So whats is really wrong with standardized tests?

[madviking]

hangman, what sort of tricks are you talking about? Are you saying it's possible to game these tests?

that's what the classes are about.

either way, i took the sat twice junior year. got the same score on both of them.

my problem is that i never really learned how english works until senior year. also that the sat writing section is complete and utter crap. safe to say i did not do well on those two. math was never a problem.

sat 2s were awesome though.

 

[warpus]

So basically the SAT tests test a student's ability to game the system? I suppose that's not a bad way of doing it - in life you often have to figure out how to game systems in order to succeed.

 

[hangman]

hangman, what sort of tricks are you talking about? Are you saying it's possible to game these tests?

Well, legally I can't tell you anything I learned from them, but I'll tell you what I happened to figure out for myself. One example would be a simple algebra problem like:

8x + 4 = 20... what is x?

A) 1
B) 2
C) 3
D) 4
E) 5

So what you do is you start by plugging in the middle number, in this case C. 8*3 + 4 = 28, which is bigger than 20, so you know x must be less than three. Logically, (D) and (E) are out as well. Then you plug in whichever you feel, and if it works, that's your answer.

So that's the kind of bypass you can use. In this case it would take too long, but for more complicated problems, it saves a lot of time. You honestly don't even have to know how to do algebra to do well on SAT math if you know all the shortcuts.

So basically the SAT tests test a student's ability to game the system? I suppose that's not a bad way of doing it - in life you often have to figure out how to game systems in order to succeed.

Right, but like I said, the availability of courses to teach these techniques pushes poor-but-marginally-passing students out of college, and allows wealthier-but-marginally-failing students in instead. In any case, AFAIK, the ACT manages to both do a better job of testing high school concepts and correlating with college success.

that the sat writing section is complete and utter crap.

This. I passed with flying colors on SAT and ACT but the hand-written portion always got me mediocre scores. But not to worry, college admissions don't take the essays seriously.

 

[Archbob]

So that's the kind of bypass you can use. In this case it would take too long, but for more complicated problems, it saves a lot of time. You honestly don't even have to know how to do algebra to do well on SAT math if you know all the shortcuts.

I can't agree with your conclusion mainly because the problems on the SAT don't get much more complicated that the one you mentioned. I've taken the tests and many practice tests, there are no complex problems. They are all fairly basic.

 

[Goodfella]

I don't think you've taken the test recently or maybe you're just being brash. For instance, your triangle example from the last page isn't something you'd find on the test beyond the first question. A more realistic example would be one where maybe there's a triangle and its sides are the secants of a circle and you have to find the circle's area minus the triangle or something or other. It's an easy problem, but add a time constraint and a bit of pressure and for your average student it can be a little more challenging than a mere test of basic algebra and geometry knowledge.

 

[downtown]

They're probably actually getting higher, that's just for ultra poor areas.

Yeah. I mean, we need to be specific when we're talking about standards. If we're talking about what the state sends out to all their schools about what they expect kids to know, and what they put on their state tests, not only are those nearly universally going up, they're as high as they've been in our lifetimes.

If we're talking about cultural expectations (ESPECIALLY for poor students or for students of color), or for what we practically expect out of our kids given the resources we give them, then yes, those are pretty low.

It's always difficult to talk about this stuff on CFC, since virtually everybody here went to a pretty good high school with a college prep curriculum available to them, as did most of their peers. The places where I taught, which exist in basically every state, would seem like a different planet in comparison.

hangman, what sort of tricks are you talking about? Are you saying it's possible to game these tests?

A little bit. They make tweaks to the test very regularly, but being able to pay for one of those exams, or the ability to take it multiple times, is a big advantage.

Not as big of an advantage, of course, as attending a school that actually teaches you stuff, which tons of americans don't.

 

[luiz]

What's wrong with standardized tests is that the people who do poorly at them seek excuses other than their own limitations.

Anyway. If education inequality is causing rich people to score much better than poor people at standardized tests that means rich people are receiving better education. Duh. If you want to "fix" that you improve the education the poor receive. You don't attack standardized tests. Because they're the best, most objective way to measure academic performance.

 

[luiz]

One example would be a simple algebra problem like:

8x + 4 = 20... what is x?

A) 1
B) 2
C) 3
D) 4
E) 5

So what you do is you start by plugging in the middle number, in this case C. 8*3 + 4 = 28, which is bigger than 20, so you know x must be less than three. Logically, (D) and (E) are out as well. Then you plug in whichever you feel, and if it works, that's your answer.

Anyone who can't solve that problem in about five seconds by the time they're old enough to take the SAT, trick or no trick, is not qualified even to flip a burger and shouldn't complain about standardized tests. They should complain about God.

 

[warpus]

Well, in this case all you ask yourself is "what number do I need to multiply 8 by to get 16" and 2 should hopefully pop in your head right away...

I am assuming he meant that this sort of thing - but with not so super simple types of questions.

 

[hangman]

I can't agree with your conclusion mainly because the problems on the SAT don't get much more complicated that the one you mentioned. I've taken the tests and many practice tests, there are no complex problems. They are all fairly basic.

This is incorrect, the ETS has three difficulty levels for problems, and each test includes a set number of problems from each level. Which category a problem falls in depends on the results of the experimental section included in each test. You won't know which section is experimental though.

Anyone who can't solve that problem in about five seconds by the time they're old enough to take the SAT, trick or no trick, is not qualified even to flip a burger and shouldn't complain about standardized tests. They should complain about God.

Please read what I said above. Also, is it so hard to believe that someone who was specifically taught how to do this might know what he's talking about?

What's wrong with standardized tests is that the people who do poorly at them seek excuses other than their own limitations.

See: blaming the victim.

Anyway. If education inequality is causing rich people to score much better than poor people at standardized tests that means rich people are receiving better education. Duh. If you want to "fix" that you improve the education the poor receive. You don't attack standardized tests. Because they're the best, most objective way to measure academic performance.

The relevant education inequality is not in public schools per se. It is in SAT prep courses that cost hundreds to over a thousand dollars. For some families, this is how much they make in a month. And FWIW, I already explained that the ACT is demonstrably better and fairer in just about every way. I suggest you reread my responses more carefully.

 

[sophie]

The problem with the SAT is that the main thing it tests is your ability to take the SAT. The GPA is an indicator of your work ethic, sure, although it could be evaluated more as an indicator of how strict your parents were in making sure you got your work done. Getting good grades in high school requires intelligence and persistence, but rarely both at the same time.

 

[downtown]

Anyway. If education inequality is causing rich people to score much better than poor people at standardized tests that means rich people are receiving better education. Duh. If you want to "fix" that you improve the education the poor receive. You don't attack standardized tests. Because they're the best, most objective way to measure academic performance.

Most practical? Sure. Most economical? I agree. Most fair? Potentially. But best? I couldn't disagree more.

It's almost impossible to develop an assessment that is limited to multiple choice answers that really measures understanding beyond a comprehension and application stage. The highest levels of understanding for a student, getting into analysis, evaluation and synthesis, would require essay work, full word problems with multi-step solutions, projects, interviews, or other assessment strategies.

That's why, when we're dealing with kids, after all, teachers don't exclusively use standardized bubble tests to evaluate if kids are getting the objectives. They use projects, and essays, and a bunch of other tools.

Now, can you develop a test that can be graded at that mass level, that's fair and accurate, that measures deeper understanding? Probably not, so that's what we have. It's also why (wisely, I think), it typically isn't the only metric we look at when evaluating a kid, be they a 3d grader, or an 11th grader.

 

[JollyRoger]

What's wrong with standardized tests is that the people who do poorly at them seek excuses other than their own limitations.

There is some truth to this, though some of those limitations are set by academic background. I did very absolutely no specific SAT prep (other than reviewing the math section of a PSAT study guide during the hour or so it took my parents to drive me to the testing site), but I scored very well thanks in large part to the weekly vocabulary packets we did in sophomore English honors that gave me enough of a foundation to intelligently guess when I was not certain. I was lucky to have received an education that boosted my score. Had I attended an inner city school or even taken a non-honors course that year, my score would have been lower, as what kid would have otherwise had access to, much less followed through on the vocabulary packs that were put upon us. This was early 80s, so no internets.

On something like the LSAT where it is basically logic games and reading comprehension, I think it is something that you either have or not. My freshman year in college, I took a practice LSAT and scored in what would have been the top percentile. For the actual exam, the first time through, I got a little nervous and botched my way down to only the top 6%. On retake, I went in under the influence of an illicit substance and brought it back up to top 2%.

A prep course would not really have helped me because I didn't need it, but if I had needed it, I did not have the funds to pay for it. I tried tutoring it for a while, but it was kind of difficult to translate the art of organizing information so that the analytical section worked to someone who didn't already have "it". If this stuff doesn't come naturally, you can prep your way to raising your score a bit, but you may not be able to touch the score of those naturally blessed and appropriately medicated.

So each person does I think have some natural limitations, but educational background (or nervousness) can cause one to score far below those natural limitations.

 

[Archbob]

I don't think you've taken the test recently or maybe you're just being brash. For instance, your triangle example from the last page isn't something you'd find on the test beyond the first question. A more realistic example would be one where maybe there's a triangle and its sides are the secants of a circle and you have to find the circle's area minus the triangle or something or other. It's an easy problem, but add a time constraint and a bit of pressure and for your average student it can be a little more challenging than a mere test of basic algebra and geometry knowledge.

Honestly, have you looked at the sample problems or practice test problems in SAT prep books of late?

Its been 10 years since I've done any math and every problem can be solved within 30 seconds. The ACT ones aren't any harder easier.

This is a typical test:

http://www.majortests.com/sat/problem-solving-test01

The only one that requires any type of real thought is #9.

 

[tetley]

I see the reasoning behind standardized tests, but the drawback I see is that it does not celebrate the uniqueness in people. You're funneling everybody down one single path and seeing who does the best at it, when really you should be trying to find and bring out the best in what each individual person does well at.

It's like making everybody throw passes and evade tackles at football tryouts. You might find good quarterbacks that way, but not very many good linebackers.

 

[Archbob]

I see the reasoning behind standardized tests, but the drawback I see is that it does not celebrate the uniqueness in people. You're funneling everybody down one single path and seeing who does the best at it, when really you should be trying to find and bring out the best in what each individual person does well at.

It's like making everybody throw passes and evade tackles at football tryouts. You might find good quarterbacks that way, but not very many good linebackers.

The standarized tests are akin to the combine in football, its basic atheletic skills and score like 40 time, vertical, bench press, etc.

The relevant education inequality is not in public schools per se. It is in SAT prep courses that cost hundreds to over a thousand dollars. For some families, this is how much they make in a month. And FWIW, I already explained that the ACT is demonstrably better and fairer in just about every way. I suggest you reread my responses more carefully.

Most honors kids I know never take a Prep course, we basically just got 1 or 2 books for 30 bucks and did practice tests. I actually skipped the math part usually and focused on the analogies because that's the only part of the exam I didn't do well on. My vocanbulary doesn't include 10 better words for bread that I never used(thanksfully that part has been removed for today's tests). Generally if your classes actually teach you basic Algebra and Geometry and you actually learned it, you'll do fine on the math part of the exam.

The problem with the SAT is that the main thing it tests is your ability to take the SAT.

I don't agree with this, at least not on the math part. If you can't answer at least 75% of the questions on the SAT I math, it demonstrates you don't have a solid grasp of the basic principles of Algebra and Geometry.

I mean if you look at the difficulty difference between say the Chinese College entrance exam and our SAT/ACT math section, you'll see how low our expectations are.

The 2nd question is typical of an Chinese math entrance exam question:

http://toshuo.com/2007/chinese-math-students-vs-english-math-students/

Ignore the first question, that just the british education guy trying to make british standards look bad by comparison, the actual Chinese exam entrance question is the 2nd one. How many graduating seniors in the entire country in the USA can solve that? Lets see them pull out "tricks" to help them there.


And here is a question that had the rest of the country outraged at how "easy" this question was for the GaoKao in Beijing:

http://offbeatchina.com/beijing-gao...ing-in-beijing-on-a-day-with-good-air-quality

Although it is extremely simple for Chinese entrance exam math standards, still harder than SAT questions.

 

[warpus]

I mean if you look at the difficulty difference between say the Chinese College entrance exam and our SAT/ACT math section, you'll see how low our expectations are.

It blew my mind how low the standards for math are here in Canada when I came over here.

In Poland in grades 2 and 3 I was horrible at math.. or so I thought. I almost failed out of grade 3 actually.. My math marks were horrible.

We moved to Germany and a year later I was enrolled in grade 4. I found the math material easy - several levels below what I was being taught in Poland in grades 2 and 3.

Then after I moved to Canada, I was enrolled in grade 7. Math was even simpler - the standards were again a level or two below what I got used to in Germany. I didn't think of myself as someone super intelligent or anything like that - the material was just not very advanced. High school was a breeze too.

So as a result of that I ended up going to a university that specializes in math. I think that's just crazy, considering that I thought I sucked at math. Nope, I didn't suck at math - I just went from a super high level of demand and education - to a super low one.

 

[JollyRoger]

To be fair, the geography standards were lower in Poland.

 

[Flying Pig]

A well-designed test should include some 'easy' questions and some 'difficult' questions in order to stratify people effectively. It's all very well to have an entrance-exam type test where you simply pass or fail, but things like the SAT or GCSEs need to tell you how good you are, rather than just saying that you're better or worse than an arbitrary standard. So there need to be a few questions that 'A' level students can get right but 'B' level students can't, and some that 'B' students can get right but 'C' students can't, and so on. If it's all roughly the same difficulty, everyone will either come out with an A or a fail.

 

[Archbob]

A well-designed test should include some 'easy' questions and some 'difficult' questions in order to stratify people effectively. It's all very well to have an entrance-exam type test where you simply pass or fail, but things like the SAT or GCSEs need to tell you how good you are, rather than just saying that you're better or worse than an arbitrary standard. So there need to be a few questions that 'A' level students can get right but 'B' level students can't, and some that 'B' students can get right but 'C' students can't, and so on. If it's all roughly the same difficulty, everyone will either come out with an A or a fail.

There is variation in difficulty on the questions in the SAT. However, according to any non-US, Non-Canadian standard, the rest of the world would classify all our as "Unbelievably Easy".

Realistically I was beyond A-level is the States in terms of math skills growing up in High School. Finished Calc BC and AP Stats by 11th grade and had no more math courses to take my senior year because there wasn't any high school in our district(and we lived in a rich district) that offered anything more than AP Calc BC and I didn't want to go between community college and HS in a day to get further math.

I would say that if I were back in China, I would be probably be a "B" class student in math. Most of my cousins were better than me in the subject.