Subject:
|
Re: tell me why...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 May 2000 18:25:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
128 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.test, Shiri Dori writes:
> I agreed with many parts of it, but I also agree with you that many parts of
> this article are not backed up by facts, and that they do not furthur their
> point (that standardized tests are bad).
And maybe even that their thesis is just plain incorrect? If they claimed that
sometimes standardized tests are misused, and then set about to demonstrate,
they would be on much firmer ground.
> I have my own beefs with standardized tests, based on my own experience(s).
> Some of them are downright silly (like the PLAN test), while others are
I don't know the PLAN at all. I don't recall ever hearing of it.
> clearly skewed (like the MCAS).
Some of you folks had a discussion about this a while back and I sort of
noticed it, but I don't know anything about it. Does the M stand for your
state? Is it used only in your state? I know the Iowa Test of Basic Skills is
used all over the nation, but not everywhere.
> Also, as an ESL student, I don't think the tests accurately reflect my
> understanding of the things tested. I might do much better on the tests if
That depends on what is being tested. And that might not be the same as what
you _think_ is being tested. Most schools use multiple regression to determine
a mildly ugly equation that predicts future success for incomming students.
They plug in the variables and come up with a ranking of applicants based on
that. They sometimes make exceptions too, when an admission councilor thinks
there is a reason. If they have found that your status as an ESL student
affects your chances (I'd bet they're improved, by the way -- unless there is
a significant language barrier in place) then they'll want to know it and
they'll use that datum along with all the others.
> an advantage over other students; or perhaps, by NOT asking me (as in the PLAN
> test) they're giving other people advantages over me. Does that make sense?
I think this issue of advantage is largely fictional. For many of the kinds
of tests that you're talking about, it doesn't matter how well you do. They're
mostly to rate schools and districts, and you're just part of the aggregate.
> I don't know much about the SATs, except that I have to take them next year.
Well, they're kind of boring, but otherwise no problem.
> I do agree that standardized tests can serve some purposes. I also think that
> they are used for purposes which they shouldn't be used for. For example, the
> PLAN test being used to advise me what jobs I should pursue.
How is that a misuse? There are many systems of interest inventory coupled
with aptitude measure that are used for thar kind of advising. I understand
that they're quite keen for the bulk of people. It wouldn't have worked for
me (I've changed too much since then), and maybe not for you, but getting that
advice doesn't hurt you in any way. Does it? I would have a problem with it
if you were forced to follow the test's findings as folks in the USSR were.
That's just bound to make people unhappy.
> Or the MCAS being
> used to determine what schools (in MA) are better, when they already know the
> answers;
Who is 'they?' Which schools are better than others shifts around a fair
amount. If your state has tied funding to those outcomes, then it wouldn't be
fair to not have some kind of test. Right?
> and also to determine whether an individual should graduate (which
> will indeed be true from next year).
Frankly, I'm OK with this kind of use. Too many people graduate with ease.
Probably, this is so that the school districts can justify retaining students
that in the old days, teachers would have just failed. "Look, see that score?
The state won't allow us to graduate your son. He at least has to learn the
letter D."
> I do very well on standardized tests in general. Maybe it's because I'm really
> smart. Some people tell me I am, and maybe that's it; maybe, though, it's just
> that I know how to go about those tests
What's the difference? The 'term' smart has a lot of room in it. Someone who
can do MC tests until the end of time with very high scores is smart. So is
someone who can rebuild lawnmower engines with their eyes shut. But in
different ways. And the world is richer for having both.
> (eliminate most improbable answers,
> don't waste time on what you don't know, etc). I certainly don't know which
> one it is. But if it's the latter, that truly defeats the whole purpose.
This is where I refer back to what I said about you not knowing what they're
testing for. What if the ability to score well on those tests means (for
whatever reason) that you're likely to succeed in college? Then does it really
matter how you get your high scores? What if people who're better at figuring
those kind of things out, are better at jumping through the seemingly endless
hoops of paperwork that college and a life in the workplace will provide?
Chris
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
