"Not a good test taker..."- I don't understand.

rmadden15 · July 8, 2009, 12:16pm

^ You are a silly person. Your justification is that if you do not see a bad test taker, it does not exist. Using biased perception leads to false reasoning, which in turn leads to emotional, biased language. Your prove nothing other than your narrow-minded view of the SATs, something that is not commendable in the least.

I have never seen gravity, therefore it does not exist. Sure, I see its effects, and the scientific reasoning on why it is indeed true, but without my oh-so objective visual observation of it, I will always be dubious. What kind of reasoning is that? Or rather, lack of reasoning…

u_ername · July 8, 2009, 12:19pm

yes, I am a silly person. But at least I attempted to explain myself.

Prove to me that bad test takers do exist. I can’t see the effects and scientific reasoning on why bad test takers exist at all.

We use induction in our every day lives all the time. Everyone makes certain conclusions because the contrary doesn’t exist. In fact, all of logic is based on the fact that there are no other posibilities that we can think of. If you think induction is silly, then I guess everything you have learned in science and mathematics are all silly.

rmadden15 · July 8, 2009, 12:26pm

I am a bad test taker. As said by Descartes, “Cogito Ergo Sum,” or “I think therefore I am.” Since I exist, and I am a bad test-taker, there is indeed atleast ONE bad test-taker. Whether or not you BELIEVE I am a bad test-taker or not does not PROVE anything, because opinion does not effect objective knowlege. Justification? Why do I need it? You go on about the all-powerful “common sense” and this fact, to me, is “common sense.”

someon · July 8, 2009, 12:42pm

Of course not, but amongst those who do not know how to do all of the questions, these skills (exclude the clearly commonsense stuff like POE, good guessing and so on) such as the two I mentioned, time management and endurance, will be of some benefit. The reason why these skills are less beneficial if you make the test easier is that they are simply less necessary. For example, if the questions are easier, then time management becomes not so necessary because those who manage their time poorly are not penalized as harshly, given that the questions take less time.

Perhaps I’ll make the time management part clearer: Say you have two people who take identical amounts of time on any question on some section on the SAT. One of them knows exactly how long each question will take before starting it, and the other does not. Also, say that they take a while before getting to the answer, so that if the test were done optimally, they would get 2/3 of the questions right. Now, we expect the first person to get somewhere close to the optimal number through skipping questions that will take a long time and all that, while the second person may have to waste time trying to do a question before finding that it is not worth the time spent, and thus gets a lower score.

Now with this part of time management the question of whether or not it is part of what the SAT is testing is up in the air. I believe that some will say that it is part of the test while others will say that it is a skill outside of it. The fact, however, is that these two people had exactly the same ability to do the questions, that is, to do what the test was most directly testing, but there is a discrepancy in their scores because of a factor that the test was not directly testing.

So perhaps the question that these posters have different answers to is: What do we consider the test to test? If we answer that question, then I think that we would consider a bad test taker to be someone who is deficient in some quality that the test is not testing, and that deficiency causes a drop in score.

someon · July 8, 2009, 12:43pm

My goodness… rmadden15 is either a ■■■■■ or does not understand the scientific method…

Y’know, I used to be a rationalist. However, if you add some doubt to that, I think you realize that humans make silly mistakes sometimes. So I don’t think that reason is the end-all-be-all of what we know. Empiricism is where it’s at.

To your post on gravity: what exactly is the “scientific reasoning on why it is true”? Is it supposed to be some a priori reason? Anyway, sight is only one form of observation. You have observed gravity through other means. That’s different from username stating that he (?) has not !observed! a bad test taker. In fact, he is using valid reasoning: no intuitive reason that bad test takers exist, and no observation that they exist = null hypothesis, that as far as we know, no bad test takers exist and we live our lives as such.

To the one mentioning descartes, there are two flaws. One: you state as an axiom that you are a bad test taker. This is not self-evident. Two: I think therefore I am is not valid from anyone’s perspective but your own. How do I know that you exist, a priori? I don’t. Garbage in, garbage out, your conclusion is not necessarily true.

u_ername · July 8, 2009, 12:59pm

Of course not, but amongst those who do not know how to do all of the questions, these skills (exclude the clearly commonsense stuff like POE, good guessing and so on) such as the two I mentioned, time management and endurance, will be of some benefit. The reason why these skills are less beneficial if you make the test easier is that they are simply less necessary. For example, if the questions are easier, then time management becomes not so necessary because those who manage their time poorly are not penalized as harshly, given that the questions take less time.

Perhaps I’ll make the time management part clearer: Say you have two people who take identical amounts of time on any question on some section on the SAT. One of them knows exactly how long each question will take before starting it, and the other does not. Also, say that they take a while before getting to the answer, so that if the test were done optimally, they would get 2/3 of the questions right. Now, we expect the first person to get somewhere close to the optimal number through skipping questions that will take a long time and all that, while the second person may have to waste time trying to do a question before finding that it is not worth the time spent, and thus gets a lower score.

Now with this part of time management the question of whether or not it is part of what the SAT is testing is up in the air. I believe that some will say that it is part of the test while others will say that it is a skill outside of it. The fact, however, is that these two people had exactly the same ability to do the questions, that is, to do what the test was most directly testing, but there is a discrepancy in their scores because of a factor that the test was not directly testing. 

So perhaps the question that these posters have different answers to is: What do we consider the test to test? If we answer that question, then I think that we would consider a bad test taker to be someone who is deficient in some quality that the test is not testing, and that deficiency causes a drop in score.

Very good points. Much better explained than everyone else.

I would like to make a few more points on that myself, though. First of all, I agree. Because the questions are easier, there is less need for so-called “test taking skills”. However, if you study the SAT material really hard, it would because easier material to you.

To the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs: If you put it that way, then yes, one will score higher than the other. However, when people say bad test taking skills, they’re saying “I know everything, just not how to do it on a test”. It’s not like… I don’t know how to explain this, but I mean if you’re applying to a top school, we’re assuming you know most things. Those “skills” can only get you so far. Anyway, they come from experience, and those with more experience will do better. It’s part of life. If you say some people got more opportunity than others, well… life isn’t fair is it. Also, it’s not like those skills don’t apply to a normal test… You can use any of those on a school exam, or any other exam. It’s not specific to the SATs.

To your last paragraph, I wouldn’t call it a “drop in score”, I would say it didn’t cause a “raise in score”.

happymomof1 · July 8, 2009, 1:09pm

"…What if we switch the CR section with questions that only require vocabulary up to the 4th grade, and passages that are something like “the cat in the hat”,
We switch the math section with just addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of integers less than 100,
We switch the essay to a summary on a piece of reading, and make the grammar section only contain spelling errors on simple words?

We’ll have the same number of questions, passages of the same length, given in the same style.

Do you think that a bad test taker would get equally as bad on such an exam?"

I think that your question is whether or not a bad tester is a bad tester under all conditions.

The answer to that would be No. There are multiple means to assess whether a student has mastered a given subject area.

However, if your question is whether some individual students are always bad testers for exams in one particular format, the answer is likely to be Yes.

There are a number of factors that enter into how someone performs on an exam. These factors include (but are not limited to):

1) Subject area knowledge.

2) Format of the exam (multiple choice, true/false, fill-in-the-blank, short answer, long essay, oral, untimed, take-home, open-book, etc.)

3) Exam site conditions (early/late in the day, indoors/outdoors, hot/cold, well/poorly lit, quiet/noisy, etc.)

4) Exam taker’s mental and physical state (hungry/full, tired/awake, confident/nervous, etc.)

5) Specific pre-exam preparation (classroom work, out of class study, familiarization with specific exam format, etc.)

In the “cat in the hat” model that you pose, the vast majority of HS students should be expected to perform well because the subject matter is deliberately simplified. However, some who are relatively poor readers (for example dyslexic), have have scattered attention spans (for example some ADD students), or didn’t get enough sleep last night, or didn’t get breakfast, or are sitting in an ice-cold draft, may just flat-out wipe out. In this specific instance, those students who did not perform up to the teacher’s expectations could be described has having tested badly.

Finding the right way to assess the skills that students are expected to be learning is a huge challenge for a teacher. And yes, teachers who come across a batch of students who are so very very bad at taking exams written in one particular format will indeed seek alternate means of assessing those students. Truth be told, some students just haven’t learned much. Teachers want to know which students learned (and how much) and which didn’t. It is very rare for a student to be such an over-all bad tester that a competent teacher can’t find out whether the student has or hasn’t actually learned anything. There almost always is another way of getting a student to demonstrate what he or she has learned.

someon · July 8, 2009, 1:19pm

Ah, I see. Then I’d agree that the people who are saying that they know how to do the questions, but say that the test format screws something up, are wrong. In fact, I think that they are wrong necessarily because there isn’t much I can see inherently about the multiple choice test format causing you to get the wrong answer to a question that you should have gotten right to such a degree that your score is that much less than you expect. Two things that can could cause a, perhaps, unwarranted drop in score may be the test weariness, and the anxiety thing.

To happymom, I don’t understand how the format of a test makes a difference in getting to the answer. Can you or someone else elaborate on that?

u_ername · July 8, 2009, 1:26pm

happymom,

If you only “know” certain things in certain places at certain times with certain wheather conditions, I wouldn’t count that as “knowing”. If it’s just one bad test on a bad day, that I can understand. However, if you consistantly get a low mark, then you really just don’t know the material well enough.

I honestly don’t believe many people would not be able to do 1+1 or read the cat in the hat because it was rainy.

someon · July 8, 2009, 1:30pm

to be more specific, I meant disregarding certain factor such as length of a test and time allotted.

feminawesome · July 8, 2009, 1:32pm

I got a 2190 on my SAT so it’s not an issue here, but the answer to your question “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?” is yes. I don’t have as much anxiety problems with tests now, but my Freshman year I had serious test-taking issues. I would just freeze. Even with the SATs and APs, I had terrible nightmares before each test and often woke up with a pillow wet from crying. I managed, though, to keep the anxiety limited to my subconscious and to handle the tests themselves without anxiety.

Just because it’s something I’ve overcome doesn’t mean everyone else has overcome it, though. And some people have learning disabilities that make test-taking much more difficult than for non-disabled people.

rmadden15 · July 8, 2009, 2:00pm

Someon, you did not prove anything, and while I would LOVE to get in a debate philosophy with you, I have better things to do, like, um, glue my face to a wall?

Anyway, I know I am not the best test-taker, and whether or not I exist, , is not relevant. Since my personal experience is not adquate to prove anything to you all, I guess that is your loss. Disgarding evidence, whether or not it is tangible, is immature and neglegent(sp?), making your statemnt void, or at leats inaccurate.

HOWEVER, I have, and will continually, belive that while some are not good test takers, it is something that can be improved. While I am not a good timed test-taker, due to my carelessness, I went from an 1810 to a 2110. I am noted in my math classes for being very slow, teachers often saying, “Well, rmadden15 got this done in 45 min, so I should see you all getting it done in that time too.” I ace any math quiz put in front of me, as long as there is not time-limit. Anyway, while a small example, I think it proves, to me, that there are “bad test takers.”

happymomof1 · July 8, 2009, 2:19pm

u§ername, yes indeed if you consistently get a bad grade across multiple testing modalities, chances are that you simply don’t know the material.

Test format is a huge issue in assessment. Are we testing the students knowledge, or their tolerance of the exam modality? How badly are they affected by the modality - is it enough to make us throw out the results entirely, or do we pool that information with other data before we make a conclusion? Should we make the test situation more like the situation where they learned the skill, or more like the environment where they will actually have to use the skill?

Think of all of the possible ways that you could demonstrate what you know about the US Civil War: One long timed essay on the causes and results of the war. Twenty short-answer questions about the war. 100 true/false questions. Fifty multiple-choice questions. An exam that combines several of these types of questions. Fifty minutes to prepare a ten minute oral presentation. Two weeks to create a song/make a poster/write a skit. Each of those requires different skills from the person who is being tested, but each of them could conceivably result in the presentation of the same history facts.

As to students doing poorly on an exam because of weather, I’d ask you to think very, very carefully about the environmental conditions that you prefer when you are studying or taking an exam. Do you like the room warm? Do you want the music off? Do you want to read on the sofa? Do you need an ergonomic computer keyboard? The environment can affect our performance - sometimes in large ways, sometimes in subtle ways. One goal that each of you should have, is to determine the environmental factors that are most conducive for your own best performance. That way you can do your best to optimize the conditions that you find yourselves working in. If you can’t stand loud music (but your roommate needs it), and you really hate that white noise in the library, where else can you find to study in college? If you always sit in the back of the room in class, but the professor has you sit alphabetically for the exam (or your exam is in an entirely different room on campus), how will you regain your focus so that you can do well on that exam?

rmadden15 - Have you talked to the school psychologist about checking your processing speed? If you know the material, but can only produce results in un-timed situations, there may be a neurological thing going on. You want to have that identified before college so that you can get any accommodations you need to do your personal best.

You are a nice smart bunch. You are going to keep your professors on their toes!

someon · July 8, 2009, 2:55pm

rmadden: I was indirectly criticising the use of informal deduction here when it isn’t needed- personal anecdote is fine in this discussion, but to trying to use “axiom, axiom, therefore conclusion” is inappropriate for this topic. Your third paragraph is what is called for in this topic.

I’m not sure what you think I was trying to prove… other than that your “proof” was flawed, as most “proofs” by philosophers are. Unless you are within the realm of math, any “proof” you attempt to construct will be non-rigorous in the sense of being well defined.

u_ername · July 8, 2009, 2:59pm

None of those factors affect my test taking at all. Then again, that’s just me, and doesn’t really prove anything.

There are ways with which you can “maximize your score”. That I agree. However, if you don’t know the ways, that doesn’t mean you’re a bad test taker; it means you got a score you deserved, but you might’ve gotten higher if you were luckier. It’s often like the difference between a 150 and a 144 on the AMCs - guessing the last question correctly or not. If you got a 144 you’re not a bad test taker, you just guessed wrong. You didn’t deserve the 150.

swissmiss3 · July 8, 2009, 6:13pm

Some kids get overwhelmed by the realization that the test matters so much. Lots of people get anxious or nervous about the tests. It doesn’t mean they’re stupid or not prepared; their emotions run wild and they get scared, nervous, anxious, whatever you want to call it. Intelligence and preparation will work only if you can control your emotions, nerves, or thoughts while testing.

ChaoticOrder · July 8, 2009, 7:56pm

Interesting points someone, i agree with what you said about math being the only truth out there, except for maybe geometry since a lot of the geometrical proofs are based of accepted axioms within the study of geometry; so essentially it contains a circular logic which to me seems fallacious. However, my experience with philosophy goes only as far as a few light books so i can’t be certain–can we be certain of anything =) ?

Back to the original issue,
I think that what some people have trouble dealing with is not the material, rather the prestige that sites like this attach to the SATs which in turn perpetuate a belief that one’s self worth is being measured.

u_ername · July 8, 2009, 8:18pm

Nope, we can’t. Mathematics isn’t “truth”. It is only a system which does not contradict itself. You can’t really “prove” anything, because for all we know we are just a dream, or an experiment by some “mad scientist”.

And while I agree anxiety might affect how well you do, there are two points:

everyone is nervous
if you are confident enough about how much you know, you won’t be so nervous.

112358 · July 8, 2009, 9:15pm

OK, so taking the SAT requires some good judgment. I don’t really have a problem with that. Everything in life requires us to use good judgment. It takes good judgment to choose the right essay topic, maintain a high GPA, and manage one’s time with ECs, so if you’re going to disqualify the SAT based on the need for good judgment, you have to disqualify everything else.

Good judgment is more important than raw intelligence anyway, so I really don’t have a problem with it being necessary for the SAT.

J_adoube · July 8, 2009, 10:35pm

Could this be more of a parent issue? In another thread I saw a girl sadly commenting that her friend’s mother, on finding out that this girl scored much higher than her daughter, could only say “you must be a very good test taker.”

Thread		Replies	Views
Does anyone really believe the "poor test taker" excuse? College Confidential Community college-confidential-cafe	131	1108	April 17, 2021
"I'm A Bad Standardized Test Taker" Excuse Test Preparation	73	2462	April 14, 2021
The "Bad Test-taker" Excuse SAT Preparation	20	881	April 16, 2021
who here thinks that SAT or ACT is stupid? Test Preparation	113	2625	April 14, 2021
Who here's sick of excuses for low standardized test scores? High School Life	76	471	April 16, 2021

"Not a good test taker..."- I don't understand.

Related topics

CONNECT WITH US