Standardized Tests: Good or Bad?

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=blue]Self-explanatory title.

I really like standardized tests. As a person who has had 15+ years of education, I know all about the "circumstantial A's" people are so used to getting. However, on standardized tests, there's no favoritism or bias that can be used to anyone's advantage. You don't have, "well, they tried really hard" or "he got an A in all his other classes" to save your butt in standardized tests. You know what you know, or are as competent as you are.

It's hard to argue with results. For instance, the SATs are almost a true representation of your college success. Most of the time, those who do phenomenol on the SATs do phenomenol in college, and those that do bad, do bad in college. Of course there are exceptions, what with things like "circumstantial A's" as mentioned above.

In addition, it really reflects what education your school is giving you. You aren't just competing with students in your school, but throughout the entire country. It's neat to see how good you are compared to everyone else. There's nothing different in the test for someone taking it in Florida versus someone on the other side of the country in Washington. Your true knowledge or competence are all that separate you.

Just my opinion. ^^[/COLOR]

[Corey]

[size=1]I can see only one road standardized testing will go down.
The same road a lot of public schools are going down.

With the application of the No Child Left Behind act most schools, unfortunately, have dumbed down their curriculum. Mine included. Sure we still have the Advanced Placement courses and honors courses, but for the most part I've watched classes like Algebra and English go downhill from the moment I entered highschool.

I think that eventually standardized testing will be dumbed down too.
Good for the people schooled by the 'dumbed down' schools, and great for the above average intelligence people.

Standardized testing is good by me.
Like you said Azure, everyone is equal when taking it. There are no variables or pity grades. Just youa nd your brain.[/size]

[SunfallE]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue]Self-explanatory title.

I really like standardized tests. As a person who has had 15+ years of education, I know all about the "circumstantial A's" people are so used to getting. However, on standardized tests, there's no favoritism or bias that can be used to anyone's advantage. You don't have, "well, they tried really hard" or "he got an A in all his other classes" to save your butt in standardized tests. You know what you know, or are as competent as you are.

It's hard to argue with results. For instance, the SATs are almost a true representation of your college success. Most of the time, those who do phenomenol on the SATs do phenomenol in college, and those that do bad, do bad in college. Of course there are exceptions, what with things like "circumstantial A's" as mentioned above.

In addition, it really reflects what education your school is giving you. You aren't just competing with students in your school, but throughout the entire country. It's neat to see how good you are compared to everyone else. There's nothing different in the test for someone taking it in Florida versus someone on the other side of the country in Washington. Your true knowledge or competence are all that separate you.

Just my opinion. ^^[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I guess it would depend upon who writes up the tests and what standard is used. For example, when I lived in Texas I went to one of the top five school districts in the US. I then moved to Utah which wasn't even close to being among the top. The difference in the tests was laughable. The ones prepared in Utah were a joke. For example, in Texas it was fill in the blank, you either knew the information or you didn't. In Utah it was multiple choice which meant you could randomly choose and have a 25% chance of getting it right since most questions had four choices. So a student could get an A and still not actually know the answers on the test.

If a good standard was used for the tests then Standardized Tests would be a good way to measure a person's academic abilitiy. But if the tests themselves were poorly written then what would be the point? As [B]Corey[/B] pointed out alot of schools are lowering their standards to meet the no child left behind act, so they are bound to do it to the tests as well.

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] I don't know about other states, but Georgia has one of the dumbest school systems in the US. So whenever we take a standardized test, most of the people at my school (my high school is ranked number one or two) get great scores...but we're in Georgia. My friend from Texas laughs at our inability of educational process. This is the bad part of standardized tests.

As for the SATs/ACTs, since they're all the same (am I right? I could be wrong), it's pretty cool. I took them in 7th grade and I got a 1250. Good? Bad? Most of the people at my school (at the time) who took the SATs in 7th grade for 1100+. Hm...maybe the SAT is too easy? And so...*dun dun dun* they made it harder! That is the...sort of good part of standardized tests... :/

So basically, standardized tests have a lame side and a good side, although many times one side outweighs the other.
[/color]

[Semjaza]

For schools in my area, no one really takes the SATs. The ACTs are the standard here. I did rather well on mine (second highest in my school), but I don't know that it reflects much. I don't study for tests like that one, yet I usually manage to do well on them. By the time I got to college, I couldn't stand where I was; I transferred only to find myself hating that place too. Right now I'm somewhere I don't want to be and I'm just finishing it out.

Needless to say, in that sort of environment you tend to not try very hard. I'm getting by, but I certainly could have straight As if I actually [i]tried[/i]. I'm at an art school of sorts, however, and things tend to work differently than they would at a traditional college or university.

Beyond that, I couldn't care less about how I compare to the rest of the country, personally. Tests are tests and because of their nature they can only concentrate on certain things. The ones I took certainly didn't prepare me for an art type education, nor did it compare me to anyone else in terms of talent in that regard. It really depends on what you want to do afterwards.

Is "phenomenol" a chemical I've never heard of? :p

[ForgottenRaider]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue]It's hard to argue with results. For instance, the SATs are almost a true representation of your college success. Most of the time, those who do phenomenol on the SATs do phenomenol in college, and those that do bad, do bad in college. Of course there are exceptions, what with things like "circumstantial A's" as mentioned above.

In addition, it really reflects what education your school is giving you. You aren't just competing with students in your school, but throughout the entire country. It's neat to see how good you are compared to everyone else. There's nothing different in the test for someone taking it in Florida versus someone on the other side of the country in Washington. Your true knowledge or competence are all that separate you.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
There is a well known effect of large scale testing in this manor of students believing that the test is 'it'. If you do not pass this one you will be a) not acceptable to your future place of study and b) not as good as other students. This leads to a huge amount of effort put into the test, sounds good? Flip side is students can burn themselves out and only just make it through the first semester of uni before dropping out. So I might suggest that your assumption that doing will on SATs will also allow the student to do well at Uni.

I can also see a problem if the average student gets dumber, like in England over the last 50 years, the education will dive down to meet them. (Not looking to offend, I love England.) The smarter students will be crippled by the stupider and lazier students under this system. And I feel for the teachers who will have to teach just for the act of teaching, not to impart knowledge - the part they really like about the job.

So I see it as a move with short term advantages and long term horror, much like many actions of the current leaders of the world. Is it just me or did every one in power just stop caring about tomorrow or our future?

[Kamuro]

I like standardized tests actually, sometimes it depends on the type of test given, but I like to know that I'm not given "sympathy grades" as I call them. I don't want an A for any other reason than that I actually worked for it. And I definitely don't want someone stupider then me getting a better grade because of an impartial teacher when I worked harder. I was never really school-oriented, but sometimes if its something important I'll really work for it and I want the grade I actually deserve

[Sara]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS]I took both the ACT and the SAT (As well as a number of other acronyms) in high school.

What I've always really liked about standardised tests is that they [i]are[/i] standard. As such (in my experience), you can't really study for them. Sure, you can brush up on your geometry before the ACT or reiew some word lists before the SAT, but it's not at all like a "real" test where you have to know facts and dates. (And here I'm referring to college entrance/prep exams like the ones listed above.) So in that respect, I didn't mind taking them.

I don't know how much they "prove" that you know, really. More than anything, I think they tell whether or not you're good at taking tests.

Incidently, the SAT recently added a new writing section, and the ACT has an optional writing section as well.

And for those unfamiliar with the two tests:

The ACT has four sections. Reading comprehension (you read a passage, answer questions about it, read another passage, and questions about it...), grammar (You are asked to correct, through multiple choice options, any errors in a short passage of writing), math stuff (covers through about late geometry/early trig class; know your triangles and trig functions), and science reasoning (you look at graphs and answer questions about them). All four are multiple choice. You don't need a calculator, but it helps for number crunching, especially if you're slow with math (like me.)

The maximum score on the ACT is 36. I don't know how the optional writing section affects the scoring.

I don't know as much about the SAT. I only took it (and the PSAT) once. (I've taken ACT-like tests at the end of every school year since I was very young, so I'm very familiar with that format.)

It's pretty much divided into two sections: Math and Verbal. You can score up to 800 on each section, bringing the maximum total score to 1600. I think, with the new writing section, the score is taken out of 2400, but I could be wrong. Most of the SAT is multiple choice, but there's a math section where you have to fill in the blank with answers of your own. [/FONT]

[Minako]

I've never particularly [I]enjoyed[/I] taking standardized tests, and when I was in grade school (elementary/middle school in one. k-8), I never understood what the teachers meant by it helps you get ready for the ACT, SAT, or any other test of that kind. I didn't hate taking them, since (in high school) we took the test and we got the rest of the day off. Also as Lore said, you didn't really have to study for them.

As the time came for me to take my ACT, it was easy-peasy. It was just like practically every other standardized test I've already taken. Those annoying little circles really did come in handy.

When I show my copy of my ACT to my friends here in Finland (I'm a foreign exchange student) they are all amazed at how many little circles there are (the finnish college entrance exam is similar, but the circles are bigger and there are no more than 60 of them I think). It's funny to see their reactions, but I remember the day I took it, and all the other standardized tests I've taken.

I've always had the fond memory of 4th grade when my teacher let us put up our brightly colored folders on our desks to prevent cheating. It was fun.

[Roxas]

Well, over here we have the Sat-9 test thing and ACTAAP. The ACTAAP is like more of a written test and is alot harder but it is also the supposedly the most acurate test in the U.S. My point is eventually it will be nothing but written test. I personally dont like them and would be more satisfied with eating dirt but I do agree with the fact that they are very acurate on telling us whether or not we make a rock look like Einstine, or Einstine look like a rock. I seriously would rather sit there filling in those stupid little bubbles than write a paragraph about something I just now learned was on our Earth. So I say the standerdized test are better... for me anyways.

[SpiritWolf]

My belief is that you cannot have a truly good standardized test because there is no "standardized" person. We are all different on various levels, and all have our own skills. Putting us all on the same platform and denying some of us our special gifts while pushing others of us farther than we can go just doesn't seem like a very accurate way to test.

[MoonlitStairway]

I do feel that the SAT's/ACT's, etc. are indeed useful. But the degree of their usefulness is EXTREMELY limited. As another person on this post said, no one in this nation is really standardized. It is far too diverse. If you'd like to for a moment, disregard all educational standards. Then look at the "ethnicity" section in these tests. I being part Hispanic, get a little bonus on my SAT ratings for the sake of ethnicity, while someone with a Caucasian background would not.

Additionally, in no way does the SAT really measure the type of student you are. This is both positive and negative. Positive wise, some people flat out, are just not good at taking tests. Yet those "A's" that they've "earned" are from the incredibly hard work into homework, projects, essays and other stuff that they've done. I know that I myself am a horrible test taker, but I work my butt off on a constant basis to satisfy myself and others to the degree that they expect.

Negatively, these SAT's and other tests also classify students in a wrong way. Some students that may be excellent at taking tests and knowing "universal knowledge", while education wise in school, they could just flat out be horrible. It is indeed possible; for I can even cite an example from my own English class last year.

The New SAT's also hinder a few aspects of our education. The Analogy section that the SAT committee removed from the test: WHAT!?! Look, I am aware that the Analogies were generally a difficult section, but it has been proven that Analogies are one of the most successful ways to teach and practice the English language. BAKA!

Well, that is just my view.