<p>If the 1430 was from a practice test and not a real SAT then you’re comparing apples and oranges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That just means you got more intelligent over those two years. I’m sure I would score much higher on an IQ test today than I would have two years ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am a poor test taker. I do not do well under time pressure. I panic when I’m supposed to regurgitate facts. I do especially poorly on SAT-style exams where, for example, I often see multiple possible answers for analogy questions. </p>
<p>Despite being a lousy test taker I graduated from UNC Chapel Hill in 2004 with highest distinction, a 3.9 GPA, and Phi Beta Kappa. I made a concerted effort while there to seek out classes that required papers rather than tests. I can crank out excellent ten to twenty page papers with relative ease; it takes time, but it isn’'t stressful. I earned an MA in 2006 and throughout the program I worried about the timed comprehensive exam. I had twenty-four hours to write the exam (basically a twenty page paper), but it was fine. Twenty-four hours was enough time that I could work comfortably.</p>
<p>My point is that some of us just don’t do well when we’re put on the spot. I answer most Jeopardy questions correctly at home, but I know I would do poorly on the show because I don’t function well under that kind of pressure. It isn’t a matter of preparedness, but rather a need for time to think. I need time to consider questions and craft responses, and timed testing doesn’t afford me sufficient time to deliberate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>no sorry ur dumb. being able to bubble in answers on a multiple-choice test is truly the ultimate test of intelligence.</p>
<p>thank GAWD.</p>
<p>I’ve been waiting for this thread.</p>
<p>cough cough - salaried, still means you show up for your required number of hours per week. It just means a larger commitment. You still have to work for your required amount of time. Just because you are salaried does not mean you can show up 1 day a week.</p>
<p>112358, I understand what you’re saying, but isn’t intelligence ingrained in DNA and at birth? Wait let me clarify, the POTENTIAL for intelligence. I believe you’re either intelligent or you’re not. Simple as that. Hard-work can go a long way though.</p>
<p>Call me out if I’m completely wrong here, don’t know a lot about biology.</p>
<p>When did I ever NOT acknowledge anxiety, ADD, or stress as factors able to negatively affect test taking? </p>
<p>But the thing is, stress under pressure is just another thing, like lack of knowledge, that an individual has to overcome. It doesn’t just apply to testing… after all, if a standardized test freaks you out, what the HELL are you going to do in a courtroom as a defense attorney, or in the ER? </p>
<p>So this is the summary of my question: Why on earth is “testing” being downplayed in society? If you can’t handle a little pressure, or can’t grasp the material, why can you claim to be as qualified as the person next to you who COULD? </p>
<p>(Of course, this is just one aspect- you might be harder worker, a better essay writer, a star chemist, or a nationally ranked athlete. So take my accusation with a grain of salt.)</p>
<p>
Just to give my two cents here—I do quite well on standardized testing. However, put me in a courtroom, and I will literally freak out. Oral exams are a definite weak point of mine, as I tend to feel pressure overwhelm me when I take those. On the other hand, said pressure never affects me in standardized tests. Thus, just because one feels pressure in one situation doesn’t mean it spills over into different situation. </p>
<p>
I don’t think testing should necessarily be downplayed either, but I do have some issues with the SAT I. There are two sections–the critical reading and the writing–which help boost the scores of those who happen to be better at English than at math. This doesn’t help colleges notice the people who are plenty smart (at math) and score poorly due to the imbalance. I also have the general feeling the math section is too easy to measure anything substantial–and yes, you can tell me there’s the SAT II Math, but that’s a farce with the right calculator (which favors those rich enough to purchase one). </p>
<p>
Well, IQ scores are not supposed to change for an individual, so taking an IQ test at 12 and 20 should yield the same score. However, there is evidence that by practicing the sorts of questions IQ tests ask, it is possible to increase one’s score. </p>
<p>In 112358’s case, I think he/she was talking about a score received in an absolute context, as in the number of answers obtained correctly. IQ tests would then put the person’s score and age into a function to obtain the actual score. Thus, the older one is, the more questions one would have to answer correctly in order to obtain the same IQ score. This doesn’t mean, though, that the score increases, just that the number of correct answers increases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The IQ does not actually measure natural intelligence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you don’t like public speaking, don’t become a trial lawyer, but the vast majority of law practiced doesn’t involve trials or public speaking. And while some may find being an ER doc stressful, I know an ER doc who thinks the stressful part of practicing medicine is patient relationships, which he avoids because as an ER doc his cases don’t carry over from one shift to the next. </p>
<p>It isn’t possible to “overcome” all of one’s shortcomings, and thankfully it isn’t necessary to do so in order to have a very successful and satisfying life.</p>
<p>@ dshinka</p>
<p>You do sound ignorant when you say that. URM =/= automatic admission over someone with better credentials. It may tip you over an applicant who has the same stats as you, but not someone who is outstandingly better. I’m sure I can find a few threads on here that would back me on that argument.</p>
<p>
What I find most annoying is when people who clearly lack the ability/intelligence act like they are entitled to a high score, like all the ACT/SAT posts that say "I scored a 26. I have to get a 34. I must get 2350+. Or the dreaded "I scored 2100/ how to get 2400 now?</p>
<p>I like the analogy describing intelligence as “velocity” and knowledge as “distance”. Sure, being smart can help you get by faster, but ultimately you still need time put forth to get the distance. On the other hand, even if you’re not so intelligent, if you put the time forth, you CAN achieve distance. </p>
<p>The SAT is a test of how much you know. There is no trick to it. </p>
<p>That’s why I don’t mind people who want to work hard to achieve something.</p>
<p>You do sound ignorant when you say that. URM =/= automatic admission over someone with better credentials. It may tip you over an applicant who has the same stats as you, but not someone who is outstandingly better. I’m sure I can find a few threads on here that would back me on that argument.</p>
<p>–</p>
<p>Affirmative Action is a broad, broad concept and has different ways of being implemented. 1) Unless you’ve worked in some sort of admittance agency like a university or an employer you don’t know precisely how it’s implemented. If you haven’t, then all you have to gauge is an informal survey on places like CC - which, if you haven’t noticed already, isn’t a good sample since there seems to be a lot of people that go to Ivies and score perfect/near perfect scores on here. 2) Even if you HAVE worked in a place like that, unless you’ve worked in multiple places, you don’t know the different ways it can be implemented. It can vary from quotas (worst) to being, as you described, a tie-breaker (best). If it was always the latter, I guarantee it wouldn’t be a big deal. </p>
<p>If you look at something like those white firefighters in Conneticut, had Affirmative Action been implemented, since NO blacks scored higher than all the qualifying whites/hispanics, then any blacks that were promoted over whites would have been inferior in every quantifiable merit-based way. Arguably having a few blacks could bring diversity when it comes to things like points of view, but having this kind of diversity isn’t affirmative action in my book since it’s done purely for diversity purposes and is not intended to combat racism or past/current discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is one exception to this on the SAT, and to me it’s the SAT essay. It is something which can easily be taught and perfected (hence intelligence isn’t really needed) but unfortunately it also sets forth an extremely poor example on how to write a sophisticated, thought-out essay. Plus it’s a good way to get one’s writing hand cramped. I personally think that the SAT essay needs to go or at least it should be seriously reformatted. Basically, it tests how fast you can create a structured essay, and I’m not sure how that measures any form of intelligence whatsoever.</p>
<h2>I like the analogy describing intelligence as “velocity” and knowledge as “distance”.</h2>
<p>You mean displacement so that they’re both vectors? (Intelligence, like a vector, has mutually exclusive dimensions…) Haha, I’m just being a jerk. But I’ve always thought this myself only I just left it in a more abstract form: intelligence is the derivative of knowledge.</p>
<p>
Outstandingly better? Define that. As in 500+ SAT points better? No; being a URM does not help you THAT much, but it is much more significant than being a tip-in if you have the same stats as a Caucasian or Asian. I’d say that a 2200+ URM will generally make it in over a 2350+ Caucasian/Asian. Being a URM is almost equivalent to being a recruited athlete for a major sport.</p>
<p>Is this a “complaint/excuse/etc.” one tends to hear mostly in relation to the ACT and SAT or do people try to use this for tests such as the LSAT, GRE and MCAT as well?</p>
<p>There is a much higher anxiety when taking a test that will determine your college selection than taking an exam for a letter grade.</p>
<p>There are so many differences between standardized testing and simple school subject testing. If you really want to know the difference, there are several articles online.</p>
<p>Keep that in mind when you complain that students are simply “ill-prepared.” Maybe you could learn a few things about the human psyche as well.</p>