<p>To clarify my question, I would like to know why what is the purpose of the test makers to test using time. As college board, and probably (unsure) Act says they want to test your readiness for college but from what I have seen and heard, most exams and tests especially in my high school there not that much time lineated they focus a lot on your knowledge of the material in the class, and generally you can finish early but if you don?t most teachers will let you stay a little after class and give you a note so your not cutting.
What I’m really trying to say is most people just don’t like standardized tests and I’m not one to favor but I see the point of them, but why focus so much on the clock, in math class and (contrary to the Ap calc, exam for one), we don’t really focus on time, but even my brother in college says time is not really key, on his exams (he’s in college), I don’t want to sound stupid, although for CC I may, I like to read the question at least twice to make sure I understand it, and then check my work to make sure I know I’m correct. What is the point of killing use and making use blaze through the test and make careless mistakes, or misunderstand a question. That’s not what college is like, or high school either (supposedly the purpose of the SAT is to test’s knowledge from high school). One of my main problem with time is tests like these are suppose to check knowledge and time should not really be a factor. Testing people on the Act (especially reading and science) to fly by and still not finish uh what?s the point that’s dumb, give at least a reasonable time frame and let people really be tested, and see if people don?t know the stuff (which is really the purpose) or they crash and burn under the time frame.
My guess and reasoning to why this do this is simple (again only an educated guess) they have to have a time limit so people don’t just sit in the room for 6 or more hours and they cant regulate it and proctors get angry and would not be willing to do this (which is a terrible reason, and is probably unfortunately right), plus the law would probably not let the sat exist if it lasted for 6 or more hours and for Ap it would be in possible (because they have afternoon testing) which is so unfair.
Oh another reason is scores would go up (that’s definitely true) and they would have a harder time to compare but that is easily fixable by curving differently instead of 70% it would be 75-80% or accordingly for AP exams.</p>
<p>The reason I point to this is there should be a change, standardized tests are usually hell for students but what can you do you cant eliminate them, there necessary to compare but timing them especially testing time based like they do know, where someone who has 1 minute more can make a whole lot of difference (absolutely literally), where there is a big room for error (its never exact, some even lose time).
The reason I want change is for those who read longer or for those who think a little longer (and not because there stupid) should get that extra time, seeing if one used 35 or 40 seconds is a terrible way to tell who is better, and very wrong.
I’m sorry if this is to long and takes to long for you to read or you just don’t care but this has really been harming people and it makes me disappointed.
P.S. If its ok with the mods I will also post this on the Sat and act board because this might be a little more biased on the Ap board, since they give a little more time and people taking Ap are usually more fit for it</p>
<p>State your opinion on this issue, and say why you think they use it</p>
<p>The time limit is to keep things standardized. It wouldn’t be fair if someone took 3 hours to do a section that takes most people an hour, especially since it results in that person receiving a much higher score than they deserve.</p>
<p>^Ok, I understand that, but why can’t they increase the time? The SAT CR is so extremely hard for me because you have to read so much and answer alot of questions in very little time. Whenever time is up, I’m always left with 3-4 questions unanswered.</p>
<p>More time = higher scores overall, which would screw up the curve. The questions would have to increase in difficulty, thus presenting the same dilemma all over again - people complaining about not having enough time, etc.</p>
<p>The SAT is designed for a bell curve. True, it’s adjusted every test, so missing 1 question won’t necessarily earn you a 780 every time (just for example), but overall there are very few people comparatively who can get a perfect score. Increasing time = more perfect/higher scores = skewed curve (simple statistics). The time limit is completely necessary.</p>
<p>so, curves could be ajusted
It would really show who knows there stuff, for example 70% in calc would be 80% and you could see if increasing the time limit would make those people increases there raw score</p>
<p>Also, the point of limiting the time on the CR section is to see that you can not only answer the questions correctly but are a quick reader with sharp comprehension skills. It really is set up well as of now: regardless of how your specific high school is with allowing extra time on tests, top colleges want students that will be able to handle the workload and keep up.</p>
<p>I agree that the time limit is freakishly short, but like other people have said, colleges don’t want to know that you can spend 8 hours on a test that could (and has been) completed in 4. </p>
<p>I’m not very sure about the leniency of college professors towards students that need extra time. If the test is designed to be one hour long, and 80% if the class manages to work with that time limit, you should be able to as well. My teachers at my school allow a maximum of 5 extra minutes (if you’re lucky). If you’re not done, too bad. </p>
<p>The time limit on the SAT is tough, and no one is able to naturally put up with it, thus the purpose of the wonderful things called practice tests. You learn to know exactly how much time you have, and exactly how much time you should spend on a question. If CR is a problem for you, read a lot and you will get used to reading faster. It isn’t as hard as it seems if you have sufficient practice.</p>
<p>As I’m sure most of you have noticed, we live in an extremely competitive society. More time would lead to more perfect scorers, which would lead to many admissions officers suffering heart attacks. SATs are obviously important in the admissions process, and offer many more ways of quantifying students than just by their abilities in math and reading. It also shows that they know how to effectively use their time so as to complete a test as strict as that.</p>
<p>Also, many top colleges have come to expect extremely high scores from their students. The question isn’t if you know how to apply a math formula to find the answer to a math problem on the SAT, but it’s if you know it so well that you don’t even need to think about it before using it.</p>
<p>And finally, I’d like to point out that a discussion like this, although interesting, serves absolutely no greater purpose. Every reputable standardized test gives insufficient time to it’s takers, and that definitely won’t change any time soon.</p>
<p>I wasnt only talking about Sat’s but Ap’s or the Act
What’s the point to test something so stuped as speed, do any of your classes test speed and I mean not like you have a class period and that’s an hour but speed like the Sat or Act or even the AP.
Ex. Act science if they want to see your science analyzing skills why give so little time, or why should a person who takes an extra 10 minutes to plot out there DBQ’s for Ap US history or some other exam get lower, just because there more carefull or what they where tought there whole life.
I dont believe that even in MIT or Harvard they use the clock in that why.
I actually believe they try and check your problem solving skills and how you think, and that’s what should be in any exam.
Think about it wouldn’t it be better to see if you could do more math on the Ap calc, exam then 70% (if that would be the new curve by changing the time limit), and see how much you could do, then leting someone who could only do 70% but within that time frame. Am I wrong? Shouldnt the person who know’s they could solve all of the questions but needs more time get better then someone who could only get 70% but could do it in the time allotted? Am i wrong?</p>
<p>I go to a community college; my professors have PhDs from schools like Stanford, UCs, etc. and they do not give students extra time. If a CC is like this, I can only imagine that a top university also uses time constraints. </p>
<p>The fact is, many top scoring students could have probably gotten a perfect score if they’d had time to check their answers and such; this would only make it more difficult to differentiate between students and lower the value of a perfect or high test score.</p>
<p>but they probably give a reasonable amount of time.
Technically speaking my tests are also timed, in every class you have that period, and most teachers wont give you a note Etc.
but that’s not what I mean by timed, I mean like the Sat you have 25 minutes and then bang your done stop or your screwed!
Does anybody actually have something like that, do most people finish or are 80% complaining saying more time. that’s what I mean by test with a clock not that you have infinity time</p>
<p>Yes, I will admit that the SAT/ACT time is ridiculous, but that’s the way it is. In my case, I know that if I’d had an extra 5 or 10 minutes on math or science, I would have probably gotten a 35 or 36 on each. However, I’m sure many more people would have done so as well, and then the value of a 35/36 would be depreciated or the curve would just be worse.</p>
<p>A common argument is to raise the toughness of the curve. Many students that are just genuinely bad at math, or writing or whatever, will suffer more from this than they would from a crazy time limit.</p>
<p>And actually, I have had 5 minute pop quizes in science. They usually have about 10 short questions. You don’t finish, the test is taken away from you anyway. </p>
<p>As for APs, they are designed for gifted students. These students generally won’t complain about time limits. Furthermore, some may even appreciate the limits because they feel very rewarded with a good score.</p>
<p>Time limits aren’t just there to ruin the lives of students. They teach you to be exact and careful with your answer the first time you make it, instead of making 43792 mistakes that you have to correct. Also, most sections of the SAT, and most AP exams, have minimal surprises. You should know what to expect if you studied. With the SAT math section, you can learn to pinpoint crucial information in each of the problems so that you won’t have to spend time staring at it to try and find the vestiges of an answer. AP Calc, for example, has extremely similar FRQs every year. If you know what to expect, you just work at the answer for a short period of time, quickly go over it, and then move on. </p>
<p>Like I said before, there is nothing wrong with the time limits if you practice. After writing 12 practice SAT essays, you know exactly when to stop making an outline, exactly when to start writing and exactly when to finish. Instead of complaining, you should take some practice SATs. You may even start to think that there is a bit more time than necessary for some of the sections.</p>
<p>actually im a senior already so Sat’s are a thing of a past.
I was making more of an argument for the elimination of the time stress they have now but it makes no difference to me know.
But still I do stick with the idea that if more time was given you could really see, which is what a test should do who knows how much, you could not complain that you got only 70% right because you had so little but would need 80% or whatever the new curve would be to get right to get that new curved score, and in my opinion that’s a lot more far, because in this system we use know we are rewarding people who know less and can answer quickly then we do to the more intelligent and who take more longer to think and process because thinking is a process, and don’t ever forget that. I just can’t remember who said that.</p>
<p>I am completely fine with the AP time limits, you get very used to them after a while, and it really tests your knowledge on the spot. However, the time limit for the SAT writing was just plain ridiculous. Plus, I thought the whole point of the SAT’s was to be objective, but now they add an entire section that is 75% subjective. Confuses me.</p>
<p>But really, I think time limits are something everybody should get used to. In EVERY career, there is some sort of time limit. If we grew up knowing we could take our time completing necessary tasks, we would never learn, and therefore never progress.</p>
<p>i see what you mean, but most of use will not have limits in the time area and time i mean exact minutes and seconds and you have to check your watch every few minutes to see your on track. Yes almost all will have deadlines as we due in H.S. and in college the same will happen and in our job if your boss tells you to have it done by a certain day you better have it done, but as I even prove my point no one and i mean no one will care if you site and do it for 4 hours at home or you take 15 hours because your a little slow for some reason or was sick or whatever the reason, and I mean job’s that use the brain not job’s like Burger king where you make stuff quickly.
But Im wondering if anyone see’s my point.
I would just really wont Ap to lighten up and instead of focusing so much on time, to focus a lot more on the subject tested thats whats realy important, because I’m taking Calc this year and I know if I dont finish this exam on time and I can solve the problems (meaning I would know all the steps) I would be very angry if I got a 4 or a 3 just because I took an extra few minutes on a problem.
It just sucks! but I guess that’s life and it’s not soon to change. But maybe it will in the future and our kids will not have to worry about it (lol that’s a lot to think ahead but I didnt really mean it literally)</p>