Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Knowledge and How-To


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-24-2003, 05:56 PM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Autonomous Zone
Standardized testing

I hate standardized testing. They don't represent anything about a person or how good a student they are or will be. I know kids that know more than I ever will, yet get lower tests scores on the SAT and ACT and IQ tests. My grade point right now is 3.334. Thats the bare minimum to get into the college I want to. I do as little work as I can get away with, yet largly because of my test scores I'm getting a full ride to college. I don't think thats fair. There are kids that work their asses off to get their 4.333 GPA(the max at my school) and will have trouble getting into a good college because they got 27 on their ACT.

I realize that grade point can't be used for admissions because its subjective to a high school's difficulty, but standardized testing that tests nothing but your predispossed intelligence are weighed too heavily in my opinion.
Pennington is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 06:35 PM   #2 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: In the garage, under the car.
How would you suggest the admission process be changed? Remember, the admissions staff at any school has to sift through thousands of applications quickly. If they can't use GPAs or standardized test scores, what else is there for them to weed people out quickly?

Adding more people to the staff isn't the answer, either, unless you think college doesn't cost enough already.

By the way, why do you think they can't use grade points??? That's news to me.
FastShark85 is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 10:30 PM   #3 (permalink)
Archangel of Change
 
I like the Canadian system. It is based on your high school marks, extra curriculars and volunteer work. Some schools look at all of your marks from gr.9-12, others look at gr.11-12 only, some look at gr.12 only, but it is pretty good. It is true that different schools mark differently but they can tell by comparing you to other students from your school.
hobo is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 10:41 PM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Autonomous Zone
I'll use my area for an example. I live in western Illinois where the highest GPA you can get is about 4.333 if you take all the AP/honors classes. Recently I was at the state science fair and got to talking with some kids from Chicagoland. Up there apearently you can get a 5.5 GPA because of A+s which somehow are higher than As and they have an honors class for every subject, not just english like we do here. Now the smartest kids from my school have a 4.333 while the smartest kids from the suburbs will have a 5.5. You just can't compare them.

As for an alternate to the ACT/SAT? I honestly don't know. But the SAT dosn't test much of anything but how well you can guess what words mean and how well you do math. Some kids aren't good at math. Should they not get into college because of it? If your applying to a liberal arts school, they still look at you SAT scores even if they know that you will probably not take another math class the rest of your life. The tests should at least cover the subjects that the students are going into.
Pennington is offline  
Old 07-25-2003, 06:44 AM   #5 (permalink)
Psycho
 
College/Universities take into account the varying methods of calculating GPA for probably almost every school district. They assign relative weights to them accordingly. At least that's what my school told me.. *shrug*
nash is offline  
Old 07-25-2003, 08:53 AM   #6 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: In the garage, under the car.
College admission staffs will usually be able to figure out the GPA thing.

I disagree about the ACT/SAT only being good at showing who's skilled at guessing the best. They are designed to test what students should have learned, though often haven't.

For completely stupid tests, consider that LSAT (Law School Admission Test). It basically forces the law-school-bound crowd to play logic games for half a day. It has nothing to do with the ability to practice law, but rather tests one's ability to figure stuff out.....just a bunch of brain teasers. I hated it, thought it was silly, but did well because I needed to do well in order to gain admission to the school of my choice.

The college application and admission process is just the beginning of your exposure to a world filled with inane tests, although future ones are taken daily (i.e., playing the office place "game") as you try to make your boss happy.
FastShark85 is offline  
Old 07-26-2003, 11:26 AM   #7 (permalink)
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.
wlcm is offline  
Old 07-26-2003, 09:04 PM   #8 (permalink)
Know Where!
 
MacGnG's Avatar
 
stadardized tests test how well u can take standardized tests. thats about it.

i didn't do too bad but i coulda done better. they aren't an indicator of anything. but we are required to take it cause we have to.
MacGnG is offline  
Old 07-26-2003, 09:23 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
What is difficult about a standardized test?

4) Cat goes:
A) Moo
B) Meow
C) Rawr

This test question is bad because:
1. If your black you might be from an african tribe where cats are lions so you choose incorrectly C.
2. It is discriminatory (agains thte stupid)
3. Shit man!!! I can't take the pressure! er...A! SHIT! I'm not stupid! Reallly!

Quote:
Should they not get into college because of it?
Whats wrong with taking the best of the best?
Xell101 is offline  
Old 07-27-2003, 07:35 PM   #10 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: MN
The result of testing like this is teachers who teach for the test. There are other measures a school should be judged by ie. the amount of money it gets per student vs. the drop-out rate....
__________________
Ban country music, it promotes inbreeding.
Ralvek is offline  
Old 07-28-2003, 06:01 AM   #11 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: In the garage, under the car.
Perhaps every college should administer its own admission test. That's how it worked back (waayyy back) when I was trying to get into the non-public high schools.

It would be expensive to do, but the tests could be administered in the same way as the SATs. Show up at the testing center, get the right college's exam (which would have to be delivered in advance after you sent in your test fee to the college). Other kids are taking different tests for different colleges, so there's no way to cheat by looking at the guy next to you.

The big test-prep courses would become less meaningful, except for only the most popular schools. It wouldn't be profitable for places like the Princeton Review to prepare a prep course for every school; just the big ones.

If you want to try to get into more than one school, tough $hit, you're wasting as many Saturdays as are necessary, and paying as many fees as are necessary, for you to apply to all the schools you want.

Kinda makes the "standardized" testing scheme a little more attractive.
FastShark85 is offline  
Old 07-30-2003, 08:50 PM   #12 (permalink)
Loser
 
Location: Somewhere near Hubby
Some colleges use standardized tests as a way of *including* students rather than weeding them. In other words, if your GPA is low but your SAT scores are good, they take a second look and maybe try to make a determination at the interview.

Conversely, a student with a strong GPA but low SAT scores could get in on the merits of the GPA.

Most college admissions people have a lot of experience with evaluating students using a number of criteria. They see *many* students over the years and are able to correlate their admissions standards with actual performance in the college.
angela146 is offline  
Old 07-30-2003, 10:43 PM   #13 (permalink)
2+2=5? Not again!
 
MichaelFarker's Avatar
 
Location: Dallas, Texas
I agree that either a great gpa or top test scores are sufficient to get someone into college.
As far as what standardized tests really say about later success ... sometimes size does matter; nonetheless, it is mostly what you do with what you have. It seems that noone famous for financial success claims to be smart. They say that the main thing is following a failure with another potential success.
MichaelFarker is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 08:55 AM   #14 (permalink)
Crazy
 
With such diversity in the quality and honesty of grading systems in secondary education, some sort of standardized test is required to help access the quality of an incoming student.

The old-style SAT was meant to measure your aptitude for learning, so concentrated a lot on deduction, logic, and problem solving. Since so much of education is memorization, discipline, and busy work, this was a nice balance. Colleges are much more interested in people with a lot of potential that aren't using it all, than they are people that are working hard to just get by. They offer a a much bigger potential payoff, and if they don't work out the college doesn't care it still got a few years tuition.

Besides jobs that I and a lot of other people consider interesting are a lot closer to a standardized test than a high school course. Think about it, do you want to spend you life :

remembering and following steps/procedures/rules

Solving unique problems using former experiences, general guidelines, and logic
obediah is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 09:05 AM   #15 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: In the garage, under the car.
Quote:
Originally posted by obediah


Besides jobs that I and a lot of other people consider interesting are a lot closer to a standardized test than a high school course. Think about it, do you want to spend you life :

remembering and following steps/procedures/rules

Solving unique problems using former experiences, general guidelines, and logic
Geez....you just described the practice of law.
FastShark85 is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 06:38 AM   #16 (permalink)
Crazy
 
I guess that would explain why it takes twice as long as everything else.

Part of me (the part that likes money) wishes I had went ahead and mixed law and biology in school instead of computers and biology. I guess I'd still be in some sort of school, but I'd be getting ready to make some serious money setting back the progress of science hundreds of years.
obediah is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 07:49 AM   #17 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: In the garage, under the car.
Quote:
Originally posted by obediah
I guess that would explain why it takes twice as long as everything else.
Nah, it's just because we bill by the hour.
FastShark85 is offline  
Old 08-09-2003, 06:59 PM   #18 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Charlotte, N.C.
School shouldn't be about teaching you how to take a test. It should be there to teach you knowledge, whether or not it has anything to do with aquiring a 'successful' job or not.

Knowledge is important. Pre-requisites to pre-requisites to high paying jobs are bullshit.

Goddamn school systems.
__________________
it's all nice on ice alright
and it's not day
and it's not night
but it's all nice on ice alright
Spritebox is offline  
Old 08-10-2003, 11:43 AM   #19 (permalink)
Crazy
 
koli70's Avatar
 
Location: South Dakota
I also hate standardized tests. All I know is colleges shouldnt base everything on those and grades. What if your a person that does horrible in the high school atmosphere but would flourish in the college environment? Its not all about the best of the best, everyone deserves a chance.
__________________
Woman is a danger cat
koli70 is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 08:08 PM   #20 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Land of the Hanging Chad
As much as we hate them, there is a need for standardized tests simply so that all students can tested with a uniform standard for measuring the few basic skills (reading, math) that a college bound person should have.

They are subjective in that no person is ever going know every word or every mathmatical process, but that's why one doesn't need to get near a perfect score to do well.

The SAT/ACT is just one factor of many in the admissions process, and I'm sure an admissions advisor takes into account the quality of the school system around a person in determining the extent their ability.
__________________
The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives.
-- Albert Schweitzer
JamesS is offline  
Old 08-14-2003, 06:10 PM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I still don't see what is so wrong with simple evaluations.
Xell101 is offline  
Old 08-15-2003, 12:50 AM   #22 (permalink)
Pasture Bedtime
 
What's wrong is that they're touted to measure your intellectual abilities. They don't, not comprehensively.

It's such a cliche, but the SAT really does measure how well you take the SAT. What does that mean? Well, it means that you don't really need to know how to solve all the problems if you practice and learn how to use the shortcuts and heuristics that enable you to pick the right answer even when you have no idea what you're doing. You take two people of comparable intelligence and give one a year of practice with SAT material (geometry, vocabulary, etc.) and the other a few actual SATs, and the latter will kick the ass of the former every time. You can see how this gives a natural advantage to certain cultural strata.

I got a 1600 and I had no fuckin' idea what any of the words meant in the analogies sections. But you learn to chop off two or three of the obviously wrong ones, and then you have a good guess from among the remaining options. People smarter than me without SAT Instinct die on the analogies.
Sledge is offline  
Old 08-21-2003, 06:13 PM   #23 (permalink)
Insane
 
As other people have stated, all the SATs do is test how well you take the SATs.

If you really look at the type of questions in the SATs, they are not Math/english questions.. they are Reasoning questions.(with maybe the exception of the analogies, though even those you can eliminate most answers..if you know latin and know a lot about base words they can be pretty easy). Most the the math questions can be figured out if your decently smart, even if you'v enever taken a math class (though I'm not saying you could ace it).

As far as using them to get into colleges.. I think most colleges now use some type of formula that averages your SATs and GPA together.
__________________
"Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl
Booboo is offline  
Old 08-27-2003, 08:18 PM   #24 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: , NC
I never took the SAT. I got accepted into a major university by getting good grades at a comm. college and then transfering.


IMHO good grades in college courses proves a whole lot mor than a number on a standardized test.
kwIII is offline  
Old 08-27-2003, 09:13 PM   #25 (permalink)
I run E.
 
Location: New York
I'm studying for the GREs and it's miserable. I do better on IQ tests. Can't I just give them my IQ and promise to apply myself?
__________________
I hold with those that favor fire.
eyeronic is offline  
Old 08-27-2003, 09:23 PM   #26 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: , NC
kwIII is offline  
Old 09-01-2003, 01:40 PM   #27 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Sunny California
It seems like all schools teach us from the beginning is how to excel on stupid, multiple choice tests. I agree that we should do away with all multiple choice tests and stick to essays, which better prove someone's knowledge.

This also creates more jobs for people, unless essays are graded on the proven method of equating weight to a grade. (heavier the essay, higher the grade)
sambocom is offline  
 

Tags
standardized, testing

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:22 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360