Standardised Testing

[juiced 0]

In grade 12 we have our provinicial exams. Anyway, im generally an 85-95 student and i got my english exam back with a 66%. Two girls i know that are REALLY smart ended up with mid 70's. Then there's a kid who never comes to class ever who ended up with an above 80. Does this make any sense? has anyone else had any problems with standardised tests? it seems to me that since english isn't "right" or "wrong" persé, that the it's subjective to the correcter. How is it fair when some kids get a stern marker and others get a forgiving one, then your mark is supposed to show universities where you "rank" according to "at level" students.

[msander 0]

There are two components to that English exam, the objective and subjective components. The objective component is just that...it's objective. There is only one right answer, it's marked by a computer, and you can't really complain about anything other then the fact it's testing pretty boring stuff.

The subjective portion of the exam (as well as the subjective portion of any important standardized test you write later, be it MCAT, DAT, LSAT etc.) is usually marked by 3 different people, and the scores are averaged. If there is a large discrepancy between the scores given, then a different panel, or possibly single person, will evaluate the paper and assign a grade somewhere in the given range.

I agree that the scores don't always reflect a person's in class grade, and there are a myriad of reasons for this. However, w/ most of these exams (math, physics, chemistry etc) the exam is a relatively fair assessment of your knowledge. With the English exam...well it's a bit of a crapshoot, often based on how well you can spin things. That's why when you go to university, you should avoid entering Arts...that's actually just one of countless reasons, but I won't start that up here.

To any Arts students out there, I'm just poking fun, don't take it seriously.

[cxo 0]

In Michigan we got the MEAP tests (there is an equivalent in every state of course), though we usually get them two or three times throughout our school career starting in grade 6, and I think the last time in 9th or 10th. I didn't finish high school in regular public schools, so if there is another MEAP or equivalent of it in grade 12, I would not know. We did however have the occasional problem like that on English and even more specifically the literature portions. Like stated above, portions of it are scored like an ice dancing competition, and those are rarely fair either. I never personally had an issue with test scores when I took them, but too often were kids asked to be re-evaluated, and parents filed complaints.

[Remman 0]

English aside, standarized testing, IMO, is a little ridiculous. I don't see how one or two tests like these should base one's academic future.

I took the SAT's twice, got the same terrible score twice.

In college, I had a 3.8 GPA on average.

Don't lose your mind over it.

[Chadd 916]

Standardized tests are generally far more accurate than GPAs or grades in high school. High schools and, more recently colleges, have experienced staggering grade inflation in the last few years. Those increases are rarely justified and the reason that standardized tests have become so widespread. Depending on the test format, English is the one standardized test that could be skewed. If it required written work instead of just multiple choice, there is room for personal bias on the part of the person grading the test.

[juiced 0]

There are two components to that English exam, the objective and subjective components. The objective component is just that...it's objective. There is only one right answer, it's marked by a computer, and you can't really complain about anything other then the fact it's testing pretty boring stuff.

no man, not ours. No multiple choice on ours. We read 12 or so stories and poems or whatever and then we had to answer questions about them. Then we wrote the 'writing portion' where we chose a writing style of our choice. I wrote about 3/4 page for one answer and got a zero on it. When my english teacher read my answer she said she wouldve given me at least a 3. That is what frustrates me, that had she been the one correcting my exam, i could have possibly scored alot higher.

[Nutella 0]

I could go on a very long rant about how standardised tests suck. Really, they do. They are raciablly biased, promote 'tracking', and really do a poor job of measuring intelligence.

That aside, about the kids that don't show up to class and do well, there are those. Sloth does not equate to stupidity. In fact, some of the smartest people I've met did poorly in school (and well on the tests) because they were so bored with the subject matter. That's why they don't show up or do the work.

On the ACTs I somehow scored a 27 when I've been A+, 4.0 etc, etc my entire life.

36 - English

Something high on Reading

Something High on Science

and then a 19 on Math.

I'm not bad at math, and it's interesting that I would do so poorly on just one section of the test. It's because those tests SUCK!

[Maka 0]

To be honest, I don't really understand the merits of standardized testing. Personally, I happen to be very good at standardized tests (2400 SAT I; 770, 780, and 800 on SAT IIs; 5's on AP's), yet I consider myself significantly less intelligent than my peers at Stanford. Given, this school is full of freakin' geniuses, but regardless, I think standardized testing illustrates how well one can take tests, not one's academic prowess.

[ambro 0]

Standardized tests aren't made to test current intelligence though (except AP's). The ACTs and SATs and the like are more aptitude tests than achievement tests, meaning they predict the future success rather than how much a person has learned taking a test. For example, the ACTs I know test the ability of one to learn. They teach something new and then test you on that basis. Prior knowledge has little to do with ACT scores, which is why studying for them is useless.

There are many reasons why high school grades don't correlate well with these types of tests, and thats because these tests don't measure hard work in school. A buddy of mine on my hockey team works his ass off in school, though not all that smart, and ends up getting in the 3.8-3.9 GPA range, but isn't actually that smart. He got a 21 on his ACTs.

Another kid at my school is ridiculously smart, pretty much half self-learned because he comes to school twice a week on average, and doesn't have that great of grades for that reason. He got a 35 on his ACTs, twice.

The ACTs and SATs are actually surprisingly accurate at what they are meant to do, predicting secondary school success. There are going to be excepetions of course, but for the most part, they are very accurate. Although the correlation between scores and high school grades isn't terribly high, it is quite high between scores and college success.

[Jarick 5]

I've always tested well, 1390 on the SAT's, 32 on the ACT's. Always been lazy in school, about a B average in high school and 3.2 in college. I think the standardized tests will work well if you are particularly quick and recognizing patterns and there's probably a correlation between how quickly you can learn and understand concepts and test scores, but it's certainly no indicator of how successful you will be. You have to be motivated to be successful, and I'm sure not.

[ambro 0]

Like I said, there are exceptions. There are exceptions to everything.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

GPA really is a terrible indicator as chadd mentioned. I mean, putting an underwater basket weaving major on the same scale as a nuclear engineer major is a bit ridiculous... standardized testing levels the playing field a bit.

[Nutella 0]

I don't think they're really testing how 'intelligent' you are with brutal time limits though. Speed is good. However, I knew all of the stuff on the math section, it just took time to do each problem. It felt like five minutes in when time was up.

Then, there are also people that get huge test anxiety. They may have the smarts but the weight one of these tests carry is great indeed. That and it's costing you money and slightly maps your whole future for you. Certain schools want certain scores, etc. etc. It's a pretty big deal and some people lock up.

I'm just glad I'm all done with that B.S.

When I go for my doctorate in German, that will be a different story.

[mack 44]

To be honest, I don't really understand the merits of standardized testing. Personally, I happen to be very good at standardized tests (2400 SAT I; 770, 780, and 800 on SAT IIs; 5's on AP's), yet I consider myself significantly less intelligent than my peers at Stanford. Given, this school is full of freakin' geniuses, but regardless, I think standardized testing illustrates how well one can take tests, not one's academic prowess.

It's okay, my sister went there and she's not what I'd call genius.

[juiced 0]

That aside, about the kids that don't show up to class and do well, there are those. Sloth does not equate to stupidity. In fact, some of the smartest people I've met did poorly in school (and well on the tests) because they were so bored with the subject matter. That's why they don't show up or do the work.

I understand that, but this kid never came to class because he's basically the football "star" of our school. And he's super dumb, he needs a tutor in every subject just so he can keep up his scholorship. I'm the same thing you described but in math. I hadn't handed in on homework all year and my mark was still 89, because id get like 95-98 on tests. For some reason i just GET math. But english...i dont get.

[msander 0]

That aside, about the kids that don't show up to class and do well, there are those. Sloth does not equate to stupidity. In fact, some of the smartest people I've met did poorly in school (and well on the tests) because they were so bored with the subject matter. That's why they don't show up or do the work.

I understand that, but this kid never came to class because he's basically the football "star" of our school. And he's super dumb, he needs a tutor in every subject just so he can keep up his scholorship. I'm the same thing you described but in math. I hadn't handed in on homework all year and my mark was still 89, because id get like 95-98 on tests. For some reason i just GET math. But english...i dont get.

So maybe this kid just happens to be good at English and doesn't come to class. Just because he's not good in his other subjects doesn't mean he can't be good at writing essays or interpreting poetry or analyzing stories. The skills necessary to succeed in high school English are very different from other subjects.

[Chadd 916]

That aside, about the kids that don't show up to class and do well, there are those. Sloth does not equate to stupidity. In fact, some of the smartest people I've met did poorly in school (and well on the tests) because they were so bored with the subject matter. That's why they don't show up or do the work.

I understand that, but this kid never came to class because he's basically the football "star" of our school. And he's super dumb, he needs a tutor in every subject just so he can keep up his scholorship. I'm the same thing you described but in math. I hadn't handed in on homework all year and my mark was still 89, because id get like 95-98 on tests. For some reason i just GET math. But english...i dont get.

So maybe this kid just happens to be good at English and doesn't come to class. Just because he's not good in his other subjects doesn't mean he can't be good at writing essays or interpreting poetry or analyzing stories. The skills necessary to succeed in high school English are very different from other subjects.

In our school it was kissing ass and spending hours doing moronic assignments. My vocabulary in high school surpassed that of many of my teachers, yet I was still expected to copy down five words off the blackboard every day, then go home and copy the definitions out of the dictionary before bringing them back in on a 3x5 index card the next day and then keep the cards in a box. After a month of refusing to do it, the teacher called my parents and requested a meeting to complain about my "laziness". My father asked a few questions;

1. What is the point of copying the words? A:To learn the definitions

2. If he already knows the definitions, what's the problem? A:He's not writing them down like he was instructed

3. What is the point of writing down the word definitions? A:To learn the definitions

That school almost killed me.

[tyler9 0]

Since you mentioned provincial exams and have an oilers avatar i'm going to assume you live in Alberta. I wrote the English 30 diploma last year when i was in gr 11 and scored a 76. I found what helped me out alot was our English teacher had been a marker for the province and had a huge marking criteria sheet that the province uses and marked every one of our essays with. If you'd be interested I might still have it and could pm the marking sheet to you.

[Cavs019 708]

The issue with the SAT and other standardized tests in my experience is that it doesn't necessarily require knowledge as much as one's ability/means to prepare for the test. This brings about the whole socioeconomic issue with standardized testing and how prep school students are much better equipped to take the exam.

[juiced 0]

Since you mentioned provincial exams and have an oilers avatar i'm going to assume you live in Alberta. I wrote the English 30 diploma last year when i was in gr 11 and scored a 76. I found what helped me out alot was our English teacher had been a marker for the province and had a huge marking criteria sheet that the province uses and marked every one of our essays with. If you'd be interested I might still have it and could pm the marking sheet to you.

actually i live in manitoba but at the moment we are sans nhl club. thanks about the marking sheet but our teacher got all our exams mailed back to her with her own copy of a marking sheet and offered to go over them one by one with us. i went in to talk with her and all of my 'mistakes' were just stupid shpit that makes me hate the english course even more. sorry to all those avid reading-and-responding-to-text fans but it's just not my bag.

[blues_91 0]

I don't know about the provincials in Manitoba, but in BC they use 4 teachers to mark the writing portion (each gives a score out of 6, and your final mark is out of 24). If the exams are marked the same in Manitoba then maybe your English teacher isn't competent.

[juiced 0]

I don't know about the provincials in Manitoba, but in BC they use 4 teachers to mark the writing portion (each gives a score out of 6, and your final mark is out of 24). If the exams are marked the same in Manitoba then maybe your English teacher isn't competent.

no it's different. the writing portion is on 60, questions are on 35. I think there are two correcters. I'm not sure if it was fair or not but i just wanted to vent because i was frustrated.

[ean 0]

GPA is an indicator of what type of student you are, SAT is an indicator of your aptitude/intelligence. Neither one will really guarantee you doing well on the other, but does not hurt either.

[Jarick 5]

I think the less involved I could be, the better I did in class. That's why I did better in college. Give me the textbook, and either a study guide, or a list of chapters on the test, and it was an easy A. Make me show up and do labs, sit through lectures, no better than a B. That was the other strange thing about college, I could cram for a test in two days and get through it in less than 10 minutes with a good grade. Made you wonder, if they just gave me a textbook on Monday and a final on Friday, I could have been done with school in a year.

Probably why when I have a lot of work to do, I do it, but otherwise I'm on Mod Squad at 9 in the morning.

[Jordan 13]

Standardized testing turns out to be anything but. It is basically flawed for a couple of reasons:

First, there is a strong correlation between results on these tests and one's socioeconomic demographic. ie the richer the neighbourhood that you come from, the better you will do. This is not because of intelligence, it is because of experience and the predominance of english as a first language.

Second: The next big problem with these tests, is the reaction of the educators and the test takers to the existence of the test. Teachers and administrators, who get judged by the results posted by their students/schools/regions etc, start teaching to the test. Further, if the test seeks to figure out one's inherent or natural amount of depth of knowledge, the results become highly skewed if some of the test takers begin to study for those tests. It becomes a better measure of test taking skill, rather than intelligence or knowledge.

Third: These things tend to demonstrate strong correlations on the positive side, but poor correlations on the negative side. For example, there is a reasonable positive correlation between one's LSAT score and success at Law School; however, there is not a strong correlation between lower scores and failure at law school.

Finally: whether, we are talking hockey or school, there is just no measuring heart and determination. Warren Buffet once said that IQ is like the raw horsepower of an engine, but without a good transmission and tires it is generally wasted. Other qualities such as integrity, a strong work ethic, organizational skills all play a role and are very difficult to measure. At times the shortest pencil is better than the longest memory!