Are Timed Standardized Tests Practical?
Options
Plutarch
Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
I can understand having standardized tests, nevermind the bias that actually exists on these kinds of tests, but having them so rigoursly timed? What's the purpose of that? Is that really an accurate way to measure a student's capability? Will said student's career wholly consist of making such quick decisions?
It seems to me that this only hinders a student's ability to think efficiently if he has to worry about the short amount of time he has to finish the test. It also encourages stress. And there are many students who are very intelligent and bright but regardless, they're still poor test takers for whatever reason.
I dont have a good alternative in mind but I remember taking one test in which getting the question wrong counted against you more than just an unanswered or skipped question. So it was more about quality than quantity. Maybe that's the kind of method we should be heading towards? Or not?
It seems to me that this only hinders a student's ability to think efficiently if he has to worry about the short amount of time he has to finish the test. It also encourages stress. And there are many students who are very intelligent and bright but regardless, they're still poor test takers for whatever reason.
I dont have a good alternative in mind but I remember taking one test in which getting the question wrong counted against you more than just an unanswered or skipped question. So it was more about quality than quantity. Maybe that's the kind of method we should be heading towards? Or not?
Comments
-
I can understand having standardized tests, nevermind the bias that actually exists on these kinds of tests, but having them so rigoursly timed? What's the purpose of that? Is that really an accurate way to measure a student's capability? Will said student's career wholly consist of making such quick decisions?
It seems to me that this only hinders a student's ability to think efficiently if he has to worry about the short amount of time he has to finish the test. It also encourages stress. And there are many students who are very intelligent and bright but regardless, they're still poor test takers for whatever reason.
I dont have a good alternative in mind but I remember taking one test in which getting the question wrong counted against you more than just an unanswered or skipped question. So it was more about quality than quantity. Maybe that's the kind of method we should be heading towards? Or not?
I agree but then again the educational system is not set up to foster success for the children, trill talk. ? I remember I took the test to drive the metro bus and there was a reading part & math, so these ? said answer 25 math questions in 25 minutes, so I was like ok cool but these ? had advanced questions that you need to work out. There was no ? way I was getting that job. -
Interesting thread.
I am not a huge fan of standardized tests anyway, since they're biased and etc., but I understand why schools have them especially with more applicants than ever applying. As for timing them, I think that just goes with the territory. I mean the whole point is to have everyone take the exact same test so schools have some common frame of reference, and that means doing so in exactly the same timeframe too.
But imo the whole system is flawed and I agree that this aspect of the admission process has nothing to do with fostering success for students. -
Last Of My Kind wrote: »I agree but then again the educational system is not set up to foster success for the children, trill talk. ? I remember I took the test to drive the metro bus and there was a reading part & math, so these ? said answer 25 math questions in 25 minutes, so I was like ok cool but these ? had advanced questions that you need to work out. There was no ? way I was getting that job.
Fair/good point. Yeah those tests are so deceptive heh -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Interesting thread.
I am not a huge fan of standardized tests anyway, since they're biased and etc., but I understand why schools have them especially with more applicants than ever applying. As for timing them, I think that just goes with the territory. I mean the whole point is to have everyone take the exact same test so schools have some common frame of reference, and that means doing so in exactly the same timeframe too.
But imo the whole system is flawed and I agree that this aspect of the admission process has nothing to do with fostering success for students.
Also fair/good point. I guess its just the way of the system. It's just like you said, it goes with the territory. -
I need a direct example of these timed standardized test that you are against
Personally I never had a problem with them. I'm curious as to why others do. Especially when you're trained your whole life to take said standardized test. With the biggest one being your SAT. -
Depends on the purpose and mindset of the person who gives the test. Some tests are meaningless because they have no bearing on indication of aptitude. For instance, some tests are purposely drawn up to exclude people from jobs and other opportunities, like the famous union literacy tests in the early 1900's that were designed to exclude recent migrant blacks from taking the jobs from whites because they were that much more skilled in construction than their northern counterparts.
I think professions like surgery where timing and efficiency is critical I think it would be a necessity. -
Depends on the purpose and mindset of the person who gives the test. Some tests are meaningless because they have no bearing on indication of aptitude. For instance, some tests are purposely drawn up to exclude people from jobs and other opportunities, like the famous union literacy tests in the early 1900's that were designed to exclude recent migrant blacks from taking the jobs from whites because they were that much more skilled in construction than their northern counterparts.
I think professions like surgery where timing and efficiency is critical I think it would be a necessity.
Great example but I don't think t/s was trying to go that far back -
I would look at results to determine if a test format is practical. Take the LSATs for example (test for getting into law school). When you compare the scores people got on those tests, and their performance as law students, the correlation is there.
-
shootemwon wrote: »I would look at results to determine if a test format is practical. Take the LSATs for example (test for getting into law school). When you compare the scores people got on those tests, and their performance as law students, the correlation is there.
....co-sign
Results are a better indicator to whether a test is applicable than anything else...Better way of saying it is, what is the test trying to prove.... -
I need a direct example of these timed standardized test that you are against
Personally I never had a problem with them. I'm curious as to why others do. Especially when you're trained your whole life to take said standardized test. With the biggest one being your SAT.
I don't know how direct of an example you want, but I would say tests (and they don't necessarily have to be national tests) that follow along the lines of the SAT.
My issue here is not so much with standardized tests themselves, its more to do with the rigorous timing to these tests. I don't think that it's very efficient, progressive, and practical. Like I've said, I think that it promotes unnecessary stress, diminishes the ability to think clearly and proficiently, and is not so much an excellent measure of a student's aptitude since there are some (and may be many?) excellent students who don't do well on said tests for various reasons. It's as if these tests measure how quickly you can put your intelligence to use rather than actually measuring your intelligence. And this is why I proposed better alternatives like the one I mentioned in my original post about tests that focus more on quality rather than quantity (like, using the process of elimination, guessing, or marking down "C" because C may be the most common answer isn't necessarily qualitative). Another alternative is like the class exams that I have taken in college in which the timing is more relaxed so that students aren't burdened by the all mighty clock. Being trained your whole life to take these tests are beside the point because I don't think that these tests are very practical to begin with.
Though shootem brought up a good point with the LSATS and that's certainly valid if it's true. But is it true with non-law students and non-math and non-science students? I honestly don't know.
You said that you've never had a problem with these tests and are curious as to why others do. I find that interesting because I don't know if you are in the majority or the minority, but I'm guessing that you are probably in the majority, and I am in the minority because I do have some problems with them, know others who do, and understand why we do. But like I said, I think that we are just in the minority and since it works for most people, I'll have to agree with what jonas said: that it just goes with the territory. Looking at the issue now, I don't think that it's necessarily a major problem but I still think that it's a minor one that could be helped in some ways.
I am also curious to know whether people, on average, have any trouble finishing the different parts of these tests in the allotted time? I know that I usually am never able to finish. And that's the same impression I have gotten from others. What about you tru mac? -
Depends on the purpose and mindset of the person who gives the test. Some tests are meaningless because they have no bearing on indication of aptitude. For instance, some tests are purposely drawn up to exclude people from jobs and other opportunities, like the famous union literacy tests in the early 1900's that were designed to exclude recent migrant blacks from taking the jobs from whites because they were that much more skilled in construction than their northern counterparts.
I think professions like surgery where timing and efficiency is critical I think it would be a necessity.
Agreed, good points. Now I would see rigorous timing as a critical and necessary component to a standardized test when it comes to prospective surgeons and co. But with other professions, I'm not so sure... -
Great example but I don't think t/s was trying to go that far back
I think that it's an open secret that standardized tests like the SATs are at least partially bias, especially when it comes to race and gender. I did a project on it but that was a while ago and I can't remember much. The controversial "Bell Curve" may also come into play here.
Another criticism of standardized tests is that they merely measure knowledge, routine, method, and memory rather than understanding, application, evaluation, and analysis. But I don't know too much about that. -
shootemwon wrote: »I would look at results to determine if a test format is practical. Take the LSATs for example (test for getting into law school). When you compare the scores people got on those tests, and their performance as law students, the correlation is there.
Agreed. That's a fair and great indicator.
