whether “bad test takers” exist. Much of what I say here is really for clarification. I’ll mostly use username’s posts as it seems like most people are replying to him.</p>
<p>Currently, it seems like your claim, as you see it, could be unfalsifiable. That is, you are saying that every part of taking the SAT is what is being tested, and that test-taking ability is something that is outside of what is being tested. In this framework, there is then no such thing as test-taking ability when it comes to the SAT, as things such as “POE, filling in bubbles, etc” are considered part of the test anyway. A deficiency in these “skills” (those are pretty bad examples actually), is then considered to be a deficiency in “the material that the SATs are testing”. Herein is, I think, the problem. If someone presents some aspect of taking the SAT that he or she might classify as part of “test taking ability”, you appear to classify it as part of what the SAT tests. And thus, you must (under this framework) come to the conclusion that bad test takers do not exist because test taking ability (as something independent to tested material) does not exist either.</p>
<p>Is that a fair analysis?</p>
<p>Anyway, to clarify your position, how would you falsify your claim? You have apparently not seen a bad test taker before, but in what circumstance would you say: okay, that person is a bad test taker? So far, you offer to see whether anyone would do “badly” on a test consisting of 1+1. Presumably you haven’t actually administered this test so no wonder you haven’t seen a bad test taker, but anyway I know that we can assume that everyone should ace a test like that. However, this criteria is not reflective of the possible “skill” in test taking that you can use in the SAT. In that case, there is one question. In the SAT, there are… a lot. So, one difference is that you will need to manage your time better on the SAT- judgement on whether it is a good idea to persue a question or to leave it may differ among people. However, would you classify the ability to manage time as a test taking skill or part of what the SAT tests? </p>
<p>Another difference is that some people get more “mentally weary” towards the end of the SAT than others. Here is one case where I personally believe that test taking ability is distinguished from what the SAT tests. (using myself as evidence), it is possible for a person to mess up on a question towards the end of the SAT whereas that same person would have been able to answer that question had it been at the beginning. I’m guessing that some people are more affected by this than others.</p>
<p>Anyway, it would be helpful if you say what you would consider to be a test taking skill/ability, and perhaps present a scenario where you would consider someone to be a bad test taker- not one where you isolate their test taking skill through testing them on 1+1. That assumes that test taking skill and difficulty of material is independent, which I do not believe to be true. Certainly time management increases in importance with test difficulty and mental weariness increases with length. And these two factors would be classified, by most, as test taking ability though I don’t know if you would classify them as such.</p>
<p>Now on the other side, I think that to identify yourself as a bad test taker would be very difficult to do, earnestly. I am always skeptical when someone proclaims themself to be just a bad test taker to account for a low score, as deficiency in test taking ability can only cause so much of a score drop if you actually know how to do the problems.</p>
<p>edit: I saw that you dismissed time management as “common sense”. I don’t think it is that simple. Let’s take a more difficult test, such as the AMC, where time management is critical in order to maximize score. Now the important skill here is to estimate how long a given problem will take, identify the problems which look like they will take the least time, while not using up so much time in the process. That is difficult. I think that it is a skill to estimate the length of a problem without actually doing the problem. Sure, being better at math will make this estimation easier, but do you think that given two people who solve a problem in the same length of time, they will have the same estimate in the time it would have taken? It certainly seems possible for this particular trait to vary among individuals. Now lets look at the people who are not perfect in their knowledge of what the SAT tests. Maybe their optimal scores, given their knowledge, are achieved by leaving a third of the questions blank. They are both aware that you should spend the least time on the most questions- that part of time management is common sense. But perhaps one of them is not great at estimating the time that it takes to complete a question. Would that person would be expected to answer less of these questions correctly? If so, then wouldn’t that person be, if not a bad test taker, but a worse test taker? (in terms of the SAT)</p>
<p>I don’t know why but some of the text doesn’t show up after an edit above so I have to double post</p>
<p>(cont) Now lets look at the people who are not perfect in their knowledge of what the SAT tests. Maybe their optimal scores, given their knowledge, are achieved by leaving a third of the questions blank. They are both aware that you should spend the least time on the most questions- that part of time management is common sense. But perhaps one of them is not great at estimating the time that it takes to complete a question. Would that person would be expected to answer less of these questions correctly? If so, then wouldn’t that person be, if not a bad test taker, but a worse test taker? (in terms of the SAT)</p>
<p>I think I fail at being a test taker because I always think about exceptions and if the test maker knew of these exceptions. But this is mainly on school tests. On standardized testing, I think it’s more of an endurance issue because I progressively do worse on the ACT from Math to Reading to Science. English on the other hand is mainly due to my horrible skills when it comes to the English language haha.</p>
<p>
Actually, yes. Good job. Someone who at least understands what I’m talking about. </p>
<p>However, the 1+1 was just an example. Time shouldn’t be an issue if you know how to do the questions. Same with any other “trick”. The “tricks” can make your mark higher than you deserve by a bit, but it won’t make you lower than what you’re actually supposed to get if you don’t know them. Furthermore the tricks only work for people who can’t do well (why would you need tricks if you’re getting a 2400 everytime?). People here are assuming everyone who scores good is using tricks to get that score… well… only the mid-range scores like 1700-2200ish (I’m not sure how big the exact range is) can benefit much from those “tricks”, which really are nothing more than common sense.</p>
<p>1+1 is just an example.</p>
<p>What if we switch the CR section with questions that only require vocabulary up to the 4th grade, and passages that are something like “the cat in the hat”,
We switch the math section with just addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of integers less than 100,
We switch the essay to a summary on a piece of reading, and make the grammar section only contain spelling errors on simple words?</p>
<p>We’ll have the same number of questions, passages of the same length, given in the same style. </p>
<p>Do you think that a bad test taker would get equally as bad on such an exam?</p>