I took the SAT a couple months ago, and I was wondering if this is actually an acurate way of measuring someone's intelligence.. Just want to hear some opinions on this
Fuck no. All standardized tests do is teach the kiddies to go when the light is green and stop when its red. Little do they serve to clue them in on how absolutely creative they could be someday or how just as creative they'd need to be in case the power goes out. Cars going sixty still pose a threat but the street either way needs crossing. What then?
so what does serve as an indication that one has creativity? how does one learn commonsense? (blackout) how does one improve motor skills? (crossing road) what role do you see schools playing in the examples you gave? what does any of this have to do with tests? *if particular test sucks, dump it, sue the writers and put out a bid for a new and improved one http://www.iedm.org/library/art115_en.html What then? ha! you aint gonna even make it into your teens!
Christ man... These tests are only serving to guage how well you've memorized the a's and the b's. Its measuring how well you've absorbed the isms, ologies and formulas in plain black and white. All that junk is scaffolding, says me. But creativy is all the luscious goo that seeps in to fill in the gaps and make a whole person. That's what any of this has to do with tests, spooky. When folks laugh and point right before you McGuyver your way out of a rock and a hard place Crowd control. I'm in my twenties. Swine.
gen These tests are only serving to guage how well you've memorized the a's and the b's. Its measuring how well you've absorbed the isms, ologies and formulas in plain black and white. excellent. this is exactly what the tests are supposed to do. you also know the saying... genius is 90% perspiration/10% inspiration. well the perspiration consists of stuff that you know/memorized. the 10% inspiration/creativity is merely potential that most humans have. how one nurtures those abilities probably takes place in kindergarten with stuff like building blocks etc. to have this "whole life" type curriculum is bogus. getting students in hs and uni to get creative is useless if their ideas flout every natural law in the books. this is the dead end most will find themselves in if they are unable to anchor their ideas to a solid and factual depository of knowledge. (what the hell is that) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i'd say rote/memorization has a place in education All that junk is scaffolding, says me. But creativy is all the luscious goo that seeps in to fill in the gaps and make a whole person without the scaffolding, the idea is gonna hang in thin air. look, its ridiculous to downplay the importance of either one of them. a body of knowledge, the possession of which is gauged by tests, is as important as creativity. they are dependant on each other When folks laugh and point right before you McGuyver your way out of a rock and a hard place yes, a commonplace occurence Crowd control. no need for glibness I'm in my twenties. you misunderstand. the context was the inability to cross a road safely>road kill Swine lets keep the sci subforums civil "In 1968, George Land gave 1,600 5-year-olds a creativity test used by NASA to select innovative engineers and scientists. He then re-tested the same children at ages 10 and 15. The test results were staggering! 98% at age 5 registered genius level creativity, 30% at 10 year and 12% at 15 years of age. The same test given to 280,000 adults placed their genius level creativity at only 2% ! In his book 'Breakpoint and Beyond', co-authored by Beth Jarman, Land concluded that non-creative behavior is learned". i would like to know how creative behaviour is unlearned! perhaps this is partly neurophysiological rather than strictly environmental Creativity and Consciousness Rote Memorization
You hit the nail on the head. I know alot of people that got perfect scores on the sat simply because they went to sat tutors and has all the books. their scores jumped up anywhere from 300 point to 800 point after having those study aids. The SAT is suposed to measure aptitute, not what you've memorized. In that respect, the test fails misserably. Add to that the recent evidence that the entire thing is horribly biased, and you have a test that isn't worth the paper its printed on. The ACT doesn't fair much better. It is supposed to be a rough estimate of how well you will do in college. Now correct me if I am wrong, but last I was in college was a completely different world from high school. How exactly is a test that is, again, geared towards finding out just how well you've memorized your facts be an accurate representation of how well you will adjust and do in college? Point being that, yes, you need the framework, the scaffolding , that you gained in earlier education in order make your way in life, but these tests were designed (supposedly) not to grade memorization, but aptitude and ability. Neither of those things are actually touched upon in the current incarnation of standardized tests.
The best thing I could think of off hand would be to set up test more like IQ tests. IQ tests do a horrible job of actually measuring intelligence, but they do do a good job at measuring pattern recognition, memorization, problem solving and the like. Those characteristics are more likely to determin someone's aptitude at learning new ideas and concepts. For college, I would say couple it with some kind of emotional/psychological evaluation to see if the person will hold up to the drastic changes that college life puts upon you. If next you ask me about IQ tests and what should be done, I simply tell you i don't know. So much of what they measure is based of socialital norms. If they were to make them less math involved, and more random: stick with paterns, relationships and the like, they might get a better indicator. I've seen a few that take steps in that dirrection, but most also include some math, totally skewing iit for someone who hasn't learned the subject well.
Spooks No need nada. Eat it, spooky. The point is that either one should never be subject to vivisictions Aptitute and ability in how to do well on a fucking test. You're right, jps put it best. But someone also said once that museums have no walls. Meaning art. I move to say that man doesn't either. What these tests do, any damn test does, is marginalize. If students racked their brains for a whole 2 hours over these things to have them collected and put to the discussion that's fine. But they're gathered up and put to a fucking scorecard. Scoreboards imply preconceived notions. And preconceived notions feed into bias. Finito.
Gendanken Nicely said.. thefountainhed that is the question isn't it. It a tough one too. I was thinking about that the other night, and I kept finding myself going and circles and finding interrelated/dependant qualities.
The ACT and SAT are a accurate measure for colleges on gauging how good of a student you will be, your grade point average will determine how good you are at studying, colleges don't give a dam about you as a person they just want successful students.
Actually there was an article in news week (i believe) not too long ago that said many studies where showing otherwise. They found that due to the way the tests questions were being chosen the test were actually horribly biased and not an accurate representation of all students abilities. I think it was UCLA that was actually considering doing away with them becuase of the evidence that was rising.
I think standardized tests are reasonable for a guess at intelligence; however, they aren't 100%. I think they do a decent job of telling who is smart, who is average, who is below average, but what is really the difference between a 1400 SAT and a 1450? I would say not even worth counting. Also, standardized tests cannot be trusted to judge how well a person will do later. I am a great test taker, but I am not a hard worker. Thus I do good on standardized tests, but tend to fall behind in classes.
You know, I'm one of those wonderkids when it comes to test-taking. I scored a 28 on my ACT and was pissed because I did so poorly. I graduated with a 1.7 GPA. The point I'm trying to make is that one's test scores have almost nothing to do with what kind of a student you are. One could theoretically dick around in high school, do enough to get by, and graduate by the skin of one's proverbial teeth, but the college or university that was applied to will most generally just look at the test score. If one's GPA is abnormally low (say, like, a 1.7), the student will most often be admitted; albeit under a "probation" of sorts. Usually they lift said probation after the first semester (quarter or trimester, pick one) if the student shows a noticable, dare I say...improvement from their high school days. Some colleges don't even notice that the student isn't doing well, as long as they're still paying. All I'm saying is that one could memorize all the facts they want, and have all the creativity in the world. It comes down these days to cold, hard cash, and some scores on paper comparing one to the rest of the world.
grrrrrrrrrrrrowllllllll................. You got a 32?! I only got a * mumble mumble* but a 32?? Mephurio, you thrill me. Wasn't I supposed to be the bestest, brightest, sauce of all sauces? Scrrr-EW you. Kidding. (32??)
