|
Author
|
Topic: Standardized Tests
|
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163
|
posted 07 September 2005 10:01 AM
I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on the wide array of standardized tests that are required for entry into many educational programs (ex: MCAT (medicine), LSAT (law), SAT (US university), GMAT (business), GRE (general)? Personally, I really do not agree with their widespread use, nor their validity. I also think that they really provide a narrow glimpse into someone's true abilities. For instance, while a doctor obviously needs to be a very intelligent person, IMO it is even more critical that they are a compassionate person with a great concern for the well-being of others. Another example could be a lawyer, who obviously needs a lot of mental horsepower, but more importantly needs integrity to assume such an important position of influence.
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 07 September 2005 10:14 AM
I did some graduate work at Columbia in New York in the mid-1990s, and had to write the GRE to get in;
( required brushing up a lot of high school math but, surprise, it is all there back in some dusty corner, and just needs to be aired out)anyways, did OK and later noticed an ad for Kaplan prep schools in the subway, also asking in fine print for people who had done well to ask for openings as teachers; I needed the money, so I said what the hell at the first training sessions for potential teachers (I later dropped out), they gave The Big Picture:
why take these tests? Who wants the results, and why? In a word or two, the reason the scores have a market (ie, universities, professional schools, employers sometimes) is that these tests are HIGHLY predictive: the top 10, 20 or 50 percent (or any fraction therein) can be projected to (a) graduate in a determinate average number of years (b) get into professional schools and succeed there to a certain degree (c) also, dropout, flame out and not make it, according to very finely projected certainties. College administrators see these averages proven to be true and want to narrow down exactly their intake each fall, and also fish for the best likely students. Whether it says anything about people's innate or best potential (much less for any single individual), who knows?, but the broad predictability factor is proven, and colleges are willing to pay cash to get that info. [ 07 September 2005: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 07 September 2005 10:31 AM
(I preface these remarks with the admission that I can only properly speak authoritatively to the SSAT, PSAT and the SAT circa 1979-83.) A huge amount of my high school education was geared directly to producing a good SAT score. My secondary education wasn't narrow (really, it wasn't), but nonetheless everyday, in every class, we would be told how what were being taught related to the SAT. That is, take Calc instead of Special Topics in Geometry and you can count of an extra 25 points in your SAT Math. Take AP Calc and count on 50, etc. Whether or not the tests are actually predictive, I remember finding my school's approach somewhat soothing, in that at least the SAT was a known quantity, and that I was being given a time-tested strategy for getting the score I needed for where I wanted to go. [Edited because I remembered more tests that I took in that period.] [ 07 September 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136
|
posted 07 September 2005 10:40 AM
I took the MCAT, a few tests specific to Quebec universities, and later another standardized test at the end of my vet degree.I feel pretty ambiguous about them, because while I recognize that the sheer numbers of people who want to enter programs such as medicine and law are greater than their capacity, there is something wrong about the way these tests frame knowledge and study. I don't think they do that great a job of helping select candidates either, but on the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much will to do it any other way, because it would require even more time and investment on the part of professionals who are already on the inside (apprenticeships, mentorships, etc.) Also, it's worth considering that the ability to adapt to a set of circumstances is a skill in itself. You know what you have to learn, so you study and learn it the best you can, and try to remain calm and focused while you write the test. I found it helped to see the tests as another obstacle - once it's over, you can focus on more important things. 
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 07 September 2005 11:32 AM
It could be that the tests are simply part of the weeding process as well.Many years ago Mrs. M. applied to medical school. She had to write about her academic acheivements, goals, etc., in 1500 words, and an advisor told her in no uncertain terms to make DAMN SURE she didn't exceed the limit. Apparently it's one easy way to start culling 3000 applications (for 50 spots) real fast. To be sure, there's no guarantee that someone who does well on an MCAT is going to make a good doctor, nor is there any guarantee that someone who does poorly (or exceeds the 1500 word limit) won't. But there you go. Gotta start somewhere.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Southlander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10465
|
posted 24 September 2005 10:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
Another issue I have is that many people are now taking courses that are designed specifically for these tests. Many of them purport to be "aptitude tests" and if someone can infact study and improve for an aptitude test it raises questions about that test.
Either we let everyone in, or we select applicants on who they know, how much they can pay, or an aptitude test of some sort. (how high they can jump?) You need to think of an alternative, if you want to do away with the current system. General intellegence tests, at least if you can study for it, and pass, you can probably study to pass the course. 'Suitability to the proffesion' type interviews or tests have the advantage of letting applicants know if they should quit now, before expending lots of time and money, but they can be studied for too, and they give no indication if you have the clues to complete the course, and keep up to date after graduating.
From: New Zealand | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643
|
posted 24 September 2005 02:20 PM
A few years ago, when considering the possibility of career change, I wrote the LSAT.I was very impressed. I did some sample tests at home under uncontrolled conditions and scored it at about 158 or 160. When I actually did the test, I got (I think) 162. Enough to scrape into UBC Law School, but not enough that I had to spend the rest of my life worrying that I had missed my true calling. That the casual drill and the final test results were so close indicated to me that these tests do in fact identify some core capabilities and get them down to a rankable number across individuals. Now, are their cultural and other factors that might alter performance? I don't know in terms of spatial abilities, but I can see that obviously there is in the case of language and reading abilities. But then, if it's an English law school, or a French law school, and you're thinking of making a career in that language, measuring your abilities there is hardly inappropriate. I agree that for Aboriginal students we do need some special admissions procedures, but that's a different topic. Does the LSAT and other like it work? In terms of a measuring device I think it does. How exactly it should be used is another matter. One area where I think these standardized tests should be used, but aren't, is in the workplace. Many employers, especially public employers, falsely claim to hire and promote on merit, where they reserve to themselves the right to measure merit based on silly in-person interviews. Even if one is a keen critic of these standardized tests, I think they'd have to admit that they are still several hundred percent fairer and more objective than in-person interviews.
From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
