An intelectual debate about standardized tests

Test Preparation
1

<p>I believe that neither the SAT or the ACT are capable of measuring intelligence because the tests misunderstand what intelligence is. </p>

<p>intelligence should not be measured by how many stupid mistakes you make, but rather your inventiveness and your creativity. It is your ability to find knowledge through challenging ignorance and common wisdom, it is your initiative and courage to say things that have never been said before, not solving math problems in a minutes time. </p>

<p>If either test actually test intelligence, the fact that the test are timed take away from their measurement of that variable. If one person can solve 20 easy problems in 20 minutes, and another can solve 20 hard problems in an hour, but can only solve 15 easy problems in 20 minutes, I'd prefer to trust the latter with real life issues. </p>

<p>Reasoning is more than the ability to answer questions. I honestly think AP test are far better measures of intelligence in a subject than the SAT or ACT are, although even they have their problems.</p>

<p>so yeah.</p>

2

<p>This “debate” is already occurring at a rather low intelectual [sic] level. You’ve told me a lot of things that you believe, but you haven’t given me any reason to care. Are you an expert qualified to offer opinions on this topic? If not, stick to evidence and rigorous logic.</p>

<p>I like to differentiate between intelligence (which is an innate inherited trait) and smartness (which I recognize as how well one capitalizes on one’s intelligence). You could measure smartness based on personal happiness, societal benefit, or something else.</p>

3

<p>Ummm you misspelled intellectual. lol</p>

<p>If I hadn’t already been talking about what psychologist think of as intelligence, the different sides of it, I’d actually post a serious post.</p>

<p>I’m just too lazy to repeat myself, at this point.</p>

4

<p>Yes, I think it is ironic that the poster misspelled “intellectual” but is proposing an intellectual debate.</p>

<p>But really now, it’s quite hard for a test to test over inventiveness and creativity, especially since both of those are quite subjectively measured. However, something like how many “stupid mistakes” one makes is very easily objectively measured. Not every test is going to be perfect, and it’s really just up to us as students to master the tests we are forced to take. And who’s to say the person who can solve 20 easy problems in 20 minutes can’t solve 20 hard problems in an hour?</p>

5

<p>disregarding the fact that I know how to spell intellectual (that was a typo) your criticism of my typing/spelling has nothing to do with thinking or what I said.</p>

<p>as for reason to care, while I am not a qualified expert on the field, I can cite the wisdom of Thomas Edison, Albert Einsein, Mark Twain, TE Lawrence and countless others who have said similar things to what I am saying.</p>

6

<p>And in response to x<em>Ambivalent</em>x, no one, but who’s to say that he can. it takes some people years to formulate the relations of things that contribute to the world of academia and humans understanding of life and the world around it. Some of the people that have contributed have had trouble counting, or were laughed off as alchemist and idiots, how can one test measure your ability to transcend that?</p>

7

<p>

Really? I’d be interested in quotes supporting your position.</p>

8

<p>“Imagination is more important than knowledge” Einstein</p>

<p>“Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% Perspiration” Edison</p>

<p>“Nothing is Written” Lawrence (Although there is some debate as to whether or not he actually said it)</p>

<p>“a man’s brain is stored powder; it can not be touched itself off; the fire must come from the outside” Twain</p>

<p>“it is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage not” Twain</p>

9

<p>^ None of that supports your argument… </p>

<p>Please explain to me how you derive intelligence = inventiveness/creativity from any of that?</p>

10

<p>Pointing out the OP’s spelling errors do not contribute to the debate at hand (though I will admit the irony of seeing him/her misspell intellectual did make me LOL).</p>

<p>That aside, I think this is a very interesting debate to have. In my opinion, the problem with standardized tests is not what they test (as the OP seems to purport), but how the results of them are used. Standardized tests can be very effective way to measure a student’s (or anybody’s, for that matter) achievement and ability to learn. This does not only include college admissions tests, but also state-administered tests such as the MCAS in Massachusetts and the Regents Exams in New York (however, since the OP only discusses college entrance exams, I will leave out state-administered exams for the rest of this post).</p>

<p>We run into problems with standardized testing when it is used to make major decisions that can effect somebody’s livelihood. Using the SAT or ACT as one of the biggest factors in college admissions is not a good idea. In my opinion, it only serves to hamper education by encouraging students to spend time developing test taking strategies rather than doing something that actually helps them intellectually, such as reading a good book. If standardized tests were not as big of a factor as they currently are, perhaps students would be more concerned with doing something that would actually help them with their education (which, I think we can all agree, developing testing strategies does not).</p>

<p>So, how can standardized tests be used effectively in college admissions? Well, for one, they can be used as a very general gauge of whether or not a student will fit in. For example, if a student scores a 1500 on the SAT and the vast majority of the students at the school being applied to scored upward of 2000, I think it would be safe to say that that student would struggle there. However, if a student were applying to the same school with an 1800 (a somewhat significantly lower figure than 2000), I feel they should still receive the same consideration as a student who scored 2200 because test scores can be so misleading.</p>

<p>Are test scores currently the be-all end-all of college admissions? No. However, websites like CC prove that they have become far too important to our students. When I see posts like [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065087984-post93.html]this[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065087984-post93.html]this[/url</a>], I get concerned.</p>

<p>Anyway, feel free to go ahead and tear this apart :stuck_out_tongue: I’m honestly interested in what all of you have to say about this topic.</p>

<p>Also, please excuse any grammatical mistakes. I threw this together in about ten minutes, so naturally it isn’t exactly my best work. Cheers! :)</p>

<p>P.S. I have yet to see a well constructed argument in favor of standardized testing. I have only seen arguments condemning the OP and his opinions. Anyone care to explain why they think standardized testing is so effective?</p>

11

<p>@post #8:</p>

<p>Those quotes argue that intelligence isn’t really all that important. Fine. That doesn’t have anything to do with the relationship between intelligence and standardized testing.</p>

12

<p>I disagree with your interpretation of the quotes, they don’t argue that intelligence is unimportant, they argue that there is more to it, and that part of it is imagination, courage, hard work, passion and the ability to challenge common thought are also aspects of it. If you think I misunderstand that than explain the words “Genius is” in the Edison quote. </p>

<p>I agree with post #10, except that I would put his concern on top of mine for reason standardized test should be abolished or at least optional. in almost all cases 3 hours can not tell as much as 3 years.</p>

13

<p>^ Look at this:

Isn’t the implication painfully clear?</p>

14

<p>Your saying this means intelligence is not important? </p>

<p>It means intelligence without passion is impossible.</p>

<p>And furthermore, if my Idea about what intelligence is is so wrong what is yours?</p>

15

<p>Ummm</p>

<p>Famous quotes are nothing more than quotes. If this was an intellectual debate, you’d be trying to prove your points, instead of going what equates to “this famous guy agrees with me”.</p>

<p>Furthermore,
“it is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage not” Twain
How exactly does this quote even support anything you said?</p>

<p>It doesn’t even mention or relate to intelligence. All it says it that he thinks “moral courage” should be as common(and thus is as important) as “physical courage”.</p>

<p>“Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% Perspiration”
This one simply says that genius is determined more by how hard you work, than how inspired you are.</p>

<p>“Nothing is written”
How does that even relate to anything this thread is about, in anyway?</p>

<p>But again, I’d like to reiterate that intellectual debate =/= the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.</p>

16

<p>

You initially supplied those quotes to defend your assertion that intelligence is equated to creativity. It seems you have abandoned your original and fallacious statement.</p>

17

<p>I never said it was all about creativity, I said creativity was a major part of it, this “debate” is pointless because no one is actually debating the merits of what I am saying, your just trying to find flaws with it. </p>

<p>I have yet to hear someone rebut my claim other than saying: “You’re wrong.” No one opposing me has said anything.</p>

<p>and in a since this speaks to exactly what I am talking about. So is anyone going to rebut me or do I just have to conquer your false attempts to find flaws in my statements in relation to them selves.</p>

18

<p>I quote you directly

</p>

<p>No one bothers debating your claims because they are absurdly fallacious, and the “quotes by smart people” you used in an attempt to support your claims aren’t even relevant.</p>

19

<p>The argument presented by the OP falls under the category of fallacy via appeal to authority. Please explain orphans and their parents having similar SAT scores and IQ scores.</p>

20

<p>To rebut that in all the malicious little snippits that you’ve aimed at me</p>

<p>A) Yes I think creativity is a large part of intelligence, however it is not the only piece. However it would be a helluva better means of measuring it than the SAT and ACT</p>

<p>B) My “quotes from smart people” were cited in response to someone who said I had no authority. and they are absolutely relevant because they challenge the traditional view of what intelligence is, and defend what I had already said. (I’ll admit the Lawrence and the second twain were a bit of a stretch, but they do underlie what I feel are important aspect of intelligence, Challenging what is known, and looking for whats right rather than what is correct.)</p>

<p>C) No one has rebutted a word I’ve said, you’ve simply gone “That isn’t right” and have not explained why. </p>

<p>D) I pose the question again, if my view of intelligence is so wrong, what is yours?</p>

<p>and E) why is it right and why am I wrong?</p>