Testing

[Al Koholic]

Hey everyone!
As I have just finished the good ole MCAT my life is and has undergone some severe (good) rearrangments! IE I actually have time to read the forum now...
To those of you who are waiting for me to scan things and get info to you the day nears when I'll be able to do that as soon as finals are over which brings me to the point of this topic...

Are any of you here currently being BOGGED down with work for a standarized test? Or for tests like finals in general. Some say that standardized testing is a bad thing and others say it is a good thing. I find myself more on the side of those who favor it as a method of objectively (as close as possible at least) measuring individuals' performance under certain situations. That's what the MCAT is all about....sure you have to know a lot to do well on it but its not like you have to do any serious calculations to do it. Mostly its just being a good observer and knowing your shit will get you through. Others happen to believe that standardized tests don't allow an individual the chance to prove their real skills because the test is not shaped to what they are good at or that they don't fare well on big tests in general which is certainly true in some cases. Yeah, I know this post is kinda weak heh but I need to post something to get back into the feel of things around here. The last few weeks have been insane.
Al

[Mmanwitgun88]

I have no problem with standardized testing. While you think about it, yes it is an unfair way of measuring ones skills, but what other alternatives are out there. Should people bend over backwards to review each and every person face to face to see how good they are. This would make it cost more money because testing would take longer, therefore some people wouldn't even be able to test because they just couldn't afford it. Think about the SAT's, they charge what, 40 bucks?. Thats just to test a shitload of kids at once with a computer. Imagine the cost if each was graded one by one.
~Dave

[knowledgehungry]

I like them they're quick, easy and im good at them. Also it makes things fair, granted there might be some people who are bad at them but there is no tester prejudice.

[Al Koholic]

Yeah I agree with you guys...I guess it just kinda sucks to be one of those people who are bad at taking standardized tests. In today's world there really is no better option for those people though because the way testing has been conducted is the only real way to get through massssssive amounts of people fairly.

[Anthony]

This must be a US thing...

So under Standardised Testing, your exams are "graded" by a computer and not individually by an exam marker?

[megalomania]

Others happen to believe that standardized tests don't allow an individual the chance to prove their real skills because the test is not shaped to what they are good at or that they don't fare well on big tests in general

I hear this but my mind tells me something different. I read this as people complaining because the test exposes their weakness. They complain because their weakness is exposed. I suppose they cry foul on a math test when they are good at English? Should tests be individualized to the extent that everyone always passes with an A? Isn’t the purpose of a test to expose those who fail to understand material they are supposed to know?

I have also heard the argument the standardized tests in the lower school levels only promote teaching to the test. I fail to see how that is altogether a bad thing. I interpret this as liberal teachers too lazy to bother teaching that only want to show the class movies and do art projects. These teachers are exposed when they don’t do their jobs. This argument also seems to emanate predominately from negro/poor schools. It is unfortunate that the poor schools need to spend so much time bringing the class under control at the beginning of the day that valuable teaching time is lost, but that is no excuse to end testing altogether.

Individualized tests would be meaningless on any large scale. Ultimately the standardized tests tells people what a person is capeable of, or ready for. The tests in high school give an estimate of what you “may” be able to do and how well the school teaches. The ACT or SAT tells a college how you “may” do when admitted. The MCAT tells a medical school what you “may” be able to handle. Without these yardsticks of personal ability how could we judge what a person can do? If you make a test specific to a certain group or person it becomes meaningless because the results can’t be interpreted. How can a college admissions employee judge whom to accept when there are 50 different tests? Who is to say that one person is better than another when all we know is this person is good at this, but we don’t know what they may be bad at.

Criticizing standardized tests is an extension of the kindergarten argument that we must all be winners, no one must lose, no one should be sad. They believe something can’t be good if people fail! Nobody wants their weakness to be exposed, and that weakness to be ranked against many others. Some may remember the intellectual pecking order the schools create; you are either one of the “top 50%” in the class, or even better the “top 10%.” Who will own up to being in that “bottom 50%” eh? Who wants to think “I am dumber that half of the people in my school,” or even worse “I am dumber than half the students in the nation.” Ouch.

For the time being we will have to continue to use the tests. Until something better comes along and the educators of the world find a better way, we have to use the tests. They may not be perfect, but we must make do with what we have.

[Anthony]

Ok, scrap that, I think I get it from Mega's post now.

So everyone sits the same test, be they rich/poor, black/white, smart/retarded?

I can't help but think that I haven't got this, as it's too simple... You can't go making up loads of "personalised" tests to suit different demographics, that's just daft. What kind of yardstick would that be?

[Al Koholic]

Yeah you have it right there Anthony...everyone does the same (or in the MCAT's case) very similar tests. In fact they actually make up about 15 different tests that are distributed randomly to different centers and individuals to discourage cheating.

It definetly is funny to see people try and claim that standardized testing is a bad thing. You're right on there mega with that post in my opinion. People need to face up to the admission that they lie in a certain area of the bell curve when it comes to testing and will have to exert effort to change that position.

[Mmanwitgun88]

I agree with meglomania on this. I have no problem with it and most people who complain just want the system to bend over so they can be winners. Anthony what you think is right, when I took the SATs (The most popular standard test in America), I took it sitting next to those of different financial status's and race. Of course over the years testing like this will go away. SATs which originally were required at nearly evey college are slowly holding less power in the application process. Of course I'm stuck with the CAPT (A Conneticut thing) test holding me back cause 5 yrs ago I shrugged it off as nothing thinking I would never attend school in my own state. Boy was I wrong
~Dave

[Spudkilla]

Good ole' SATs. I took them first when I was in 7th grade, and even when I didn't know any basic algebra, I still managed to get the same grade that the kids in high school got! I just finished taking a round of standardized tests, yesterday, in fact. In about 20 days I look forward to final exams!

Standardized tests for me have always been easy. My failing is homework; I never get off my lazy ass to do it. Down here, if you do all your homework and get good grades on it, but fail all your tests, you still pass with a high C or better. Likewise, if you do some homework, but not all, and get 100's on every test, you can expect a low B to low C, or even an F!

[Jhonbus]

I think the point people are trying to make who are against standardised testing is that a standardised test measures your ability to do standardised tests.
It does NOT measure how smart you are, or how likely you are to succeed in life.
Standardised tests are useful as a general measure of the performance of a nation's SCHOOLS, and even then, only assuming a uniform distribution of race, socio-economic class, etcetera, in all schools.
As a tool to measure how clever someone is, they're useless.

[chicomalo]

I'm taking the ITED right now...almost over though, one more day. At least it's easy as pie.

The thing is, they're not worth the money. Recent tax-cutting initiatives in my area have slashed public school funding to almost nothing. Although federal funds can be recieved from good standardized test performance, the money would be better spent buying equipment and paying the teachers.