Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They're discriminatory in favor of the more privileged. I read once there was a question on the SAT about a "regatta". What inner-city kid even knows what a regatta is? There are endless examples of this.
Was "regatta" material to the outcome of the question? Or could it have been replaced by any noun and the test taker still be able to solve the problem?
Problem solving is a general process that never involves throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. There's an inductive and deductive reasoning through the process, that, as long as sufficient information is provided in the question, has a finite set of solutions. If the question involves solving a problem you can never "immediately know an answer". In fact I can't even imagine a question that is a problem solving question that can be presented as multiple choice, since you already have X solutions being presented, and you're determining which matches the problem criteria. That's selection, not problem solving.
You're not involved with exam setting I hope.
That's fine as long as everyone understands that the sole purpose of education and standardized testing is to present an arbitrary data point or set of points that only show that the tested is adequate or better at passing tests.
Teaching selection translates well into helping with independent decision-making (eliminating obviously bad options, even if you can't prove the remaining one is correct and why). Academics hate when people do this. They write them off as hacks. I call it street smarts.
If your open-ended answers aren't STEM related questions, they are very likely recall-type answers you learn from rote memorization. You either know the answer or you don't recall (or you didn't study). The inconsistencies I'm talking about would be educators taking liberties to make the following assumptions:
- Spelling error, or missing hyphen in a name = 100% wrong ("Guillain-Barré" as "Gillian Barr")
- Two-word answer, words are out of order = 100% wrong ("Myers Lake" as "Lake Myers")
- Answer written in pen instead of pencil, or "illegible" (highly subjective) = 100% wrong (strikeouts and erasures aren't harmful to a teacher's health, as frustrating as they may be to read around or read through, you still have to grade the paper and consider the answer, that's your job.)
I disagree with all of the above being marked as incorrect. Unless the spelling error or transposition result in a full match to another term being discussed in that chapter, it should not be marked incorrect. The instructor knows what was meant by the student.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,607 posts, read 17,935,039 times
Reputation: 50632
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcresHomes44
Standardized tests are biased. They don't truly measure what someone knows, and I'm glad that many colleges & universities are getting away from them. I did well on my SAT & ACT, but I still don't like standardized tests. Some of you need to get your head out of the clouds. The biggest group that standardized testing affects are those with learning disabilities.
I always did well on standardized tests, although I am glad colleges are getting away from using them.
They really don't seem to be a predictor of future success as a student, and as an adult.
They just point out who is a good test taker.
Rarely, if ever, in life are you presented with a problem and four possible correct answers that you have to pick from. Life doesn't work that way.
Without a good foundation, a house cannot be successfully built. The most basic element of an education is the ability to read. That coupled with effort (grit) will help insure success. Testing helps insure mastery of the basics. For an interesting look inside the Singapore educational system see below. Awhile back, I became interested in how one became a Doctor--Testing to get into University, MCAT to get into Medical School, and USMLEs to determine residency. Not to mention, Periodic testing once one becomes an MD.
Again, how are teacher-written tests any different? Again, standardized tests mean everybody taking the same flawed test.
I'm not saying that teacher-written tests are intrinsically ”superior” to standardized tests, but at the very least if the teacher writes the test, then the test is based on the teaching rather than the teaching being based on the test. A mediocre teacher will be a mediocre teacher regardless, but a system with fewer standardized tests (1 per year in primary school and 2 per year in secondary school) gives good teachers more of a chance to really help the students without being too restrained.
A friend taught grade school in Hawaii. One standardized test asked, "What season is it when the leaves turn red?" Answer: "Mango Season!" Because young mango leaves are red, and Autumn doesn't look the same in the tropics.
That's a good example of how some standardized questions may have multiple right answers, but only one that gets counted.
I took an IQ test that asked money questions that any child could answer--if they were familiar with pounds, pence, and shillings.
I'm going to try to unpack all this. I wish CD kept the original quote. In a series of replies, the original gets lost.
Yes, students and their parents can game the GPA. But you know what? A couple years down the road, doesn't mean jack. Yes, there's a success difference between the top 10% and bottom 10%, but within each range, not much.
So then why aren't students who underperform on the SAT and other standardized tests just told that it "doesn't mean jack"?
Quote:
It's seriously unlikely that one teacher in high school would make a difference between Ivy and not Ivy college. Simply because so many indeterminate factors that you have no control over go into a college acceptance.
In my case, my high school had many students who were equal except for which teacher we had for AP Bio. Myself and others who were stuck with the hard teacher did not get into Ivy League schools, while many of those who had the easier teachers did get into an Ivy League school. It also cost me at least one scholarship, since that one grade alone knocked me out of the top 5%, and this school automatically gave a full scholarship if you were in the top 5%. I've explained in the past my high school's strange ranking system. So, yes, this one grade alone did make the difference.
I think a point can be made that grade inflation is a big reason for this. With so many students getting A's, rank in class is basically determined by the "noise" (which teacher you get for AP Bio) rather than the "signal". The problem is, when you get that one teacher who doesn't practice grade inflation, you are at a huge disadvantage.
Quote:
College acceptance is a completely different issue. Heck, my youngest was accepted by both reach schools and is attending one of the hardest to get into schools in the country, yet was rejected by two in the zone schools. Figure that one out.
I may be wrong, but I believe you implied that you are African American, and that your youngest daughter plays soccer. I'm guessing that her reach schools either needed more African American women, or needed more soccer players, while her zone schools either had enough African American women, or their women's soccer team was full. I remember in grad school meeting a woman who was at MIT because it was the only school that accepted her! The other schools she applied to were less selective than MIT, but they focused less on affirmative action than MIT did, and they probably had enough women anyway. Even if I'm wrong about you being African American and your daughter playing soccer, most likely she fit some demographic that the reach schools wanted that the zone schools already had enough of.
Quote:
The big difference is scale and scope. A test by a teacher only impacts those in that class, not the whole country. Plus that single test in that class is only on the material in that class and is only one of the items that makes up the overall grade for that class. Have an off day there and you can make it up. Consistency is more important than a one day test.
I disagree. At least when I was in high school, you could take the SAT multiple times, and it was offered nearly every month. So, if you have one bad day, you can take it over. But in a difficult high school class, one bad day can really ruin your grade. Plus, even if the SAT is a bad test, the entire nation is on equal footing, since the entire nation took the same bad test. But a single teacher giving a bad test puts that teacher's students at a serious disadvantage compared to teachers who give better tests.
Quote:
Now a separate issue is whether the grading system makes sense. In that there are a lot more possible bad scores than good ones, so it's easier for a single grade to pull the score down than a good grade to pull the score up. EG, a 98 will bring a 93 average up by much, but a 30 will bring it way down. But that's a different issue.
That was always a pet peeve of mine. At the very least, every teacher should be required to use the same system. Would it make any sense to have a football game where one team gets 6 points for a touchdown, and the other team gets only 5 points for a touchdown, and is not allowed two point conversions? Obviously not.
Quote:
Yes, as a matter of fact, I would use a random lottery when testing materials. Randomization is a key tenant of Experimental Design. It helps to tease out the actual data from some of the experimental errors. More tests from more teachers over a greater period of time provides a more consistent picture.
Not sure what you are saying, to be honest.
Quote:
Since CD doesn't copy the original, I'm including a summary here for context: This question is referring to tests by individual teachers aren't major life events, unlike tests like the SAT, ACT, GRE, etc.
So in response to the question, it's different because the impact is different. One test by teacher may be individually unfair, but it doesn't have the same impact as most standardized tests where often have a high stakes component to them. The SAT for example can impact college acceptance and potentially scholarships. But the 4th week quiz in Mrs Magilicuddy's 9th grade English class won't. It's been washed out and subsumed within the overall high school performance.
Again, I disagree with you, and I would say exactly the opposite.
Quote:
Here's the thing. While most of us remember incidents like that because of the sheer unfairness of it, they simply just don't matter in terms of success and failure in life. I remember incidents like that too.
So why can't you just say the same thing to somebody who underperformed on the SAT?
Quote:
The biggest lesson I learned from it was what to tell my kids when they experienced the same thing: "Just remember, in a few years you'll be an engineer making double what she's making, and she'll still be wrong."
Unfortunately, I'm an engineer making less than what teachers make in my area, plus they get a pension and retiree health insurance, neither of which I get. But I realize that's unique to the area where I live, where teachers are overpaid compared to the rest of the nation and compared to other professionals.
One problem is that the test questions are biased, probably not knowingly these days, and assume a white, middle-class upbringing in creating the questions. Even something as a basic as a scenario based question requires one to understand and have experience with a similar scenario. This is a long known issue with tests like the SAT and ACT.
I've often hear that argument, and it never made sense to me. How can a math question be biased? It is possible that the verbal section is biased, but I remember the reading passages being heavily focused on female and minority cultures, but that was possibly unique to the particular date I took the exam. But keep in mind that teachers can be biased too.
Quote:
There is also a socioeconomic factor that comes into play. We were able to afford SAT test prep sessions and materials for our children. Minimally they went in more confident in taking the test. Millions of students from lower economic backgrounds can't afford that kind of test prep. We could afford to live in a place with pretty good schools. Not all can say that. We also were able to provide lots of books, learning software, etc. for our children. Not all had those things.
Then maybe what is needed is for all high schools to offer an SAT prep course as part of their standard curriculum. Or, find some way of offering SAT prep classes to low income students.
Heaven forbid someone get an answer correct from just a guess. Do naysayers think that's not fair? What about the 75% chance that a guess will be wrong, vs. 25% it will be correct?
Fair or not, there is no way to fully remove luck from the equation. Much of success in life just comes down to luck.
They're discriminatory in favor of the more privileged. I read once there was a question on the SAT about a "regatta". What inner-city kid even knows what a regatta is? There are endless examples of this.
I'm middle class, and I've never been on a yacht, never owned a yacht, and was never in a regatta. And I heard that story 25 years ago when I was in high school. Assuming it's true, and not an urban legend, it was likely from an SAT exam a long time ago, and not a current exam.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
