<p>Do you think its possible to be smart but be a bad test taker?</p>
<p>Nope. That is like saying I am good hunter, but have bad rifle skills.</p>
<p>I think so...test-taking skills are acquired, and sometimes people never learn them.</p>
<p>It's definitely possible. While I'm not one of those people, I know plenty of them. Some people simply get nervous on tests, and tend to do better when there isn't the pressure of being judged.</p>
<p>I agree, some very smart people have trouble with tests as they overanalyze the questions and can't just accept the questions at face value.</p>
<p>No, it's not possible.</p>
<p>of course it is possible.</p>
<p>um... its possible.
i guess im not like stupid... im in top 5% of my class
but im a HORRIBLE test taker. my sat scores are like... doodoo</p>
<p>You can be smart and not study.</p>
<p>But if you're smart and study, there's no reason that you should not be able to do well.</p>
<p>No it's not possible. You can always prepare yourself for these tests. "bad test-taker" is really a "bad excuse."</p>
<p>'Smart' and 'bad test taker' don't go together. Top 5% in the class and bad test taker must mean that your school is afflicted with severe grade inflation.</p>
<p>OR</p>
<p>That you didn't study hard enough/properly.</p>
<p>I think it is possible...a test is just measuring what someone thinks you should you know about a particular subject or how well you are able to communicate your knowledge on a subject.</p>
<p>How can you be considered 'smart' if you are 'bad at taking tests?' How would you ever be able to be measured correctly if you bomb every tests? Is smartness not 'measured' by test taking ability?</p>
<p>Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent.
Amusingly clever; witty: a smart quip; a lively, smart conversation.
Impertinent; insolent: That's enough of your smart talk.
Energetic or quick in movement: a smart pace.
Canny and shrewd in dealings with others: a smart negotiator.
Fashionable; elegant: a smart suit; a smart restaurant; the smart set. See Synonyms at fashionable. </p>
<p>Of, relating to, or being a highly automated device, especially one that imitates human intelligence: smart missiles.
Manufactured to regulate the amount of light transmitted in response to varying light conditions or to an electronic sensor or control unit: smart windows.
New England & Southern U.S. Accomplished; talented: He's a right smart ball player</p>
<p>So if I take an IQ test and get a 95 I can claim to be a genius who is simply a bad test taker?</p>
<p>"I think it is possible...a test is just measuring what someone thinks you should you know about a particular subject or how well you are able to communicate your knowledge on a subject."</p>
<p>Well, if you don't know what was taught or can't express what you know, what good is being smart anyways? Or by what standard would you be considered smart at all?</p>
<p>Definitely, </p>
<p>Test formats vary SO MUCH from teacher to teacher, assuming they use personalized ones. The same goes for grading criteria. </p>
<p>I've always been a horrible test-taker, so I opt to blame the structure of the written test :).</p>
<p>I'm a terrible test taker, though I am a good student... I get nervous and freak out on tests, while I can do the material regularly under no pressure. My SAT score is a demonstration of this, haha</p>
<p>I know smart people that do well in class tests in general but have difficulty taking standardized ones like the SATS. If you are refering to the sats as the 'tests' you should consider they don't test intelligence. The SATs and most standardized tests like it only test WHAT YOU KNOW. ex: A freshman in HS is less likely to get a high score on the SAT b/c s/he may not have taken algebra/trig yet. A senior in HS is more likely to get the higher score b/c s/he has taken more classes and thus HAS MORE EXPERIENCE. Nothing about intelligence there...</p>
<pre><code> Einstein failed math and many dyslexic people are millionaires. Intelligence has little correlation with test scores.
</code></pre>
<p>
[quote]
Well, if you don't know what was taught or can't express what you know, what good is being smart anyways? Or by what standard would you be considered smart at all?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>IMO:</p>
<p>So what someone puts down on a test defines someone as intelligent? If I do well on my state standardized test I am a genius...whooohooo :p. Anyhow, I think tests are controversial in measuring intelligence. I have read about both sides of the argument where some feel that tests do measure intelligence. Having a set amount of guidelines for testing insures "consistency" in demonstrating intelligence. I have also read the opposing side where some feel that doing well on tests only shows how someone has a shallow approach to learning, so he would be considered a shallow thinker. They know what to put down on the test and hence do well. The opposing view has also said that some individuals who did poorly on tests did so because their approach to learning was more in-depth and focused more on understanding and was less "superficial". </p>
<p>At the least I will say that I am skeptical to the idea of "doing well on tests= smart/intelligent".</p>
<p>just my 2 cents</p>