<p>That's what I figured. some people truly are lucky when it comes to natural intelligence. The person that I referred to was really cool, at least. He didn't brag about having things come easy to him, and he actually helped tutor a couple people when he wasn't playing games online.</p>
<p>I really hope that when some of the people on this board go to college, they open up their minds to different kinds of people and different kinds of learning.</p>
<p>Because really, if you can't grasp the idea of not always being good at taking tests, I don't know how you are going to handle the different viewpoints of your peers, professors, TAs, and anyone else you may encounter when you leave your little comfort bubbles of high school.</p>
<p>Yes, some people make up excuses. But it is so rude to say that every person is one of those people. If I were to give a test on acceptance and empathy, I am certain that a number of people on here would fail. Bah.</p>
<p>^ Bad Test Taker!</p>
<p>I think they exist. I think they're the academic equivalent of Jean Van de Velde.</p>
<p>While there is a variation in scores based only on an individual's ability to perform well on tests, it wouldn't account for a 100-point or more difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so during high school and college, i guess you never studied for any exams, tests, quizzes, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps you didn't read my post fully-it clearly states "I didn't study for any of my standardized tests, and didn't study for 9.5/10 of the tests I took in school." I also mentioned that this policy might have to change when I enter college this fall... (And I quote "That may have to change for college, though." )</p>
<p>I don't understand the tone of most of the posters here. If someone says they are a "bad-test taker", then they are, indeed, a bad test taker. Where is the lie, the excuse?? It's not as though many adcoms will say, Gosh, he/she must be a bad test taker - let's give them a break!</p>
<p>I actually do believe that this "condition" actually does afflict people. I know a few very, very smart people that are just not that good at taking tests; whether they are really nervous during the test and forget stuff or just don't know the basic strategies for test taking, it is still a real condition. While I have tons of sympathy for these people, I feel that they need to take extra measures, then, to attempt to overcome it. Either that, or the really smart ones will overcome doing poorly on tests and do really well to get to where they want without good test scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ Bad Test Taker!
[/quote]
yup, that's the arrogant, rude attitude that 2legit2quit was reffering to. thanks for pointint out that it was, in fact, you who he was talking about. if only people always made it that easy :S</p>
<p>rude is very subjective. i guess if you have a focusing problem then you are legit to have the poor test taker excuse. test taking is a skill and if you cant take tests then your fault. i dont believe in the "whenever i take tests i start wetting my pants, vomiting, pooping, sweating profusely for unknown reasons" excuse. to conclude, if you have a real medical condition that prohibits you from doing well on tests then i can believe you. if you just suck at taking tests, then your fault for not practicing and training yourself to do better.</p>
<p>A Surgeon could be a great standardized test taker, could get all 100's. He could have graduated from medical school and done great.</p>
<p>He Could still be a ****ty surgeon, could still be a drunk, drug addict or worse, while a surgeon. He could also kill you or leave a instrument inside you.</p>
<p>I could care less about my doctors test score, I care more about them being a good doctor and having good test score in no way makes you a good doctor. </p>
<p>The same holds for any discipline.</p>
<p>Such as, we could hire this Engineer, with Perfect scores on his/her SAT, GRE, graduated with a 4.0, passed both his PE and FE. But they he seizes under pressure in a non controlled academic environment and ends up killing his whole staff or worse, because he couldn't deal with the dynamic environment of a professional work space. </p>
<p>It happens all the time, its one of the reasons they don't let young people be lead engineers, you need experience and you need to prove yourself in the work environment. you also wouldn't believe how long it takes for a surgeon to become confident enough to handle any situation. My aunt is a nurse and she sees doctors, freeze all the time, sometimes even breakdown. But again that's the reason they don't let a 25 year old thinks he knows it all do a heart transplant.</p>
<p>Test score and grades mean absolutely nothing. They indicate nothing. Niether does the school you go to. Ever wonder why the top doctors in the world, the ones who do cutting edge procedures, or the engineers who do extreme engineering and build insane structures like the ones currently in Dubai. The majority of they didn't go to some amazing name brand school. They are the best simply because they are the best. A surgeon who graduated last in his medical school, could cure cancer, and the engineer who graduated with a 2.0, could go onto do the unthinkable.</p>
<p>People on this forum are to stuck up with mass consumerist materialist education which means absolutely nothing. Just because you get good grades and go to a top 10 school, doesn't mean ****. Look at the success rates, there are a lot more successful averages joes, who went to states U's than the prestigious top 10 U's.</p>
<p>I've taken SAT I 3 times, and never passed 2200.</p>
<p>Yet I've taken SAT IIs in Chemistry, US History, Math II, Chinese with all 800s and a 790.</p>
<p>I've taken over 16 APs and the only scores I did get a 5 in were Physics C E&M and a few others taken during my senior year.</p>
<p>I took ACT only once and got a 34.</p>
<p>Ironically, on my SAT IIs and APs which I study the most for, I get the lowest scores, whereas I barely did any prep for ACT and got a 34.</p>
<p>I think from that conclusion I can make that either 1. SAT is a poorly designed test, 2. I'm a bad test taker (at least with some things).</p>
<p>Yes to number one.</p>
<p>And, being in the 98th percentile doesn't make you a "bad test taker."</p>
<p>Well I was going more by my other scores, relatively speaking, are much better than my SAT score.</p>
<p>I think the main issue with the people that claim to be poor test takers is over analyzing and second guessing everything imo</p>
<p>lollerpants... if you got a 34 on the ACT and a 2200 on the SAT, you're not a bad test taker. 2200 is close to lie a 33 on the ACT... which is virtually the same as your 34 (if you took the ACT again there is a chance that you get a 33 if you had a 'bad' day).</p>
<p>
[quote]
People on this forum are to stuck up with mass consumerist materialist education which means absolutely nothing. Just because you get good grades and go to a top 10 school, doesn't mean ****. Look at the success rates, there are a lot more successful averages joes, who went to states U's than the prestigious top 10 U's
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i would like to see your source and the "success rates".</p>
<p>Besides, those people who went to State Us worked hard to get what they got in life. It doesn't mean fortune can occur luckily (or randomly). If you have the attitude of thinking, "oh State ain't bad, I can be just as successful, i'll just graduate and try to kick it and get a good job," you're in for a real surprise.</p>
<p>uh.. sorry should've rephrased that... I didn't REACH 2200. my SAT conversion was pretty much 80-100 pts different from ACT and SAT, I was trying to argue with whoever said that it makes a 100 pt difference is bsing.</p>
<p>oh, i gotcha.</p>