"I'm A Bad Standardized Test Taker" Excuse

Test Preparation
1

<p>I have noticed that some individuals on this forum complain about being a bad standardized test taker. Maybe its just me, but I just don't understand why anyone would complain about fundamental tests like the SAT, ACT, PSAT's, etc. They all just test students' knowledge of basic and broad concepts in various subject areas and require some critical thinking strategies, most of which are normally taught in high school. So, why wouldn't a student with a good GPA no perform comparitively on a standardized test?</p>

<p>Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that some people really don't keep much of the information they learn in the school with them. These kiinds of people just study for tests and do the minimum required to pull of good grades in theri classes. In reality however, they really don't have a full grasp of the material that they are being taught, which explains why some students in calculus perform poorly on SAT M for example.</p>

<p>In terms of college admissions, I really don't believe an individual who just slugs along and pulls off the A in his/her classes adds much to a higher-level institution. That is why I think the SAT's are imortant. They might not reveal much about an individual's work ethic but they do give a fairly accurate assessment of a student's intelligence and ability to perform in later years, since the SAT's are not something you can study for specifically. Thats my 2 cents on this long-torn debate about grades vs. SAT's. What are all your opinions or thoughts???</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
That is why I think the SAT's are imortant. They might not reveal much about an individual's work ethic but they do give a fairly accurate assessment of a student's intelligence and ability to perform in later years, since the SAT's are not something you can study for specifically.

[/quote]

[quote]
They all just test students' knowledge of basic and broad concepts in various subject areas

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That isnt true at all. The best way to beat the SATs is to study for them specifically. You have to learn to pace yourself and to take the time to get acquainted with the kind of questions that come up in them (I don't know about the new SAT but the old one was very repetitive, not in terms of actual questions but in the type of questions that were asked and SAT II Writing was pretty much the same story) Techniques like plugging in the answer choices before actually trying to solve a sum have nothing to do with your comprehension of the subject- in SAT Math, you can get away with not actually working out quite a few problems. I don't see where a useful application of the Math you've learnt in HS comes into the picture in that kind of search and replace problem. </p>

<p>Then again, the SAT verbal is very tough and you have to gear yourself specifically for it. How often do you across words like parsimonious, egregious and temporizing in a typical English class at school? (I'm discounting the fact that you are a fanatic reader. From what I can see, there arent too many of those arond. CC is not representative of the general population) You have to study for SAT verbal with very specific targets in mind. </p>

<p>I'll confess that Writing wasnt really like this. Writing more or less came up with the same kind of questions that an English Language exam in my school would have. Despite this, a lot of people from my school didnt get phenomenally high scores even though they do fairly decently at school, with the same kind of questions. So I can't sat that these people didnt know how to extend their prior knowledge to apply to slightly different situations because the situations were pretty much identical in terms of content. I think that being a bad test taker is a plausible explanantion for these apparent anomalies.</p>

<p>To look at the matter from a slightly different angle, let me use my situation as an example. I don't have a glowing HS transcript or a pristine GPA. My average grades do have something to do with the fact that I don't always feel like putting in regular work and effort but they also are partly due to the fact that I am just not very good at some subjects, including Math. Nevertheless, I am a very good standardized test taker and I get high scores without exerting myself over the content of the test to the extent that I would while studying for a school test. This is mainly because I concentrate on technique rather than content and it has worked every single time for me and as far as I can see, its mainly a matter of being able to pick out relevant data from a question as fast as possible and find a way to get to the answer without actually trying to do it in a systematic way.</p>

<p>But there are several people who are more intelligent than me, who write better and have a firmer grounding in Mathematical concepts than I do (and I am not saying this because the have 4.0 GPAs) and yet have scores which are a lot worse than mine. I don't know how to explain that apart from the fact that they are intimidated by the SAT and dont really know the techniques which help to make it easier, mainly because they are sincere people, who unlike me, do not perpetually look for shortcuts to make their work easier :p.</p>

<p>The SATs dont do a good job of testing either intelligence nor knowledge. They do however do a very good job of testing just how well you're able to take them</p>

3

<p>The SATs dont do a good job of testing either intelligence nor knowledge</p>

<p>either...or
neither...nor</p>

4

<p>"That isnt true at all. The best way to beat the SATs is to study for them specifically."
Well i mean, then that means people that don't do well on them are just lazy. I think people scoring under 1200 with a 4.0+ gpa are probably over achieving and anyone over a 1400 with around a 3.0 is underachieving. I think the SAT is a fair tool to justify GPA's and atleast give colleges some standardized measuring stick for it's applicants. Without it, colleges wouldn't be able to see through grade inflation (or deflation). Top colleges definitley don't want people that aren't able to answer some pretty basic math questions and straight foward reading passages.</p>

<p>Just my two cents</p>

5

<p>either...or
neither...nor</p>

<p>I don't usually make mistakes like that :o <em>looks very very embarrassed</em></p>

6

<p>I didn't read either of those Walls of Texts, but I find that excuse a bunch of ********.</p>

7

<p>haha don't be embarassed...just make sure to remember for the SAT this Saturday!</p>

8

<p>"How often do you across words like parsimonious, egregious and temporizing in a typical English class at school?"</p>

<p>Egregious? I came across that word several times in the booklet that trains AP Music Theory teachers how to grade the exam. And I would exactly consider music teachers linguistic experts. And parsimonious...you'll come across that more than a few times in books, or if you're discounting books, newspapers and editorials. OK, I'll admit I haven't seen temporizing used in everyday lingo, but I'm just trying to say these words DO show up and WILL embarrass you if you don't know them.</p>

9

<p>those who do well and use the "bad test taker excuse" must go to some school with the greatest grade inflations!!!
if you do well in school, how can you flunk on tests? it doesn't make sense. how can someone with 4.0 get less than 1300??? if you get 4.0. you would have to be the top 5% in your school, and a 1300 isn't even the 95th percentile, so a 4.0 should easily exceed 1300. In canada, people who score over 80% average can normally score over 1300 on the SATs with little preparation and people with 90% average can easily score over 1460.
so, if you have 4.0 and has 1300-, then your grades are inflated. obviously, duhhhhh!</p>

10

<p>Thought I'd throw in my two cents here, too, just to add another perspective.</p>

<p>I've worked with hundreds of students over the past two decades. If I've learned anything, it is that you can't generalize student performance. There are certainly those who use excuses such as "I'm not a good test taker." However, for every one of them, there are students who are simply not good test takers. I mean <em>really</em> bright kids who, for a variety of reasons, just don't do well on tests, especially standardized tests. Kids who attend excellent schools, do extremely good work, excel in school and still consistently underperform on tests like the SAT. Sometimes poor performance is the result of anxiety, sometimes its simply perspective (what sucharita was talking about), sometimes its some sort of brain processing issue that they manage to compensate for extremely well in normal class work... Everyone is different. Everyone processes information differently.</p>

<p>The SAT does test basic concepts, for the most part. That's not the problem. It's the way they test those basic concepts that creates problems. They take simple ideas and create incredibly tricky questions. For example, one of the hardest questions on a math section might be a remainder question. Remainders! Come on! You learned remainders before you learned fractions and decimals. Now I can show you in about 30 seconds how to correctly answer every remainder problem the SAT might ask, but you might not come up with that approach on you own no matter how "smart" you are. Or you might, even if you failed Algebra 2.</p>

<p>The test type matters sometimes, too. I've worked with students who couldn't crack 1300 (yeah, a pretty good score, but not "great") on the SAT, but who scored 35 on the ACT right out of the box.</p>

<p>So, my suggestion: don't generalize. It's a cop-out. The answers aren't that easy. There are certainly students who fit into Newbyreborn's model of over and under achievers. But there are plenty students who don't.</p>

11

<p>This problem doesn't stop with SATs. One of the smartest lawyers I know managed to flunk the Texas bar exam three times. It is not a particularly hard bar exam. After the third time, you have to go to Austin and explain why you were smart enough to get through law school (he did well) but not smart enough to pass the bar exam! Number 4 was the charm, and 25 years later he is managing partner at a top firm.</p>

12

<p>How would you guys explain a 600 in verbal but 710 in writing, taken a month apart, with NO targetted preparation for the second test?</p>

<p>How would you explain top rank in English all thru high school (we're not talking grade inflation, which is non-existent here), but a 590 in Writing?</p>

<p>How would you explain 1250 on SAT I but 1540 on another equivalent test?</p>

<p>Accept it, one off tests are just that - one off tests.</p>

<p>And conker - you knew those words, good for you. What about international students? For most, it's rare enough coming across a word like 'deteriorated'....</p>

13

<p>mercurysquad, 600v and 710 is normal!
1.if you look at the percentil, 600v=78th, and 710 is about 80th
2.obviously grade inflation, if there is no grade inflation, the teacher was the person's relative.
3.that's possible, the first time the person took the test, he/she didn't know what the test asks and spends lots of time reading questions and instructions, the second time, he/she learned how the test worked on got 1540
there are all explanable!!!
i personally got 600V and 700writing, they are in the same percentile!!! makes the perfect sense!!!</p>

14

<p>If you look carefully, it is the slackers that seem to pull off higher test scores. The students that work harder tend to score lower.</p>

<p>Because the SAT tests more for intellgence than knowledge. Hard work directly correlates with knowledge. Intelligence, however, exists independently from effort. So you have a lot of intelligent slackers scoring high on the SAT.</p>

15

<p>cherrybarry -- that's a good point.</p>

16

<p>I don't agree. cherrybarry. It is the slackers who score high that garner a lot of attention. The top kids usually keep quiet about their test scores.</p>

17

<p>to me, AP tests will always seem more important than the SATs because they measure your ability to perform well (comparing you to other high schoolers, like the SAT) on actual coursework, which is, in my opinion, more relevant to university admissions than an "aptitude" test.</p>

18

<p>slackers scoring high is a gift, i think that's still good, i mean who would you rather be?
Newton (who suddenly finds gravity or a mediocre scientist who works hard all his life and gets nothing?) i think these are the same!</p>

19

<p>I agree with cherrybarry's basic point: that the kids who score higher on the SAT tend to be innately intelligent, and not necessarily hard-working. But being a slacker doesn't equate to having low grades. Many "slackers" are also "top kids" -- they pull off A's with virtually no effort involved.</p>

20

<p>I studied everyday for the entire summer of 2004 for the SAT. Every night I studied for at least an hour, and I took a practice test every three days. In high school, I've consistently had a GPA ranging from 3.8 - 3.9 (4.0 being the highest). For what its worth, I got a 135 on an IQ test (another test I don't believe measures a person's whole intelligence - I took it for fun).</p>

<p>I got a 1040 on the SAT. Do I think the score reflects my intelligence? No, I don't at all. In my opinion, the Scholastic Aptitude Test is not a concise way to measure a student's intelligence or abilities. I have known people who are really laid back have GPA's around 3.0 or 3.2 and still get a 1200 on the SAT.</p>