Standardized Testing

[Rouge]

Okay, so I don't know how many of you have standardized testing. Not exactly finals and midterms and stuff, but like, Texas's test is the TAKS test. (TAKS stands for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills)

It's a complete waste of the teacher's and student's time. I've been taking this test since I was in . . . fifth grade, I think. It serves absolutely no purpose, and since it's always the same thing, just a little harder because you're in a different grade it's not hard to pass.

I was talking to my communications teacher today and he said "You know, what I don't understand is that a teacher can say that you're ready to go on to the next grade, but if you don't pass that TAKS test, you can't graduate."
The test really is a joke and now, once at the end of ever six weeks, we have to take a Benchmark (practice TAKS test) to "prepare" us for something that's not difficult. Sure, kids fail it all over the place, but that's not because they're stupid. It's because the majority would rather not waste their time on a stupid test that takes all freakin' day long to take. The teachers can't even teach what they need to be teaching because of these tests.
They have to teach TAKS related subjects in every core class and it screws over what I'm learning.

I can't be prepared to go to college if TAKS is all I'm ever taught.

Anyways, your thoughts if you have standardized tests, or whatever. Just thought I'd rant a bit.
I feel better now. ^^

[ScottyMcGee]

Standardized testing is just there to fuck with you. It's not about your intelligence level. You can go through the SAT and all that stuff without necessarily knowing the material, but simply getting around the trapdoors they place in the questions.

In about several years it's gonna be obsolete anyway. The university I applied and ended up going to didn't even require it.

[appleofmyeye]

One thing.

Thank god for private schools. I have a feeling I just sounded like I'm bragging. Really, I'm not...

We only have to take one SAT or ERB at the end of the year, and they are easy. I do really well on those, but suck at schoolwork :P.

[ScottyMcGee]

I went to a private school too.

The embarrassing part is that it was an all boys academy.

[appleofmyeye]

Ouch.

[Starry]

I think it depends on the test. In Maryland we have the MSAs (Maryland School Assessment or something?) and then later the HSAs (High School Assessment), which sound not quite as bad as that but fairly similar. Now those are a complete and total waste of time.

I like the idea of the SAT though. Sure, it's more about learning the test than learning any material, but it does require some thought, it requires some actual studying and dedication to do well, and it tests everyone on a more equal level than you're going to find anywhere else. Grades are very relative, when you factor in the different levels and school systems, and not enough people take APs and IBs to make them standard.

[Rouge]

SAT, ACT, I understand.[taken both. ACT is so much better than the SAT.] I was talking more about the state tests. >.< Suppose I should have made that clear.

[Crocolyle]

I think it depends on the test. In Maryland we have the MSAs (Maryland School Assessment or something?) and then later the HSAs (High School Assessment), which sound not quite as bad as that but fairly similar. Now those are a complete and total waste of time.

I like the idea of the SAT though. Sure, it's more about learning the test than learning any material, but it does require some thought, it requires some actual studying and dedication to do well, and it tests everyone on a more equal level than you're going to find anywhere else. Grades are very relative, when you factor in the different levels and school systems, and not enough people take APs and IBs to make them standard.

MD represent! Did you ever have to watch that movie about the Chesapeake Bay in like middle school? "Hey Hey It Happened Today!/Happened Today In The Chesapeake Bay!"

I went to a private (Catholic. Yay Christianity?) school, so we didn't have to take HSAs; however, I recall having to take the NEDT, PSAT, and SAT. Also, in 8th grade, I had to take the Archdiocese of Baltimore's high school placement test, so the high schools I was applying to knew my capabilities. In Elementary and Middle School we had to take IOWA tests.

Anyway, GO TERPS!

[appleofmyeye]

Aren't ERBs longer? Ugh.

[Alex]

SAT pisses me off. I think I did ok, but the fact that you can study for it defeats the purpose. Its not an accurate representation of cognitive ability. What a shame.

[Crocolyle]

All tests, even tests that supposedly test cognitive ability, only test how well you can take a certain kind of test. A high SAT score means that you're very good at taking the SAT test. I high IQ means that you're good at taking IQ tests. I mean, so many different things can effect your performance--sleep, time, hunger, carefulness, concentration. No test accurately measures anything besides how well one takes a test. Like while there are range of intelligence between many individuals, there is a range of intelligence within a single individual.

For example, I'm not of stunning intelligence. People tend to think I am, but in all honesty I'm not. I'm above average, but I'm no genius; however, I do have some friends who are. I was with one of these friends and we were removing a crushed tortilla chip from some carpeting (it was after an event at school). He was picking it up crumb by crumb. I said, "This is stupid." I went to the sink in the room, wet a bit of paper towel, pressed it up against the crumbs, and it removed all of them from the carpeting. You couldn't even tell there had been a crushed anything there.

Now, he had a perfect score on his SAT. I did not. He has been straight As his whole life. I never got straight As in high school (when this happened... I got it in middle and elementary school sometimes and most of my college career, but not in high school). Despite him being smarter than me, I was the who solved the problem. I mean, just because you're brilliant doesn't mean that you will always solve the problem. Overall, intelligence is meaningless and impossible to measure.

What's more important, I think, is work ethic, because brilliance usually comes in flashes, for both low scorers and high scorers.

EDIT: Fun fact. You can study for IQ tests, too. You can practice certain things and raise your score by like 15 pts., but does that mean you're actually 15 pts. "smarter?"

[Alex]

All tests, even tests that supposedly test cognitive ability, only test how well you can take a certain kind of test. A high SAT score means that you're very good at taking the SAT test. I high IQ means that you're good at taking IQ tests. I mean, so many different things can effect your performance--sleep, time, hunger, carefulness, concentration. No test accurately measures anything besides how well one takes a test. Like while there are range of intelligence between many individuals, there is a range of intelligence within a single individual.

For example, I'm not of stunning intelligence. People tend to think I am, but in all honesty I'm not. I'm above average, but I'm no genius; however, I do have some friends who are. I was with one of these friends and we were removing a crushed tortilla chip from some carpeting (it was after an event at school). He was picking it up crumb by crumb. I said, "This is stupid." I went to the sink in the room, wet a bit of paper towel, pressed it up against the crumbs, and it removed all of them from the carpeting. You couldn't even tell there had been a crushed anything there.

Now, he had a perfect score on his SAT. I did not. He has been straight As his whole life. I never got straight As in high school (when this happened... I got it in middle and elementary school sometimes and most of my college career, but not in high school). Despite him being smarter than me, I was the who solved the problem. I mean, just because you're brilliant doesn't mean that you will always solve the problem. Overall, intelligence is meaningless and impossible to measure.

What's more important, I think, is work ethic, because brilliance usually comes in flashes, for both low scorers and high scorers.

EDIT: Fun fact. You can study for IQ tests, too. You can practice certain things and raise your score by like 15 pts., but does that mean you're actually 15 pts. "smarter?"


You use the word meaningless, and I think thats a slippery slope. Regardless of whether the tests can test intellignece, it does, as you mention, say something, even with the most skewed results, of work ethic or ease of absorbing certain materials. The way you phrase it actually makes me understand the SAT a little bit more, as the colleges want a test that is catered to knowing what they assume you'll need to know for college. Does the SAT accuratley test that (meaning are the tested materials the proper subjects) who knows, its very subjective at that point. There are more objective ways of going about it (collecting data on certain high school statistics on students who come to your institution (a technical college will want something different than a top creative writing program, obviously) and make a collection of whatever seems to be a strength (I doubt any data pool with hundreds of students of more would be so mixed that no sure data could be found) in high school. Draw up a specific test based on questions and topics which are discussed in your institutions more rigorous courses. Give this ever-changing (thats the issue, no two tests are the same or else they could prepare for them) test to new entry students, and despite whether they are the smartest students possible, if they do well on a test catered to the interests of the school then they should be accepted.

I think that might be a better way to go about it, although with any test you can't be certain that all the things you want neutral will remain that way. Although if someone has outside circumstances, it may not meant they are more or less intelligent than the one with the higher score, but it may be an indictment on other qualities outside of intelligence. While it does very little to correlate to the goal of quantifying intellignece, it is substantial-enough commentary that it probably deserves note.

[Crocolyle]

I personally thing that the education system is more about pretensions, pretentiousness, impracticality, and tradition, rather then pragmatically educating the young to become a work force. Maybe I'm not much of a scholar and more of an advocate of a career-based approach, but I don't see why kids have to make log cabins out of tootsie rolls when learning about Abe Lincoln (who is among my least favorite presidents--he was a tyrant who increased federal power unconstitutionally) or why I have to learn higher level math that I will never use. And what use does an Engineer have for knowledge of the Franco-Prussian War or the ability to quote Milton?

I'm spending way too much time procrastinating...

[Starry]

Standardized tests (for the most part) don't test intelligence, but what they do test is work ethic, how well you can learn the standards that you're being tested by, and for the SAT at least, endurance (freaking 5 hour test). Those are all important in terms of what colleges are looking for in you, and they do correlate to higher intelligence as well. None of these tests are the ultimate test in intelligence, but they do give you standards to look at.

[Ruaidhri]

Although I've passed all of my SATs, and I did quite well in them because they were mainly multiple choice, I'm still firmly opposed to most forms of exam, just through personal experience. Conceited as it sounds, I'm easily the best in my school at History (Ok, its not like there's much in the way of stiff competition, especially not for extra-syllabus subjects, which is basically anything before 1902, but even factoring those out I can still do just about anthing you might ask of me) and one of the best at English (:D, not that such ever shows in my writing, but the West Country isn't exactly famed for it's literacy). In both these subjects I've had quite high predicted grades since I was in primary school, and I've got full marks for every piece of English coursework I've ever had set, and within two marks of the limit for every piece of History coursework I've ever had set. I've got an A* predicted grade for both subjects, the only one in my class for History.

In short, I'm not a total idiot and I should get a reasonable score on any normal test. But the GCSE's for both English and History are both essay exams, and my hand writing is very, very, very slow. But I'm not dyslexic, so I don't qualify for a scribe or an increased time limit. So, in my mocks I got a G in History, actually below the people who were claiming that the Wall Street Crash was a multi-car pile-up, and an E in English. One of the highest predicted in the school, consistently decent at everything but the exams, but because of the present educational structure I'm going to come out looking like a complete failure even though I'm quite good at these subjects. I'm actually having to fall back on my Science grades, which should be terrible as I have no clue how to even switch on a Bunsent Burner, just to get into college.

:D, not that my personal angsty-issues matter much to the subject at hand, but I just thought I'd give an example of how an exam can completely misjudge not simply someones intelligence, but also their factual knowledge of a subject as well.

[Shaun]

Standardized tests are pretty much the stupidest thing forced onto American school children since, well, ever. You can practically trace the progressive stupidity of young Americans with the rampant increase of standardized testing. They don't improve education, but make it worse, and they are not at all designed to get kids to actually retain knowledge, just temporarily story it for test time, and then discard it like so much garbage. The same can be said about SATs, GREs, LSATs, MCATs, and all other standardized tests at any level. I avoided the SATs like the plague, but had to take the GREs and thought they were mostly pointless. I didn't learn anything from the GREs, which are incredibly difficult in comparison to the SATs primarily because they are computer adaptive (meaning the test gets hard the more items you get correct, which improves your score, obviously).

So, if it isn't obvious, I hate them, I think they should be abolished, and I think that schools should go back to teaching our kids stuff they need to know...like science and how to write a freaking thesis statement. I also think we should funnel more money into schools so we can hire loads more teachers and reduce class sizes, but I'm a complete radical when it comes to education...heaven forbid that I want our kids to actually get a good education in this country...

[KillYouAll]

It brought good laughs, my testing is called PAWS don't ask what it stands for because I didn't know. Trying to put students in groups of knowledge and know all. Even though I think its the morons who are the smartest for not wasting time studying for test like these and used there time wisely.

[S. Peppercorns]

Standardized testing is so stereotypical. It assumes that all children are mirrors of eachother, and each mirror needs to be the certain size and angle and clour and type of glass. If they carry on, we will have a world of people who, though perfectly respectable, are all the same. Or lots of kids will not pass their exams.

[Knowvella]

I've had to take a "Comprehensive Acheivement Test" since third grade, and they're just as bad as some of the tests previously mentioned. :glare: What's to expect from my state, though, where the government spends more money a year on prisoners than students? (Yes, seriously.)

A kid can do perfectly good in school and be a great student, but they won't pass (or will be subjected to summer school) because they failed their standardized test. The test is absolutely stupid and not based at all on any sort of intelligence, just former knowledge, and some people think that the test is even racially biased. Just like your TAKS, the teachers have to teach everything around it and thus we don't really learn much of anything.

Our schools are even graded based on how good our FCAT scores are and a teacher's raise depends on how good their students do on the test. (Which is unfair to teachers stuck with dull classes, and can put Gifted teachers at an unfair advantage.)

I think in general standardized testing is dumb, for all the reasons mentioned, and that someone should try and reform them a bit--have them factor less in whether a student will pass or not, and allow the teachers to teach more than just for the test.

[listophergreene]

Well, we have the SAT and ACT for college preparation, and the OGTs (Ohio Graduation Tests) which are administered in the 10th grade year and have to be passed for the person to graduate. They aren't too long (Just a few hours) and consist of separate sections which can be passed separately, so that you only have to retake a single test, though this shouldn't be necessary. I'm sure I would've passed them my 8th grade year at least, but in my 10th grade year I got 'advanced' on all of them except for one, which I only got 'accelerated on (both are above 'proficient'). Personally, I think they need to be there to make sure people know a few basic things before they get a diploma, because that is what the diploma reflects.

As for the SAT and ACT, I think they're dumb in themselves, because you can study for them and a high score just means you're good at taking that test. However, the concept of them is good, because it demonstrates how hard you will work and study to prepare for something, so a higher score can be reflected in doing better in college, because you will work just as hard in college as you did for that test. Also, the tests serve as good benchmarks to organize which students should get which scholarships. I got a 32 on my ACT, which got me full tuition at my University. Then again, that was the first time I took the test and I never studied at all, so it didn't reflect my ability to prepare, which is somewhat less outstanding.

Overall, these tests serve a purpose, but I don't think they're all that great for the roles that we often assign to them. Also, if the SAT and ACT both reflect college readiness, then why is my score on one comparatively higher than on the other? The tests are useful, but not completely reliable or quite necessary.

[Rouge]

I got a 24 on my ACT.

Suck it. :P

[Mercy]

The only reason I don't like it is because I know I won't do well. I can study and study and study, but I won't be good enough to get a full ride, even though I need one. x.x