Does anyone really believe the "poor test taker" excuse?

College Confidential Community
81

<p>I believe that there are some people who are just bad at test-taking. During regular tests in class, they are fine, but when they are under a lot of pressure, such as during finals, midterms, and tests that count for college and graduation, they tend to do worse. An example is a friend of mine who I had AP Psychology with. She was a pretty good student, but during the test she always second-guessed herself. During the test, she'll ask me for the answer, and I'll tell her what she think it is. She'll tell me, and it'll ALWAYS be the correct answer. I used to tell her that she was correct and to stop second-guessing herself, but she just couldn't help it. Now during state tests, and tests that count for college admissions, she won't have anyone to assure her that she's right, so she doesn't do as well on tests as she does in class. Now, does that mean she doesn't know the knowledge? Of course not, if every time she gets it right when she tells me what she thinks it is. It just means that she second-guesses herself.</p>

<p>Also, I agree with there being different types of pressure. I am generally a good test taker, if I am familiar with the type of test. However, when it comes to public-speaking, or just speaking to people I don't know about something serious, I usually get nervous and move a part of my body or my voice shakes. Also, I tend to stutter more and get my words mixed up. Now, this doesn't mean that I'm a bad-writer or a bad test-taker because I don't perform well when speaking to people I don't know. It just means that I'm not good under pressure when I talk to others.</p>

<p>Also, just because you are not a good test-taker does not make a bad doctor. Honestly, how many people ask their doctor what their MCAT scores, SAT score, and GPA were? Not many normal people, because you are more willing to rely on what other people have said about the particular doctor, then how well he did on school on test. Can you honestly say that you'll gladly let a surgeon operate on you who had great test scores, but a bad reputation, or will you be willing to settle for the doctor who had a 2.0 GPA, but is great at what he does?</p>

82

<p>great job reviving such an old thread.</p>

<p>anyway, to your last few sentences, a higher score is supposed to mean that the doctor will be more reputable, though not necessarily. </p>

<p>anyway, the reason someone second guess is because they aren't SURE of the answer. I second guess too a lot of times. But I don't say I'm a bad test taker. I know that for the questions which I have doubts on are the questions which I don't know well enough. If you knew something very, very well, no matter what happens, you will still know the answer.</p>

<p>It's like concert pianists. If one only played a song for 50 hours, while the other one played for 5 years, and was able to memorize the song backwards, ofcourse the second person will preform it better. Does that mean the first person is a worse concert pianist? NO. For the song he's good at, he can probably play better than the second guy.</p>

<p>If you reached a certain point in something, there really isn't any factor that can make you screw up. second guessing shows that you don't know stuff well.</p>

83

<p>When we talk about tests, we need to distinguish between SAT/ACT, APs, SAT2s, and high school/college tests...
APs, SAT2s and high school/college tests are all very limited regarding the information being tested. For example, if you know everything in an AP US History textbook/AP Review book, you'll hardly get a factual question wrong. Essay... maybe if you miss-interpret the question. Same goes for normal class tests and SAT2s. However, I think that there are people who are bad test takers WHEN it comes to tests that can vary a lot in terms of content and have a subjective nature, such as the writing portion of the SAT1 and the verbal part. People who over-analyze reading comprehension questions and answers will certainly suffer in the verbal section because even though there's THE ANSWER, someone who over-analyzes might choose another partial answer and thus get it wrong. This is why I think the notion of "thinking the way Collegeboard thinks" was created and why it's the most important thing to master to get a good SAT1 score, judging by the fact that verbal+writing counts a lot.
That's why when it specifically comes to SAT1, the deviation in scores is determined by this skill. I know many smart people that shockingly didn't break the 2100s but got many 5s including AP English and Calc/Physics, 800s, and A+...
I think colleges are looking at SAT1 scores with a grain of salt because of this issue. I have some friends who only took SAT1s but never ACT for college. They didn't do that well on the SAT1 but, out of curiosity, did some practice problems from the ACT and found them "better-suited" for them, it's a shame they didn't take it for college applications at the time.
That's why I still think getting A's in APs/Honors courses is more valuable and a better predictor of college performance. An AP class is just a simpler version of a college course. So really, there's no need to make this "poor test taker" excuse even though it has some truth to it.<br>
I think that Karina^ mentioned something like "people who get bad scores use the 'bad-test-takers' excuse to say they're not dumb..." - is a narrow-minded perspective.
Standardized tests represent in NO way someone's intelligence. Someone who gets 2300 is in no assured way smarter than someone who gets 2000. It's already proved that intelligence is made up of many different types of aspects, such as numerical, spacial, abstract, creative, etc.</p>

84

<p>Well, for many of the people who get good GPA and bad standardized test scores, they simply are receiving an inferior education(i.e low ranked or grade inflated HS). Sure, you may make the argument that the SAT tests for different things. And yes I agree. The SAT test analytical thinking skills and weak high schools don't build that. But what about the stronger ones? Thats where I don't agree. Consider one of those SAT questions where they ask you to figure out the area of a certain figure. Say, its " 3 circles of radius 1 are mutually touching: find the area in between the 3 circles." Well, by inspection, the 3 radius's make a triangle and you just take the area of the triangle and subtract away the 3 sectors. Well, now students are complaining that type of thinking isn't taught in HS. Oh contraire, tough classes do. For example, your teacher can ask you to prove the Law of Cosines. Well, you make a larger triangle inscribing the original one and again by inspection, use pathgorean theorem and trig identities to deduce the formula. In both cases, they use similar reasoning, ability to see things that aren't explicit in the picture i.e deductive reasoning. So now the question becomes: why don't more highschools delve into this type of math; why only give basic cookie cutter formulas? I'm sure the same case can be made for the reading and writing sections.</p>

85

<p>Just because you go to college doesn't mean you are smart, maybe it did 30-40 years ago, but not today. It means jack **** and there are plenty of highly intelligent people who don't bother going to college and do very well for themselves.</p>

<p>If you arent smart enough to do things by yourself and you will need to rely on another person to sustain your life, then college will work out great for you, but not everybody needs to rely on another to survive, many can do it themselves.</p>

<p>In the real world, at least where I have worked, College meant nothing, education meant nothing, and well most other things didnt mean much either. What meant something was performance and the ability to bring value to the business.</p>

<p>I have mostly worked in IT and small programming firms. The most valuable employees have not been college educated folks, they are actually the worst because they are all incredibly stubborn. The most valuable employees were the ones who were eclectic and didn't think they were above anybody else. They are usually the ones who got hired also. </p>

<p>So go into a job interview with your elitist attitude and you will probrolly be kicked out the door. You need to realize that just because you went to college, means nothing, Information is information and somebody could be sitting in the interview room with you, and they could have never went to college and they could be 100% self taught and completely kill the interview and get the job and your silly college education will have meant nothing. </p>

<p>This is not really possible with Law and Medicine, But its 100% possible most others. Including Engineering, Math, All Science.</p>

86

<p>my question is, then why the hell are you on here?</p>

<p>anyway, what you said was completely irrelevant. Also, sure it's possible, but you'll take less wrong turns if you went to college instead of just trying things out. It's like reading the manual for something. Maybe you don't have to, but you'll more likely get it right the first time if you did. </p>

<p>and whos elitist attitude are we talking about here? No, going to college doesn't mean your smart at all. But there are a lot more smart people going to college than smart people who don't.</p>

87

<p>The thing is that there are those people that don't want to go to college because they think they are better than that and that college education won't be additive to their knowledge and future. Now, that's a bit arrogant, especially if the person looks down on people that have college degrees, which demonstrates an even more stubborn attitude. Also, there are those that weren't good enough for college and gave up on that college idea and instead, incorporated a negative perspective about college simply to make themselves feel better.
If I'm interviewing someone that has that kind of frame of mind...he would be the one out the door.</p>

<p>On the other hand, others that don't go to college simply because they've found another path that's just as good and can show their value through a portfolio, for example, that would be a whole different story. Just talking about how good you are and how much you can contribute without showing proof is not enough. Someone that has a college degree must have studied (at least to pass) and produced some projects/labs results (even if it isn't that good).
To say that going to college means nothing is a bit too exaggerating. Most of the times, it's at college that you'll find people with the same learning passion (not that it's the only place, but it's where you'll be more exposed).
To get a good engineering or science education beyond the theory is hard if you don't have the equipment and resources that are easily found at universities. Why the h3ll do you think that most technology/science advances are made at research universities then? Just as "username" said ^, I completely agree. If I'm going to spend a lot of effort on something, I would most likely try to find the most efficient way. I would ask people that have a lot of experience that can guide me. And to say that college education doesn't mean anything is a very bad generalization. Sure there are those that only want the diploma for the sake of it, but let's not make that the goal of everyone that wants a college education.</p>

<p>Finally I would like to add that if college education means nothing, why are the most developed countries the ones that have the best colleges? Everyone can do pretty well without a college degree, but it's harder in general. I live in a country where only a few percentage of the population has the opportunity to attend a college and if we narrow it down to the 'good colleges' here, it's astronomically less.
Result: corrupt government that easily takes advantage of people and does whatever it wants with the system without any opposition. It's a shame that there are people starving here considering the wealth of natural resources we have. Educated people find it hard to do honest work or bring about any change and therefore decide to go abroad. Why? all because of lack of education, especially college education.</p>

88

<p>The skills needed to pass classes and standardized tests like SAT are completely different. In school to get a good grade all you need is to complete assignments and pass tests based on them. Someone like me with a good memory can just read a chapter in the book and then recall everything needed on the test. Most problems in math for example follow a simple formula, and after you go over those strategies in class everyday its really easy to ace the test with no difficulties. School also tends to test you on specifics, its much harder for some students to understand the whole picture and be able to apply it to different problems. </p>

<p>SATs and ACTs test on a much broader scale, they test on critical thinking as well as memory recall. In English the most vocabulary I've had to memorize for a test was 30 words, the SAT expects you to know a thousand and be able to use and apply them. The math part may be on "basic algebra", but most problems force you to think outside the box, apply different concepts and solve for different unknowns and although for some people that may come as easily as solving 2+2, for many it's hard and nerve racking. </p>

<p>Although I do believe that there are "bad test takers", I don't think that they should use that excuse to not improve. They may not be able to get a 2400, but it is possible for normal person to do well as long as they study and prepare well. Maybe it'll take 2 months instead of a week or a day like for some people, and the results won't be as impressive, but eventually they'll get it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Say, its " 3 circles of radius 1 are mutually touching: find the area in between the 3 circles." Well, by inspection, the 3 radius's make a triangle and you just take the area of the triangle and subtract away the 3 sectors. Well, now students are complaining that type of thinking isn't taught in HS. Oh contraire, tough classes do. For example, your teacher can ask you to prove the Law of Cosines. Well, you make a larger triangle inscribing the original one and again by inspection, use pathgorean theorem and trig identities to deduce the formula. In both cases, they use similar reasoning, ability to see things that aren't explicit in the picture i.e deductive reasoning.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That reasoning of deduction that you take for granted isn't all that easy as you make it to be. It's not something that a teacher can just teach in high school, it has to develop over time. Some people are born with this sense, to others it comes over time, some are able achieve it through hard work.
I have been taught how to prove law of cosines before, but it would have never occurred to me to use it in that situation. It may make a lot of sense when you explain it, but its a very very hard thing for me to do on my own. I don't know if the right example just comes to you, but for me, just sitting there thinking of all the possible things to compare a problem to is not easy and mentally exhausts me. </p>

<p>People have different abilities and although everyone can learn to do something, for some it always comes easier and faster. I mean, I still consider myself pretty smart, and I know that if the time comes I'll be able to use my abilities to solve whatever problem may come up. It may take me a while, but I know I can do it so I don't think anyone should give up or blame things on being a "bad test taker".</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
Although I do believe that there are "bad test takers", I don't think that they should use that excuse to not improve. They may not be able to get a 2400, but it is possible for normal person to do well as long as they study and prepare well. Maybe it'll take 2 months instead of a week or a day like for some people, and the results won't be as impressive, but eventually they'll get it.

[/quote]

I completely agree. But I call those people SLOW LEARNERS rather than bad test takers.</p>

90

<p>I don't get any anxiety, I simply am unable to show what I know/do as well as I'd like on tests. Why is that an excuse? Some people are good test takers, some aren't. My mother is a lawyer, who graduated with honors from Columbia, who wasn't a good test taker. Why is that an excuse for anything?</p>

91

<p>What were you trying to prove? so your mom got into columbia. good for her. That still doesn't prove that there are bad test takers in the world.</p>

<p>only
a)lazy people
b)people who were not taught the material
c)people with mental disabilities
d)arrogant people who think they know everything and blames "bad test taking skills"</p>

92

<p>I said she wasn't a good test taker.</p>

93

<p>uh huh. In what way was she a bad test taker?</p>

<p>You can't just say x and y are bad test takers, therefore they exist...</p>

94

<p>She didn't do well on tests, specifically the SATs and the LSATs, despite studying?</p>

95

<p>that means she didn't study enough. Or she studied the wrong thing. Or a billion other possibilities.</p>

96

<p>I don't do well on SAT type tests, not because I am not a good test taker but they mainly test English, and that is my worst subject because I am a math/science nerd.</p>

<p>So no I don't believe in bad test taker, some of them might just be bad in one subject and causing them to do bad on it not necessarily dumb or lazy. </p>

<p>And if you don't believe that I wonder how some people who get high scores on the SAT in CR and Writing (upper 700) but average math (mid 600s)would do on an SAT that tested Math, Science (actual test on knoweldge not like ACT), and English.</p>

97

<p>I consider myself a bad test taker. I don’t do badly in school, I still get As, it’s just that I never perform my best in tests/under pressure (I agree with the previous poster who said that s/he wouldn’t want a surgeon who gets nervous fits when under pressure. Knowing myself, I will never be a surgeon because I wouldn’t be able to cope with the intense pressure.) I’d always make careless mistakes, misinterpret questions and get a writer’s block. I also second guess myself a lot. I seem to THINK differently when I’m in the exam hall. It’s like if I read the same question in class I would’ve been able to analyse it better. When I read my test essays during class discussion, I didn’t know what the heck I was writing about. Point is, I would’ve done a lot better in tests if I didn’t have any of those.</p>

<p>My classmate who became the top student in my country was an excellent test taker. She’s able to transfer everything on her mind onto paper, coherently and concisely, even when under pressure. I’d always be astonished when I read her test papers - it’s like reading a well-written text book. The only time when she doesn’t get a question right is when she truly does not know the answer. She’s really observant and never makes careless mistakes.</p>

<p>I believe that bad test takers do exist but it can’t be an excuse forever! I’m working on it and it’s been getting better ever since I entered college…I still make careless mistakes but less now! This ‘condition’ can be fixed! :)</p>

98

<p>Well, there are reactions that occur within our Limbic Systems that would support the claim of “bad test taking”. If one is placed in an environment where they feel pressure, I guess in this case from the test, the amygdala reacts to the incoming stimuli by making the person nervous, anxious, etc. When the amygdala releases such chemicals to make you feel this way, it takes away from your hippocampus’ ability to focus, and thus “bad test taking”. I rather call it “anxiety triggered from a test”, given the significance tests play in our society and schools nowadays.</p>

99

<p>An old thread. Have to wonder where the 2008 posters are today. Is the OP successful in his/her chosen profession?
There seems to have been a assumption that tests actually measure intelligence and mastery of information. Mastery of info accompanied by good testing skills does not always translate to an ability to perform under pressure, but it can sure help. That said, the SATs were designed to be predictors of college success. For those people who test well, there likely is a correlation to college level academic success. But there are many others who don’t test well and may perform quite well, as acknowledged by colleges that are SAT/ACT optional.
A basic issue should be whether the standardized tests measure what they were designed to measure–test validity and reliability. Otherwise, who cares? Seems like an opportunity for those posters who test well to look down upon others. Have to wonder where they all are today.</p>

100

<p>Just reading some of the posts in this thread reassures me that there are people in the world who just like to gloat anou. There really are people who are bad at taking tests but when it comes to applying the knowledge, they excel in that area.</p>