Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

wlcm · 07-26-2003, 11:26 AM

Standardized tests used to be a good indicator of your abilities. I am somewhat tired of people who complain about them. From my standpoint standarized tests--certain ones in particular like SAT II subject tests or AP tests are far better in representing your abilities than grades ever will.

i come from texas where we have or used to have this thing called the TAAS - texas assessment of academic skills - test. It is a standaridzed untimed test of the most basic skills that texas thinks you should know before entering the next grade or graduating. The test is so simple that the only people that would have trouble with it would be kids that cannot read the english it takes to follow the directions of the test.

And yet i am appalled by the parents that i hear on the radio and tv that totally complain about the "horrors of taas" and how big a deal or how much strain it puts on their little kids. It is supposed to be the bare minimum requirements for a child of that level and parents can't seem to grasp that fact and decide they should make fools out of their children by publicly announcing that their child is too stupid to pass the bare minimum test, but yet should still be allow to advance on to the next grade because the elementry school teachers were nice enough to give their child some pity grades.

I know this isn't really about the college admissions type standarized test, but it demonstrates a very good point. If you were good enough in the first place, you should do well enough on any standarized test regardless. You might not be able to hit the 1500's without a bit of preparation, but i find that most people who complain about standarized tests are the ones that find out that they are ranked poorly in the results--which is not to say that any of you were one of them, its just my experience in the matters.

the SAT's in particular don't really hold as much water as it used to anyways. I read somewhere that the whole UC system was planning to eliminate SAT from their admissions process. In response, the College Board--the people who more or less create all of these national standarized tests--is revamping the SAT to include a writing section and perhaps change the rest of the test around to better represent the reasoning skills of today's graduatese.

The true flaw of standarized testing is the trend where students from the middle class and upper middle class spend exorbatant amounts of money to Standarized test prep centers like Princeton Review, etc so that they can have an edge in the tests. They cram definitions of at least 1000 obscure words into their heads and learn all sort of effective guessing games in order to try to circumvent the real purpose of the test. It then comes down to who studies the test itself more for a test where you weren't supposed to be able to study for. So consequently, in my public high school--one that is located in a very affluent area, an SAT score less than 1500 seems almost unsatisfactory, and a score of 1600 deserved a "good job," but didn't seem like anything too spectacular.

I blame programs like the Princeton Review for the degradation of standarized tests. what once was a effective and useful tool becomes useless when people are teaching how to circumvent the test's original intent so that student's could inflate their scores because they think either it will get them into the college of theier choice, or that they can compete against all the other people that do the same. In my opinion, thats just as bad as cheating.

But all in all, the only standized test that i have given any respect towards because of the previous problem stated above for all other tests, is the Advanced Placement tests. These AP tests rigorously tests your ability in that one particular subject, and given certain colleges, entiltes you to credit or even a grade for some college classes if you happen to do well. It is a test where you spend all year or semester preparing for in the highschool equivalant of the class and it is definatly not something that can be easily and successfully BS'ed on.

As for college admissions, if i had it my way, admissions officers would somehow probe your mind to see how much you want to learn, and how well you do learn. Then that way it prevents the fools that only know how to make themselves look good on paper from getting into the really good colleges and taking up space where more deserving but less PR-inclined people should be.

As it currently stands college adminstions is just one big PR game and standarized tests are just one of the benchmarks you have to participate in.

07-26-2003, 11:26 AM	#7 (permalink)
wlcm Tilted Location: Austin, TX	Standardized tests used to be a good indicator of your abilities. I am somewhat tired of people who complain about them. From my standpoint standarized tests--certain ones in particular like SAT II subject tests or AP tests are far better in representing your abilities than grades ever will. i come from texas where we have or used to have this thing called the TAAS - texas assessment of academic skills - test. It is a standaridzed untimed test of the most basic skills that texas thinks you should know before entering the next grade or graduating. The test is so simple that the only people that would have trouble with it would be kids that cannot read the english it takes to follow the directions of the test. And yet i am appalled by the parents that i hear on the radio and tv that totally complain about the "horrors of taas" and how big a deal or how much strain it puts on their little kids. It is supposed to be the bare minimum requirements for a child of that level and parents can't seem to grasp that fact and decide they should make fools out of their children by publicly announcing that their child is too stupid to pass the bare minimum test, but yet should still be allow to advance on to the next grade because the elementry school teachers were nice enough to give their child some pity grades. I know this isn't really about the college admissions type standarized test, but it demonstrates a very good point. If you were good enough in the first place, you should do well enough on any standarized test regardless. You might not be able to hit the 1500's without a bit of preparation, but i find that most people who complain about standarized tests are the ones that find out that they are ranked poorly in the results--which is not to say that any of you were one of them, its just my experience in the matters. the SAT's in particular don't really hold as much water as it used to anyways. I read somewhere that the whole UC system was planning to eliminate SAT from their admissions process. In response, the College Board--the people who more or less create all of these national standarized tests--is revamping the SAT to include a writing section and perhaps change the rest of the test around to better represent the reasoning skills of today's graduatese. The true flaw of standarized testing is the trend where students from the middle class and upper middle class spend exorbatant amounts of money to Standarized test prep centers like Princeton Review, etc so that they can have an edge in the tests. They cram definitions of at least 1000 obscure words into their heads and learn all sort of effective guessing games in order to try to circumvent the real purpose of the test. It then comes down to who studies the test itself more for a test where you weren't supposed to be able to study for. So consequently, in my public high school--one that is located in a very affluent area, an SAT score less than 1500 seems almost unsatisfactory, and a score of 1600 deserved a "good job," but didn't seem like anything too spectacular. I blame programs like the Princeton Review for the degradation of standarized tests. what once was a effective and useful tool becomes useless when people are teaching how to circumvent the test's original intent so that student's could inflate their scores because they think either it will get them into the college of theier choice, or that they can compete against all the other people that do the same. In my opinion, thats just as bad as cheating. But all in all, the only standized test that i have given any respect towards because of the previous problem stated above for all other tests, is the Advanced Placement tests. These AP tests rigorously tests your ability in that one particular subject, and given certain colleges, entiltes you to credit or even a grade for some college classes if you happen to do well. It is a test where you spend all year or semester preparing for in the highschool equivalant of the class and it is definatly not something that can be easily and successfully BS'ed on. As for college admissions, if i had it my way, admissions officers would somehow probe your mind to see how much you want to learn, and how well you do learn. Then that way it prevents the fools that only know how to make themselves look good on paper from getting into the really good colleges and taking up space where more deserving but less PR-inclined people should be. As it currently stands college adminstions is just one big PR game and standarized tests are just one of the benchmarks you have to participate in.