<p>I see this excuse pop up so much... "I'm just not a good test taker...". Whether it's for the SAT, AP, Subject Tests, or ACT. So many people will just validate low scores with the classic "I'm not a good tester". </p>
<p>I don't understand- Does the pressure of sitting down with a College Board packet in front of someone cause them to freak out and lose all their wits? Not likely. Is there some kind of secret to bubbling a grid no one knows of? Then how can you be a "bad test taker?"</p>
<p>Those classic "tricks" like skipping hard questions won't get you very far, even if you know them. If you really need to skip hard questions on the SAT I, god help you on getting over a 700. Those stupid "ballparking" and "narrowing down" tricks won't help you much at all, if you want any kind of decent score. Especially since guessing is always penalized. </p>
<p>I mean, I could be wrong. But I think being a "bad test taker" just means you aren't prepared. I'm not arguing about the validity of these tests in being able to test their specific subjects, or the IQ for that matter- for all I know, they might be terribly written and completely useless. I'm just saying- if someone wasn't prepared, it's no fault of the test. He didn't know the information. Period.</p>
<p>Anyway, it should be "I didn't study/prepare enough." or "I do not understand the information easily enough." Tests are there to test how much you know about the subject they are testing, and standardized testing is no exception. If you aren't good at assimilating information for tests, well tough luck, it means you don't know thoroughly what was being tested. We don't all pop out scoring 2400s and doing super-modeling as an extracurricular.</p>
<p>Well, if you complain about time… You are not reading fast enough, or solving the math fast enough. Has nothing to do with “being a good test taker”. You weren’t prepared if you can’t do the problems in a reasonable amount of time- which is understandable, but not excusable.</p>
<p>I haven’t tried the ACT. But the SAT gives plenty of time, for all the sections. Reading was easy enough, unless you’re OCD about the choice you made and keep rechecking- which you most likely don’t need to do anyway. Math is a little tougher, but nothing that can’t be handled. 25 minutes, 20 questions- Over a minute for each question, especially since the first 10-15 are solvable pretty much just by taking a quick glance at the question.</p>
<p>I don’t understand it either. If the student does well in school, wouldn’t it imply that they are a good test taker because they still have to take times tests under pressure at school.</p>
<p>I have been wondering the same thing for a while as well (of course, I’m biased because I’m a “good test-taker”). It’ll be interesting to see how people respond.</p>
<p>I understand time constraints for the ACT (never taken it but I’ve heard that it’s essentially a speed test), but on the SAT, the only thing that I ever feel rushed on is the essay.</p>
<p>Well, OK, I’m not going to actually say the essay “tests” your writing ability. But I suppose it DOES test how much valid material/garbage you can churn out in 25 minutes, and how cohesive you can make that paragraph of valid material/garbage, to deal with the messed up scoring system… </p>
<p>But I think the essay is the most flawed portion of any of the tests… but still, I haven’t seen many lousy writers get 12s on the SAT essay (Although I have seen good writers get bad scores since they didn’t know about the length thing, and spent too much time refining a little bit of writing…)</p>
<p>mowmow, neither do I. If someone is not a good test taker, good luck surviving college when his or her entire grade is usually based on two midterms and a final. This is even doubly important for anyone who wishes to major in anything technical. Not doing well on these tests is almost always a sign of poor preparation for the test or a not so good high school background. Only in the cases of certain learning disabilities can I understand the “not a good test taker” refrain.</p>
<p>I actually phased out my OCD by taking practice tests. It used to be so bad that I actually took like 2 minutes on the first problem of a math question, checking it over 7-8 times!</p>
<p>Trust me, obsessive checking will make you tired incredibly fast.
If you have OCD during tests, CRUSH it!</p>
<p>Yeah, timed writing tests blow. Good writing takes time and thought. I have no idea why schools think that these tests do a good job of measuring writing aptitude. To do well on them, you have to abandon how you usually write and fill up the lines with boilerplate, 5 paragraph essay bullcrap. ugh.</p>
<p>Some people are legitimately bad test takers (have trouble focusing, have major test-related anxiety, etc.), but I think that excuse is way overused.</p>
<p>I tend to have time troubles on everything minus the essays and math sections. I just can’t read or think that fast. Then my mind tends to wander because I’m discouraged. But I agree, too many people say that…</p>
<p>Wow I have always wondered this. In highschool, I did at least 100 points better than my friends whom are as smart if not smarter than me. They use the bad tester excuse, but I thought it was bull…I mean either you can figure out the answer to the question or not?</p>
<p>I am so surprised at this thread. First, keep in my mind, I do decent-well on standardized tests, but I know some people who are genuinely bad test takers. They study more than I do, do more work, and sometimes try much harder, but on the test, I still do better. Now what we need to understand here is the definition of a “bad test taker.” A bad test taker may be someone who finds it hard to retain information or moves at a slower pace (aka different type of learner or whatever). Now I’m not saying that these people are more prepared for college. In fact, I 100% agree that the higher your scores are, the more prepared you are for college. BUT there are bad test takers out there. People who are extremely smart, but for one reason or another seem to do poorly on tests. </p>
<p>Now there are people who claim to be bad test takers who are really not and are probably just lazy and don’t understand the test itself, but this does not take away the fact there are some bad test takers.</p>
<p>So in that case, you are either
A) Slow
B) Not a good learner. </p>
<p>And like I said, tough luck, but that’s life. “Bad test taker” is an excuse for not knowing enough, or knowing enough but not being fast enough to do it (Which generally means you didn’t know it WELL enough). Whatever the reason for not being able to work out that math problem, you didn’t work out that math problem, and that’s that- No one’s fault but your own. </p>
<p>I find it ludicrous that colleges are downplaying standardized testing in general because of people claiming to be “bad test takers”. </p>
<p>I don’t claim to have amazing scores either, but I take my failures with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>Not to offend anyone… but that doesn’t mean you’re a “different type of learner.” It just means you’re not as smart. Isn’t the ability to retain a lot of information and reason with it efficiently essentially what smartness is?</p>
<p>Yeah, I don’t get the bad test taker BS either. I have easily beat each year’s valedictorian for porbably the past 5 years or so on ALL standardized tests, yet I am only in the top 20%, and many colleges would prefer to take them over me. I guess I had better start learning how to cheat in class to keep up with them (because some of the past ones were INSANELY good at cheating).</p>