<p>Alright, I understand that some people naturally suffer from anxiety when taking standardized tests, but it seems as though nearly everyone who does poorly on the SAT/ACT claims to "be a bad test-taker." If you're really taking 8 AP's and have a perfect 4.0, there's almost no way you're going to score a 1500 on the SAT, if you really deserve those grades. It's such a common excuse, and it really irritates me. </p>
<p>I'd say that about 90% of the time, people who make this excuse have, in reality, just had their grades inflated, which explains the disparity between their grades and test scores. And the SAT/ACT is absolutely a good measure of success in college. Do you think the "I'm bad at tests" excuse is going to hold weight if you fail your midterms? You're going to have to take many tests in college and when entering graduate school.</p>
<p>I don't claim to be a perfect student and my scores are perhaps average by CC standards (I have a 3.7 GPA and 2090 SAT), but it annoys me to no end when people make this excuse..</p>
<p>I totally agree with you. Some people who receive low grades for their exams claim that they didn’t have much time to prepare or something like that. So? Does colleges care? What about other students who achieve high grades? What about those who had enough time? Wouldn’t it be their fault for failing time management?</p>
<p>I really don’t understand those people who keep making excuses.</p>
<p>I’d be careful throwing around arbitrary statistics like that.</p>
<p>That being said, the “bad test taker” excuse is one that I’ve also heard. I think that much of it is mental, and that people just pick this stuff off the internet and believe that they have it themselves. Of course, there are also some people with ADHD, but I’d hardly call them the majority.</p>
<p>Why do you care? Is your self-esteem determined by your standing versus others on the SAT? Probably not, so why devote any time to this? Truth be told, it sounds just a little bit whiny. The score other students get has no bearing on your performance unless you are in direct competition with them for a placement in the school of your choice and if they performed poorly, whatever the reason, then you have the advantage. Why stress over their explanations?</p>
<p>Please, allow me to comment on a couple of the statements you made in your original posting. As cheerioswithmilk has observed, your 90% comment is extremely arbitrary and based on what exactly? Your extensive study of the phenomena? I will assume from your comments that you are a student, so I will ask you, how many students have you worked with? Is it this vast experience that qualifies you to judge your fellow students? This board is a very helpful place to discuss questions and strategies that will aid all students who visit here to improve their scores. It becomes less helpful with posts like yours. </p>
<p>The second comment deals with your statement that “And the SAT/ACT is absolutely a good measure of success in college.” Are you sure of this, do you have the data to back that statement up? In my experience, the SAT/ACT is only a good measure of how well you take tests. Before you question my data for making this statement, you should know that I am not a student, I am a teacher and I have worked with hundreds of students in both the classroom and in private tutoring. Many of them underperformed on their SATs but performed brilliantly in college while others overperformed on the test yet struggled in college.</p>
<p>Look, for all I know, you are a great kid but understand that this posting does not serve you well. I wish you nothing but the best in your endeavors and I believe that you possess the skills to be successful. Do not waste your time and energy worrying about others’ excuses.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t go so far as to say those students don’t deserve the grades in their classes, because the tests they take for their classes are content-based. They can study for those tests in a way they can’t for the SAT. The ACT is a bit more content based, which is why you will see some students do well on one test, and poorly on the other.</p>
<p>A low test score may be an indication of grade inflation, but that would only be proven if it was consistent across an entire student body. People learn in different ways, and that is reflected in these test scores. The same can be said about state testing. My middle D scores in the top percentile on our state tests, and has since she started taking them, yet struggles in school - to the point I had to have her tested on my own, because school administrators insisted a child who does that well on the tests can’t possibly be having such difficulties - she must just be lazy. She tests well, as other students test poorly. </p>
<p>The SAT does seem to be a good indicator of success in college, but it isn’t the only indicator. Consistent work in classes, where testing may or may not play a significant role in grading, can be another indicator. Test scores are not a direct correlation to grades.</p>
<p>I have one question, what and how does a SAT measure a student’s aptitude(sincere)??<i am="" not="" happy="" with="" my="" marks,="" that’s="" why=""></i></p><i am="" not="" happy="" with="" my="" marks,="" that’s="" why="">
</i>
<p>I agree. I think overall, standardized tests measure natural ability. Tests in a classroom can easily be mastered if one spends hours and hours studying, but that doesn’t necessarily prove intelligence because anyone can memorize definitions and notes if they try. Standardized tests can’t be mastered solely through studying so that’s where people who are only “book smart” get stuck and thus begin to make excuses.</p>
<p>So does it mean anything or nothing if you are better at SAT than ACT? I only ask because my son was told the ACT is easier than the SAT and he thought the total opposite - he did slightly better on the SAT than the ACT and said that he was uncomfortable with the way the ACT questions/problems were worded? Very different from what I’ve been reading.</p>
<p>I don’t think you need to ridicule Resistance1 for his post. This issue is a common topic here on CC and I think it is true what he is saying.
It’s not that our self esteem is “determined by your standing versus others on the SAT,” it’s just that people so often make this excuse without even thinking and it takes away the pride of the people who actually do well on the SAT. When you really think about it, how can one truly be a “bad test-taker”? It just doesn’t make sense. If you are able to do well on the SAT, you will. If you don’t do well on the SAT, then you’re not as smart as the people who did better than you. It’s a simple concept.
And if you’re going to write an entire post just ridiculing everything the OP says, then just don’t make the post. This website is about discussion, and Resistance1 is allowed to create this thread. As I said, I hear this discussed a lot on CC and it’s fine to have a thread about it. I can tell that the people on this thread who are attacking Resistance1 are the people who would actually make the excuse about being a “bad test-taker.”</p>
<p>Nice try RoseOak, but not really. How does someone claiming that they are a bad test taker take " away the pride of the people who actually do well on the SAT." ? Please enlighten me. You say that this is a discussion board and discussion should be allowed but then turn around and say my discussion is not welcome. That is a little inconsistent on your part isn’t it?</p>
<p>Oh, and you can tell that the people on this thread that disagree with you are “the people who would actually make the excuse about being a ‘bad test-taker.’” And what exactly gives you the expertise to make this determination? This is an old game you play, try to discredit the person rather than facing the argument. </p>
<p>" If you are able to do well on the SAT, you will. If you don’t do well on the SAT, then you’re not as smart as the people who did better than you. It’s a simple concept." So then you are saying that the SAT measures intelligence? If I score higher than you I am smarter than you? Really? Now, I am going to guess that this topic is very important to you since you have been a member here since January 2012 and this is your fourth post. Obviously, you felt strongly enough to overcome your normal lurker status. For this? Oh, and just because something doesn’t make sense to you, does not mean it is wrong.</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily believe that you can say “SAT = intelligence,” although excuses made for a bad score are nevertheless useless. People can master standardized tests through practice. I’d like to say that anyone can master them, although I have no premise for that. If you say that you’re a bad test taker yet you have good grades, maybe it’s inflation, maybe it’s that you don’t like practicing for the SAT.
I consider myself a good test taker. I actually think that it’s because, mostly, before high school I became used to going into tests at school and not knowing a lot of the material. I had to reason a lot of it out (although that doesn’t mean I got a good score…). The SAT is basically reasoning - if you know all the patterns, you’re good to go. I’ve never taken the ACT (or rather, a practice test), so I know basically nothing about it.</p>
<p>@pmian57
tests measure a certain kind of intelligence, and in a society where credentials are everything, the ability to score high on the SAT is definitely indicative of the kind of intelligence that people value.</p>
<p>as to “How does someone claiming that they are a bad test taker take " away the pride of the people who actually do well on the SAT.”?"</p>
<p>i’ve actually heard comments like this more times than i’d care to count. something along the lines of “you’re just naturally a better test taker than me, that’s why you did better,” or “of course you did well; you didn’t have to work for it.” it does kind of suck, because it implies that i don’t earn my score. i earned it and worked for it, but maybe not in the same way - my hobbies and interests helped me out with the SAT enough that i didn’t really have to study. i knew the math from classes in school, and i’ve always been an avid reader and writer. i feel like there are very few people that can score 2300+ without having interests outside of academics that pertain to the skills that the SAT tests.</p>
<p>if you just study for the SAT by taking test after test, you reach a threshold that you can’t cross where your scores max out. </p>
<p>…but that’s not the same as someone being a “bad test taker.” it’s that they aren’t capable of thinking critically on the same level as their peers that score significantly higher than them. and that’s really no fault of their own, because if you don’t have parents that push you to develop analytical & critical thinking skills in your formative years, it’s highly unlikely that you’ll ever acquire them.</p>
<p>which is why i feel like people have developed this stereotype of a “bad test taker” so that they can claim that their SAT score isn’t indicative of how smart they are. cus it sucks to admit that maybe you are lacking in certain regards. that’s not to say there aren’t people that struggle with testing anxiety - but i don’t think everyone who writes off their SAT score as not being their fault because they’re a “bad test taker” truly suffers from it.</p>
<p>i’ll probably get hate for posting this but idk, this is what i know from personal experience.</p>
<p>[e] to clarify: i’m not saying anyone with below a 2300 is stupid or anything like that. i think anything above an 1800 is pretty awesome, haha.</p>
<p>I usually tell people I’m a good test-taker because whenever people hear about my SAT or class test scores, they immediately assume I’m a genius when in reality I’m not. I also don’t like people having high expectations of me so I just tell them I got lucky or something.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to get into an argument, but I’m just defending the person who made the original post. I know that the reason people get upset over the “bad test-taker” argument is that they feel it takes away their “honor” (I guess you could call it that) of getting a good score. When everyone who receives a bad score claims that he/she is a “bad test-taker,” they’re saying that basically anyone who is good at taking tests can get a good score, and that’s what makes people upset.
Also, please don’t misunderstand. Discussion is what CC is about, and I’m not in any way trying to be unwelcoming to any poster who doesn’t agree with me. It seems to me like you were looking at every single thing the OP said and posing an argument against it, and that’s what I don’t agree with. It’s fine to have a different opinion, but I just think it makes people feel bad if you’re attacking everything they say.
Obviously, I don’t KNOW for a fact that everyone who defends the “bed test-taker” argument actually uses that excuse, but I’m guessing that that’s why all of you are defending your side so vehemently. You must have some reason to believe what you believe.
The SAT might not measure intelligence, but it is not completely arbitrary either. You do have to be smart to do well on it. I’m not saying that people can’t study and prep and do better than other people who are smarter than them. But if you consistently score in the 1300-1500 range, there’s just no excuse as to why you don’t score as well as others, besides being sick or not learning what you need to learn in school. People who are truly smart generally get better scores than people who are less smart. Sure there are exceptions, but I am making a general statement that doesn’t necessarily apply to every situation.
By the way, I post mostly in HSL, and those posts aren’t included in the post count. I did join in January, but I never really started using CC until recently.</p>
<p>I think that standardized tests are to be taken seriously, but I also feel that there’s a reason why they aren’t the only measure of intelligence. One single test can’t account for all of your knowledge on a subject/education, so that’s why grade point averages are major factors as well. (also, that’s where the “I’m a bad test taker” excuse is born) </p>
<p>Even if one’s grades are inflated, it’ll eventually come back to haunt the recipient, so if anyone is to complain, it would be them. </p>
<p>Personally, I think that tests are just a way of life. Some ace 'em, and some flunked 'em. In the end, you’ll end up where you’re meant to be and earn what you deserve.</p>
<p>Think about it, how often does someone you think of as “more stupid” than others score well on the SAT? Rarely if at all. That’s because it does measure general ability. Sure, if you hire a tutor you can get a slightly better grade, but that doesn’t guarantee a perfect score. Perhaps you could study hard enough to “master” the SAT as people are suggesting,…but that’s not an easy task! If you study that much to master the test then surely your intelligence did increase because for studying to help you on it, you need to understand topics not only memorize. SAT is all about thinking critically.</p>
<p>The SAT used to be considered a measure of intelligence, but I don’t think that’s been true for 10-20 years now. You can check out mensa’s requirements for admission if you’re curious; I’m pretty sure the SAT is no longer considered valid for “IQ purposes” (since the writing section was added maybe?).
So you actually CAN be smart and not do well on this particular test…and not because you’re a “bad test taker.” I know of more than one person (I taught not long ago) who did well on certain types of standardized tests…often without much preparation…but still performed marginally on the SAT (or the GRE for graduate-level students).
Not in every case, but frequently, the individuals showed a significant difference between their math and verbal scores…on the lines of 200 points, in many cases. And this was not happening as a fluke on one test or improving with significant study. No matter how well they prepared (and keep in mind that these were hard working students who got good grades and tested well elsewhere), this gap didn’t close much…if any. That’s because there are some who have math and reading processing issues and have a very difficult time when faced with these subjects in the SAT format. In school, they may use coping strategies (including taking 3 hrs to finish that “simple” math assignment), and the issues often go undiagnosed…period. It still doesn’t make them any less intelligent.
Just because you don’t do well on the test, though, doesn’t mean you should assume that this is your concern. What I am saying is that there are “a few” who consistently only score between 1800 and 2000…because they made that 500 V or M they were praying for…but also maxed the other one (or nearly did). Again, it doesn’t mean they’re “less smart” than the 2250-2400 group; they are just dealing with challenges that I’m hoping the latter never has to face.</p>
<p>lets just say that SAT is not the perfect indicator, since even SAT scorers of 2400 get rejected! It is a test of English and basic Math that gives test takers a lot of chances to make mistakes… I can be awesome at Math and still get 750<have you="" guys="" noted=""></have></p>
<p>It seems to me that since the ADHD diagnosis has exploded this could be a basis for some of these “bad test taker” claims since they have a hard time focusing for long periods. Although they should be on some sort of medication to help them through it. Some people are just going to have excuses for anything, the weight of these one shot tests might be a little too heavy.</p>