Standardized Testing

[Halna LeGavilk]

First, a bit of bragging- I just got a 35 on the ACT. :smallbiggrin:

Now, on to the more serious part. What do you think of standardized testing like the ACT and SAT (in America)? Do you think it has any actual application to real life?

I tend to worry sometimes, that even though I have great testing scores, that colleges won't accept me, and that I'll end up as a bum, etc, etc.

[Copacetic]

Grats. I'll be taking the ACT next semester, any tips? :smalleek:

In response to your question, no, I don't think ACT and SAT tests are not applicable to a day-to-day existence, but one would be hard pressed to find a superior alternative standard upon which to evaluate students for university.

[Coidzor]

Now, on to the more serious part. What do you think of standardized testing like the ACT and SAT (in America)? Do you think it has any actual application to real life?

I tend to worry sometimes, that even though I have great testing scores, that colleges won't accept me, and that I'll end up as a bum, etc, etc.

They have scholarships available simply for having done well on them.

No real life application aside from potentially gaining scholarships and practice for filling out tedious forms.

Aside from the essay-writing portions, which I always loathed, I excelled at them... although I always found most forms of homework to be exercises in raw tedium and so was not always the best student even if it turned out I somehow knew most-to-all of what they were going to bother testing us on later.

[Whiffet]

Congratulations! That's a great score! Don't worry about colleges, there are plenty that will take you with a score like that. :smallbiggrin:

As for the tests themselves, they have no real life application beyond how they help you get scholarships. The tests are necessary for that, too; they're better than, say, the letter grades a student earns. Your high school might be terrible and just hands A's to anyone who shows up to class. A college needs some way to know how much you learned in high school. Wouldn't it suck if they decided to give a scholarship to a student who had all A's, only to find out the student was graded by completion and didn't know anything? I'm sure there are better ways to determine such things, but the ACT and SAT aren't the only criteria used for awarding the good scholarships, so it's fine.

Now, I can't stand the standardized tests I had to take from elementary to high school. But going into detail on that would be rather political, so I won't go there. :smallwink:

[Jack Squat]

I really don't think they're terribly useful for any application outside of academia, they're really more about knowing how to take a test and pattern recognition rather than knowledge of the material. I mean, if you're planning on college, you have to be able to do well at it, but it's not necessarily going to be an indicator of how well you do in college, or in the Real WorldTM.

I've always done fairly well on standardized tests, 31 both times I took the ACT (my mom thought I got lucky and made me take it again), and I scored consistently in the 80 percentile+ on the practice ASVABs, so I certainly wish that they counted for more (OK, so the ASVAB actually helps you get a job - albeit in a field that I'm fairly certain I'm disqualified from).

Assuming your grades even somewhat correspond to your ACT score, you shouldn't have any problem getting into -and succeeding in - most colleges.

[Deathslayer7]

Good job. I only got a 31 myself. Now be prepared to apply to colleges and after you get accepted into the college of your choice, never to use it again. :smallbiggrin:

[Whiffet]

I've always done fairly well on standardized tests, 31 both times I took the ACT (my mom thought I got lucky and made me take it again), and I scored consistently in the 80 percentile+ on the practice ASVABs, so I certainly wish that they counted for more (OK, so the ASVAB actually helps you get a job - albeit in a field that I'm fairly certain I'm disqualified from).

Your mom just thought you were lucky? Wow, didn't hearing that hurt? :smallfrown:

Most people who take the ACT multiple times either match their first score or improve. Of the exceptions I personally know, all but one were people who did so well the first time that there's almost no room for improvement.

I don't put much stock into specific numbers, just the general area where they fall. I don't think a person who scored a 31 knows any more than a person who scores 30, but a 31 compared to a 15 probably says something.

I know a guy who took the ACT drunk and scored something in the twenties. :smallamused: I sure wish I could remember the exact number, but I find the fact that he paid for the test and was drunk for it quite amusing. Also idiotic, but mostly amusing.

Obligatory score posting: 30 my first time, 32 my second time.

[Jack Squat]

Your mom just thought you were lucky? Wow, didn't hearing that hurt? :smallfrown:

Nah, between me scoring several points higher than my (twin) brother and me staying up all night beforehand playing video games, I wasn't too certain it was skill either :smalltongue:


I know a guy who took the ACT drunk and scored something in the twenties. :smallamused: I sure wish I could remember the exact number, but I find the fact that he paid for the test and was drunk for it quite amusing. Also idiotic, but mostly amusing.

Some people test better when they're inebriated (on substances other than alcohol as well). I suppose the reasoning would be that it gets them past the anxiety of taking the test. There's a point of diminishing returns, as with anything, but it's not necessarily a bad plan other than the whole public intoxication thing.

[Anxe]

I'm a peer advisor at my college and I get to look at a lot of transcripts. In general the people who do well on SATs get better grades at the college as well. It's just a correlation, but still.

[sparkyinbozo]

There's a correlation between standardized testing scores and college GPA, but it's relatively small (something like only explaining 10-15% of the variance). The problem is that these look like they should measure academic performance, and that we don't have many better measures right now.

Bigger factors, such as motivation, often play a larger part, but they're a lot more difficult to measure. There's a current trend of researchers trying to develop tests for these, but it's still pretty early.

Personally, I love standardized tests, but it might be because I'm one of those people who tend to take tests well. :smalltongue:

[Tirian]

There's a correlation between standardized testing scores and college GPA, but it's relatively small (something like only explaining 10-15% of the variance). The problem is that these look like they should measure academic performance, and that we don't have many better measures right now.

Yeah, let me expand on that a bit, because that's a statistic that gets brought up a lot and it's important to understand the context. The formal correlation is between these testing scores and freshman college grades, and anyone who's been to college shouldn't be surprised that it isn't a good fit between them. There are a lot of reasons why a student would struggle in their first year in college: emotional preparedness for the greater personal responsibility, a whole host of social issues ranging from parental detachment to a rotten roommate, or any number of factors of that sort that the SAT and ACT could not possibly predict and don't pretend to. The stat that doesn't often get mentioned is that the high school GPA or graduation percentile rank to college freshman GPA correlation isn't much stronger, for exactly the same reasons -- we need to be as comfortable as possible with the truth that collegiate success is one of those things that is best measured by trying it and seeing how it goes. Indeed, if there was a college where the best freshmen were precisely the best seniors the year before, I would be deeply concerned that that college wasn't tailoring their freshman curriculum and course load to the needs of the individual student.

Having said that, like sparkyinbozo also says, this is no good reason to throw out standardized tests or even these specific tests. It is undeniable that crucial factors in higher learning include strong skills in reading comprehension, critical thought, and analytical reasoning. This isn't remotely a complete list and there are ways other than the SAT and ACT to demonstrate these specific aptitudes, but it's sensible to have a level playing field that can satisfy that many prospective students can meet the baseline that is set by each individual school.

[evil-frosty]

I only got a 26 on my ACT and I took it again and got a lower score of a 25. But anyway I just don't test well so I feel that it is not an accurate representation of my aptitude. Just my opinion though.

Many colleges now(at least according to admissions counselors I have talked to) are looking at things like the classes you take and the pattern of your GPA throughout your high school career. BTW I am a senior who has just finished up college apps. So I have recently asked all these questions of counselors.

[Elentari]

Grats on that awesome score!

First time I took it, I got a 30, second time it was a 33.

The ACT doesn't have a whole lot of application in RL except for applying to colleges and getting scholarships. It's just basically a way for them to look at everyone and compare them on a similar basis.

[Ranger Mattos]

I haven't taken the ACTs or SATs yet, but here in Wisconsinland we have this thing called the WKCEs (Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination), which we take in 7th, 8th, and 10th grades. I began it today, and will be finishing tomorrow. I've always found it extremely boring and tedious, and I always do extremely well (except sometimes on the essay).

To make it worse, it has no application in my life. Colleges don't care what you got on it. It just determines how much funding the schools get.

:smallyuk:

[The Dark Fiddler]

I can't say I'm well versed in the theory behind standardized tests. I can say, though, that my school puts an inordinate amount of importance on the PSSAs (Pennsylvania System of School Assessment). We take practice PSSAs multiple times a year, and being in AP classes, it's dreadfully boring. It's also almost insulting when they ask us, for the fiftieth time, to describe how we graph a basic inequality and why we did each step.

SATs, however, I almost enjoyed. It was a nice test for myself. Ended up getting a 2030. Funnily enough, I think the PSATs, which I only took because of scholarship opportunities (and 2 weeks AFTER the actual SATs), were more difficult. Dunno if I should take the ACTs or not, though.

[llamamushroom]

Wait, American colleges didn't used to care about what subjects you'd taken? I find that... odd.

In New South Wales, we have an out-dated and slightly sick (as in "unwell", not "fully") system called the Higher School Certificate (HSC). For years 11 and 12, you take subjects that have been approved by the HSC Board of Studies, taught to their syllabus, and at the end of 12 every student in the state takes the same exams at the same time. For instance, as English is a compulsory subject, this year every single year 12 student in NSW sat down at 9:20am on the 17th of October to do their exam (split into Standard, Advanced and ESL papers).

Then, all multiple thousand exam papers are collected and marked by a platoon of teachers in Sydney, with strict guidelines and "pre-marked" papers going through to make sure everyone is marking to the curve. At the end, an algorithm that is based equally on relative subject difficulty and individual student shoe-size looks at the marks you got in all of your exams (and internal assessments, scaling one or the other based on apparent difficulty), and churns out a number between 60 and 99.95, which is your ATAR (Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank).

So, it's standardised testing for each subject, which I think makes a tad more sense, though it is a lot more difficult to grade equally. As a side-note, an ATAR of less than 60 is a fail, and the student does not receive their HSC (baring in mind that it's ludicrously difficult to do so, as the algorithm takes into account all the people who left the system before year 12, giving those "imaginary" students an auto-fail).

And Now You Know!

[Starwulf]

SATs, however, I almost enjoyed. It was a nice test for myself. Ended up getting a 2030. Funnily enough, I think the PSATs, which I only took because of scholarship opportunities (and 2 weeks AFTER the actual SATs), were more difficult. Dunno if I should take the ACTs or not, though.

A...2030? Isn't 1600 a perfect score on the SATS? Or am I missing something since I graduated high-school?

I scored a 1500 on SATs, and a 97 on the ASVAB(not that I have a clue what that really equates to for the ASVAB, since it's primarily a test designed to test your aptitude for entrance into the military). ACTs weren't really a big thing when I was high-school 12 years ago. I seem to remember my wife taking them after she decided to go to College though(she graduated HS 4 years after me)

[Dsurion]

A...2030? Isn't 1600 a perfect score on the SATS? Or am I missing something since I graduated high-school?

I scored a 1500 on SATs, and a 97 on the ASVAB(not that I have a clue what that really equates to for the ASVAB, since it's primarily a test designed to test your aptitude for entrance into the military). ACTs weren't really a big thing when I was high-school 12 years ago. I seem to remember my wife taking them after she decided to go to College though(she graduated HS 4 years after me)IIRC, with the added writing portion, a 2100 is the top score, making a 2030 pretty impressive as far as SATs go.

[Starwulf]

IIRC, with the added writing portion, a 2100 is the top score, making a 2030 pretty impressive as far as SATs go.

They added a writing portion? Hmm, I didn't know that. When did this happen? I know it wasn't by 99, cuz that's when I took the test. That kinda sucks, I feel gypped now, writing was my strongest suit back in high school, I always aced reports and stuff like that.

[Coidzor]

They added a writing portion? Hmm, I didn't know that. When did this happen? I know it wasn't by 99, cuz that's when I took the test. That kinda sucks, I feel gypped now, writing was my strongest suit back in high school, I always aced reports and stuff like that.

2005-2006ish, IIRC.

[Anxe]

IIRC, with the added writing portion, a 2100 is the top score, making a 2030 pretty impressive as far as SATs go.

You can score between 200 and 800 on each section. 2400 is the highest score.

[Karoht]

No one test should determine your future to the degree that the SAT seems to. I'm very glad we don't have them in Canada.

[rogueboy]

2005-2006ish, IIRC.

This sounds right. I took the SAT in 2005, and I think at that point they were either about to add the writing portion or had just added it. I want to say that I took the writing portion, but didn't receive a score for it. Maybe it was being tested on my class?

On the standardized tests, I have pretty big issues with them, but it's what we've got for now. My issues are mostly because they tend to cause schools to teach to the exam rather than teaching useful and interesting material that will keep people interested in things like sciences (which, clearly, are the greatest subjects around; specifically chemistry).

note: I might be biased on the whole science/chemistry thing, given that I'm a grad student in chemistry right now. :smallbiggrin:

[Mando Knight]

I took the ACT twice and the SAT once. Not entirely sure why... maybe because doing well on the tests felt like an accomplishment. My ACT scores were, I think, 33/34, and I don't remember my SAT score, but it was also fairly decent... I think it was ~1500 not counting the writing section?

Really, what the tests test is your ability to take standardized tests, as well as some critical thinking skills. If you've done well on other standardized-type tests, you'll do fine. The writing portion may be the toughest part to get graded well on, but just get used to formulating arguments and writing them and the evidence you have for them down and you should do fine.

[Private-Prinny]

I took the SAT, but not the ACT. Got a 2290 (1560 if you don't count the writing section). Trust me, after college admissions and scholarship applications are done, no one will care about them ever again.

[Traab]

I took the SAT in 99, got a 1300 or so on it. Not incredible, but better than average I guess. I didnt go to college but I took the ASVAB and got a 97, which pretty much qualified me for that percentage of the available jobs in the military. :smallbiggrin: I almost died laughing when I learned my eyesight disqualified me from working with ballistic missiles and other such weaponry, but I was perfectly qualified to work with nukes. I honestly dont know how the qualifications for that sort of thing are figured out, but its amusing.

[Starwulf]

I took the SAT in 99, got a 1300 or so on it. Not incredible, but better than average I guess. I didnt go to college but I took the ASVAB and got a 97, which pretty much qualified me for that percentage of the available jobs in the military. :smallbiggrin: I almost died laughing when I learned my eyesight disqualified me from working with ballistic missiles and other such weaponry, but I was perfectly qualified to work with nukes. I honestly dont know how the qualifications for that sort of thing are figured out, but its amusing.

Are you color blind in any way? I know my best friend was unable to apply for many of the different jobs in the military due to the fact that he was(is) significantly color-blind.

[Pheehelm]

It's been quite a few years since I took the SAT, but funny story there...so I've got four older siblings. Oldest brother took the SAT, got a score in the 1200's. Next brother took it, 1300's. Next brother, 1400's. Then my sister took it, 1500-something. Then it was my turn.

That was the same year they introduced the writing portion.

*headdesk*

Don't remember what I ultimately got, but I was disappointed with it. I did much better (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11011020&postcount=51) more recently on the ASVAB and a couple other military service tests.

Speaking of which:
I almost died laughing when I learned my eyesight disqualified me from working with ballistic missiles and other such weaponry, but I was perfectly qualified to work with nukes. I honestly dont know how the qualifications for that sort of thing are figured out, but its amusing....I'm guessing you mean "nuclear reactors" and not "nuclear weapons." Or maybe "nuclear engineers" as in "hey, you're perfectly qualified to work with [other] nukes [nuclear engineers]!"

[SaintRidley]

I loathe standardized tests. Poor system. However, I have an uncanny knack for doing very well at them.

Just got my GRE scores back today, from the newly revised version of the test. 89th percentile verbal, 88th percentile quantitative reasoning, 87th percentile analytical writing.

[Traab]

It's been quite a few years since I took the SAT, but funny story there...so I've got four older siblings. Oldest brother took the SAT, got a score in the 1200's. Next brother took it, 1300's. Next brother, 1400's. Then my sister took it, 1500-something. Then it was my turn.

That was the same year they introduced the writing portion.

*headdesk*

Don't remember what I ultimately got, but I was disappointed with it. I did much better (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11011020&postcount=51) more recently on the ASVAB and a couple other military service tests.

Speaking of which:...I'm guessing you mean "nuclear reactors" and not "nuclear weapons." Or maybe "nuclear engineers" as in "hey, you're perfectly qualified to work with [other] nukes [nuclear engineers]!"

Nope, I mean building and maintaining detonators for nuclear warheads. Its the exact same job, just one involves nukes, the other doesnt. And for the above poster, not color blind, just blind. My eyesight is so bad that without glasses I cant tell gender from more than arms length away.