Standardized Testing - Good/Bad?

Fundamental Question:

Is standardized testing (SAT, PSAT, ACT) an appropriate measure of someone's qualification for college?

Generally, they have a fairly strong correlation with IQ - but the scores can be extremely deceptive. For example, you can be doing Calculus 3 but still do poorly on the math section that only goes to Precalculus.

I just got back my PSAT score - I scored a 211, exactly 1 question off National Merit Scholarship. I have completed Calculus, but made an extremely stupid mistake on the math section that cost me the needed 2 points.

My personal opinion: To score high, you must be intelligent. However, scoring low does not prove the opposite.

 

Is it appropriate? Probably not
Is there a better option? You would be hard-pressed to find one.
Standardized tests make it easier to compare Student X and Student Y at a glance (something Admissions Officers need to do extremely quickly)

 

That's just another example of socialized schooling.

Going to wait for Sythe...

 

My personal opinion is that the tests measure your intelligence to a certain extent. I have seen many intelligent kids score much lower than the outcome of which they expected.

For the most part I say the tests do a decent job on measuring intelligence (something which isn't the easiest thing to measure accurately).

 

Tests are only for measuring ur ability of doing something. It doesnt mean anything if u fail or watnot. Like if i have a test on maths, i usually dont study, althought im very smart and can learn things fast, i fail

 

Not necessarily, even without state schools there is no reason an independent testing board might not exist in order to help colleges weed out applicants.

 

why not be tested on common knowledge

 

Agreed.

I'm NOT the smartest kid in the world, but Im not NOT stupid..
I just recently took the PSAT's
Grades:
PSAT: 190
(Its measured on a scale from 0-240, so as far as the SATs go I would have scored an 1900 out of 2400)
Not terrible, but there are smarter kids then me that scored in the 150s, and 160s..

It isn't bad to have these tests, but I think colleges look at them too much. This is a test on what you've learned your whole life, making it VERY stressful. You only have a few hours to answer what, over 300 questions?

 

It is not a good measure of someone's ability or potential, but it is a great idea because everyone takes the same exact test, so the administrator finds out who is the better candidate.

 

i think its a good measure of ability, just study, try hard and you'll do good. I all ways find standardized testing super easy. Because looking at the options and asnwers can somtimes make things pop into your mind and you remember more stuff. So inturn i like them. But like my brother who sucks as school hes going to have a big problem in highschool (hes in 7th grade :/)

 

A groundless claim. There is no evidence that suggests higher IQs warrant higher SAT scores. Furthermore the test was NOT created to measure one's intelligence

Directly from the Collegeboard website

There is no correlation between intelligence and high/low SAT scores. The SAT covers a narrow range of topics, doing well requires preparation, NOT intelligence. This is the entire point of the test, to measure how well you are prepared. Some people need to study the test and it's specific topics and questions to be prepared. The SAT II Math Level II, for example, contains very specific questions regarding equations of hyperbolas. I was taking Multivariable calculus when I began studying for the Math SAT II test. I personally forget all about foci and calculating major and minor axis for hyperbolas. However, I did know other, faster, ways of finding extrema values, evaulating series, trig transformations, etc. Had I simply taken the test without studying for the specific SAT II subjects, I wouldn't have been able to get an 800. In fact, the first time I took the SAT II Math II subject test got a 760 for that very reason. Despite knowing how to evaluate triple integrals, I was not prepared for the test. The next time I took it, I reviewed the tested material beforehand, and re-learned some material that I had forgotten from Alg 2. As a result, I got an 800 on my second try. This had nothing to do with intelligence, (when I took the test I was doing Stokes' Therom in Multivariable) it had to do with my preparation for the test.

Some people don't need to study, they are already prepared. Others, however, do need to review and practice to score high. It's not because they are not intelligent, but rather, because they are not prepared.

That's the great thing about the SAT, it can equate different educational settings. Whether you came from a "presitigous" college preparatory, or a run-down public high school, your SAT score can put your achievements in perspective. If you maintained a "B" average at a difficult school, yet scored a 2250+ on the SAT, college admission officers would consider the difficulty of your school. Whereas if you mainted an "A+" average at a highschool, yet scored a 1700, admission officers may question your supposed "academic" success. An "A" student is someone who (theoritically) demonstrates "excellence" in their work. One cannot achieve excellence if one is not prepared (whether that is through studying, or inherently knowing the material). If one truly is an "A" student in school, they should be well-prepared, they should do well on a test that requires demonstration of preparation.

The SAT measures preparation for college and based of this, attempts to predict one's success in college. Although it may be considered an inductive leap to base one's success on one measly test, all who take the SAT understand it's importance. If you don't take the SAT seriously, it gives the impression that you will not take other important tests or assignments seriously as well.

Conclusively,

The SAT has no correlation to one's intelligence. The SAT measures preparation. A great deal of intelligence alone is not enough to succed in college. In fact, if one works hard, stays motivated, and never falters in his or her studies, he or she can be succesful in college even if he or she is of an "average" intelligence.

However...

It all depends on how one defines "intelligence." In my opinion, those who exude a neverfailing zeal for their studies do posses a unique "intelligence." In this sense, then yes, one could defintely claim that a high score requires a high intelligence. Nonetheless, I do not believe you were discussing this type of "intelligence."

The SAT is certainly useful.

 

Beastly post, ftw.
Yeah, I agree... but like I said before I think colleges look at it way too much. For some institutes the deciding factor is your SAT score, which I think is ridiculous.

 

People with higher IQs tend to understand material covered in school more than their lower scoring peers. This means there is a strong correlation between IQ and SAT scores.

If we take IQ as a rough approximation to intelligence, then there certainly is a correlation between intelligence and SAT scores.

There is plenty of evidence out there that suggests - no, practically proves - a causal relationship. Go read some Wikipedia for an overview.

 

You say with people higher IQS understand more .... than their lower scoring peers. Lower scoring in terms of Low SAT, or Low IQ? If it is the former, your next statement is circular logic.

No it does not. People with low IQs can still score very high (even higher than those with "high" IQs) if they prepare. Simply because you do not "understand" material in "covered" in school does not mean you will do poorly on the SAT. It just implies you have a great deal of preparation ahead of you. Furthermore, how does one define "understanding" material. Your statements are based on vague assumptions that has no evidence to back them up.

The burden of proof is upon he who claims. I have not found any definite evidence or studies to prove this correlation. Furthermore you did not link me to any evidence, you are simply making groundless assumptions.

 

I was referring to the latter. A higher IQ suggests that, in general, you can absorb knowledge and understand concepts with more ease than people with lower IQs.

These are precisely the reasons that individuals with high IQs tend to get better scores - they generally don't need to prepare as much.

To comprehend the meaning of something...? I don't think the definition is particularly important for what I'm trying to explain.

It makes good sense to assume there is a positive correlation between IQ and SAT scores, you're the one who is ignorantly calling this a groundless claim. You couldn't find evidence? It was at your fingertips all along:

1) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118793086/abstract
2) http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Positive_correlations_with_IQ

There is a correlation between IQ and SAT scores.

 

The SAT's unlike the ACT's are considered a measurement of aptitude not achievement. Some have claimed that you cannot study for the SAT; though SAT-courses have shown that you can raise your score by significant amount of points. Because of this, the SAT clearly is not a direct measure of one's intelligence. However, they maintain a correlation with one's IQ. Fat Controller's correlation of .82 is lower than I expected, but enough to make conclusion. In fact, MENSA still utilizes scores in the top 1 percentile a part of an evaluation of your intelligence.

I'm not sure why this comes of surprise to you. There's correlation between IQ and academic success, IQ and vocabulary, IQ and memory. What you are suggesting is that your intelligence cannot possibly have to do with how well you score on such a test. Even if the rest remained the same, someone retarded (sub 80 IQ) and scores poorly on the SAT test would create correlation.

 

It's good until it is taken for more than it's worth.

 

I got in the top 96% on my math section of the PASAT, the rest i drew smile faces, no joke. it still makes me wonder why 6% of the people did worst then me on the writing one.

 

Not really,because im not the sharpest knife in the drawer,i have dislexia(for those of you who dont know,you have trouble understanding stuff and reading + writing.)but i can draw...Im the best one in my class in drawing.I can draw whatever i want.But i cant tell a Greater then then a less then,and my right from my left...

So you're saying my career is going to be a fucking dumpster diver because i'm stupid?
Fuck no,i hope to be a artist when im older.
As it goes for the standerdized testing,id rather pick the uglisest girl in classes nose.

 

The main problem I have with such tests is that to score high, you must be part of a narrow band of people. Namely people with great vocabulary, read a lot, and do not make careless mistakes.

They also do not measure other skills such as creativity - even the writing free-response writing section has forumla-based grading patterns.

Well put.