<p>So the fact that we can’t distinguish between the intelligence level of two geniuses somehow means that no two people in the world have differing levels of intelligence? Let me ask you this: who is smarter, Albert Einstein or the homeless guy living in your back alley? According to your theory, they’re equally smart. According to your theory, you’re as smart as Einstein. According to your theory, I’m as smart as Einstein. I don’t think that’s true.</p>
<p>No one is saying that the SAT is the be-all and end-all to intelligence measurement. No one is saying someone can’t perform poorly on the SAT and still be a smart person. I do think, however, that most of us will agree that some people are smarter than others, and that the SAT is one of many factors that can help distinguish varying levels of intelligence.</p>
<p>Heck, according to your theory, we may as well throw out essays, recs, GPA, and ECs as admissions factors as well. Maybe some people are just bad essay writers. I’m sure some people are just bad at finishing their homework through no fault of their own. We’re all equally smart anyway, so I guess we should just draw straws to see who gets to go to Harvard.</p>
<p>Anyway, I think that Shakespeare would probably be better at CR and W, and Einstein would score higher on M. Assuming they wouldn’t both get 2400s, of course.</p>
<p>Some people have bona fide medical conditions (ADHD, anxiety, OCD, etc.) that cause problems on tests. They should seek professional help for these ailments, though even that may not fully resolve the issue.</p>
<p>It is just not that black and white. Some seem to be saying there are no bad test takers, others that standardized testing is meaningless, or that no one is more intelligent than anyone else.</p>
<p>A little nuance, people. Some people are bad test takers, some people are not very weill prepared, and some are not very bright. At the same time, a standardized test measures but one facet of what makes people successful. Creativity -the ability to see things or interpret information in an orginal way, spacial relations, artistic ability, and many other factors merit consideration. There are are tasks (and careers) where speed is important, there are tasks where thouroughness or attention to detail is emportant. Some jobs need alot of computational ability, others require more intuitive thinking or communication skills. </p>
<p>I don’t think that SAT scores are worthless ( I got 1550 myself about 30 years ago) but I think they are over emphasized in college admissions. This is understandable because it is a quick and ojective measure, but it loses alot. Kind of like buying a house based on a single photo taken from the street in front.</p>
<p>That’s not the topic. There are no bad test takers, period. It doesn’t matter whether the SAT is worthless or not. That’s not the point. It also doesn’t matter whether a person is successful or not. The point is that there are no bad test takers.</p>
<p>“That’s not the topic. There are no bad test takers, period. It doesn’t matter whether the SAT is worthless or not. That’s not the point. It also doesn’t matter whether a person is successful or not. The point is that there are no bad test takers.”</p>
<p>And you all know this exactly how? Revealed wisdom?</p>
<p>I kind of disagree with the OP. I think what they mean is that they are not good at timed standardized tests. I studied a ton for the SAT, but after months of prep got a 2050. my buddy got a 2250 with no prep. We share many of the same classes, and we have fairly equal grades ( both at top of the class), but I usually do better than he does in school tests. I think it is about mental endurance. I think my mind gives out at about the third hour. perhaps it is genetic, his brother got a perfect 1600</p>
<p>The revealed wisdom comment refers to the statement “There are no bad test takers period”. Among the people I know who have done badly on standardized tests are some that are dumb, some that didn’t prepare, and some who just don’t seem to be good at taking tests. Many of the writers in this thread just seem so dogmatic and cannot imagine that peoply may vary in this way.</p>
<p>Give me anyone who can’t preform well on a test consisting of only 1+1, and I will admit there are bad test takers.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but you can ALWAYS be more prepared. I know the SAT questions are much harder than 1+1, but if you prepare enough, it will be like 1+1.</p>
<p>But strykermom, do you think that thousands of people clamoring to be “bad test takers” because they don’t think they got the score they deserve (Cough cough) warrants other “intangibles” to be more and more valued while standardized testing is devalued? </p>
<p>People with legitimate problems can ask for special accommodations… for everyone else, what you do in that 4 hours is a result of being prepared for testing, or not. </p>
<p>I mean, ECs are great. Except for the 90% of students that turn clubs into popularity contests to pad college applications. Standardized tests are the only “levelers” that college admissions has- a quantitative comparison with everyone else applying.</p>
<p>I think test scores should be considered along with other factors such a grades, class ranking, ECs, opportunities and disadvantages, etc. I think this is what most schools do. I just objected to the idea that there are NO bad test takers, not to the idea that SOME poeple who do badly are just not very bright.</p>
<p>It also concerns me, although it is off topic, that the system of special accommodations for the SAT is flaed, with some kids who should get it not knowing how to go about it or not getting identified early enough while a lot of private school kids with wealthier and more involved families and more access to doctors and shrinks getting extra time they vdon’t really need.</p>
<p>Again, show me a person who can’t handle any test, like one with only 1+1, and you can say there are bad test takers. Otherwise, that really proves that no one is a bad test taker given that you know the material well enough.</p>
<p>To your second paragraph, I’m not sure what you meant by “it”, so I’ll assume it’s the SAT.</p>
<p>The fact is, wealthier people’s children also get a better education, and is more likely to be more knowledgeable. The world is not a fair place. it is what it is, and there’s no point trying to sugarcoat everything and account for every little thing to help the disadvantaged while disadvantaging everyone else. It just doesn’t make sense.</p>
the system of special accommodations for the SAT is flaed, with some kids who should get it not knowing how to go about it or not getting identified early enough while a lot of private school kids with wealthier and more involved families and more access to doctors and shrinks getting extra time they vdon’t really need.
[/quote]
strykermom, do you have a data source on this, or just a vague sense of unease? With all the social programs out there, I have a hard time believing that “rich kids” are getting unfair testing accommodations in droves.</p>
<p>I might agree with you that the system is flawed, but for different reasons. For example, as far as I know, test results don’t include any indication as to whether accommodations were made. This might seem sensible from the perspective of medical privacy, but it means that the scores don’t reflect identical abilities under identical circumstances – disturbing for a normative test. Most students would do significantly better on the SAT if they were given extra time to complete it.</p>
<p>A 600 for African American students is the 95th percentile (average of any section, they are 94, 95, and 96 per section). For white students, 95th percentile is a 700. That’s a 100 point discrepancy. That certainly makes up for 100 of that perceived “two hundred point bonus”. As for Asian students, the 95th percentile is closer to 730, hence the “fifty point decrease”. For Hispanic students, the 95th percentile is around 650, although Hispanics are divided by nation or place of origin. That’s a fifty point discrepancy from white students. If you noticed in that student, the bonus was only given to students in the 1200 to 1300 range. That makes sense, since there are fewer than eight percent of all African Americans above a 600 in any one section, let alone both math and critical reading.</p>
<p>I am pretty neutral on the topic of AA. However, one thing people always forget is that colleges - especially top colleges - don’t exist to accept only the most “academically qualified” students. Top colleges are creating a cohort. THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTING THE MOST “ACADEMICALLY QUALIFIED” STUDENTS (this bears repeating in all caps, since it is the fundamental flaw in the reasoning of people both for and against Affirmative Action).</p>
<p>The bad test taker thing is, for most students, the same thing. If I white student doesn’t get into Harvard with a 2400 and a 4.0, s/he blames the black student with a 2100 and a 3.8. If an otherwise great student doesn’t do well on standardized testing, he or she claims to be a bad test taker or blames the test.</p>
<p>Many parents do not know in time to get accommodations for their kids for the standardized tests, and even those who start the paperwork in time don’t always get it. Stroll on over to the LD Forum and read about it.</p>
<p>By the time Happykid had finished elementary school, I knew she’d never be good at standardized tests. She has not wasted one second of her life on the ACT, PSAT, or SAT. She has taken the state HS graduation exams, and will decide for herself if she wants to be bothered with any AP exams for courses she takes. Fortunately her career interest doesn’t require suffering through this kind of thing.</p>
<p>ouch… maybe it applies to a lot of people, but definitely not all or even most. One of my friends comes to mind especially, though it applies to many people in my high school. This particular friend is a real genius, but she received an average (1500 out of 2400) SAT score. She really is just not good at taking tests. This stems from a variety of reasons that people who are good at taking tests cannot completely understand, which are psychological and probably rooted in childhood.</p>
<p>Can this friend do well on a really easy exam? One that’s several grade levels under?</p>
<p>If so, then she’s not as genius as you claim. People can’t just go around saying “oh so so so is a genius and scored low, so there must be bad test takers”. How can you say they’re “genius” if they can’t even get an average score on the SATs? (even though the average is supposedly 500, it’s a bit higher most of the time)</p>