Interesting video. It made a lot of sense, and it's kind of ridiculous that Collegeboard is labeled as a non-profit organization when there are high costs for tests, especially AP tests and score reports.
I would have also mentioned that those companies (both Collegeboard and ACT) provide vouchers for some tests (not APs, just the regular tests and for Collegeboard, the SAT Subject Tests) for many students, but regardless, the prices are still crazy high.
Everyone is equally smart and capable just in different ways. Standardized tests can't capture all those different intelligences.
They're also self-evidently racist as they consistently overvalue White, Jew, and Asian intelligence while undervaluing Black and Hispanic intelligence. For a standardized test to even begin to be legitimate it must not have such egregious racial biases.
You do realise that's what accommodations are for? Hell, they let you use a calculator on the mental math section if you have the right diagnosis. The SAT doesn't claim to be anything other than a "can you do math, understand reading, and know this stuff about history, science, etc." The fact is that the sort of intelligence that it tests for is very useful for most colleges, the other colleges usually don't require very high test scores.
Lol at this conversation still going. I honestly stopped caring a while ago. The fact is that standardized testing right now now is tailored for a particular kind of mindset, one that people seem to think is the universal way of thinking and how education should be, all without taking into consideration that some people just don't work that way. SATS have had little application to my college and adult life. It's not autism, it's just that people are different enough to the point that standardized testing should attempt to encompass other ways of thinking, or at the very least, cease to be such an important factor in college applications. Not to mention the monetization and overall shadiness of these companies.
Just that some people handle stress differently than others, or understand reading material at different paces, or their ability to focus depends on their environment, things like that.
Those are all useful and positive traits to be good at. The whole point of tests is to measure the skills of the person taking it. Are you saying that we should intentionally ignore positive traits, when disabilities are already accounted for by accommodations?
Which traits? I didn't really mention any specifically, only that there are differences between the ways in which people process information and that these tests cannot be a 100% legitimate measurement of someone's intelligence when you factor in the numerous ways that will hinder one's ability to act their best. We give this things too much credit, similarly to how some people assume that an IQ test is a fool proof way of telling how smart someone is, when in reality it's not.
I'm saying that the traits that help you sit down and do well on a test are also useful in the academic setting.
I didn't really mention any specifically
If you could do that, it might convince me that I'm wrong. Currently, I don't know of any ways in which a person can be mentally ill-suited to take a test because of the way they process information. If there are, I'm willing to bet that they are not significant enough to matter, especially when you seem to be advocating the suspension of standardized testing. I'm not saying that standardized testing isn't easier for some people. I'm saying that the line between intelligence, which it's supposed to measure, and mental structure is very blurry.
I'm saying that the traits that help you sit down and do well on a test are also useful in the academic setting.
Except that depends entirely on the academic setting, of which there are several. A biology major's college experience will differ greatly from that of a film major, right?
I'm not at all here to convince you you're wrong, and if you thought I was advocating the complete suspension of standardized testing in general then you must've misinterpreted. Apologies if I didn't clarify enough.
What I'm saying is that standardized testing implies that there's an end-all-be-all form of measuring the intelligence of a population, which I disagree with. Even further, this measurement is held in such high regard in our society that if one doesn't score well enough, their chances of getting into the college of their choice are slim to none. All I'm advocating is that perhaps we can continue reforming the idea of a standardized test and it's significance in the education system. I don't believe it's the best measurement of intelligence, nor do I have any groundbreaking ideas of my own at the moment. Does that mean that we shouldn't still try to do better? In my opinion, no. We should always strive for something better.
Standardized testing as of right now is little more than a greedy business, engraining in many people's minds "No, you're not good enough. Come back next time with another 30 dollar processing fee and we'll get back to you." It's simply a system in desperate need of reform, that's all I really meant to communicate.
That's fair enough. I personally don't mind it being privatized since if it's bad enough, something else will replace it (SAT vs ACT, for example.) You do bring up some good points about your standardized test scores being equal to intelligence. Basically what you're saying is that the tests do their job somewhat well, but the stigma surrounding them is bad and the tests can also be improved in some way. I agree with this, although I have a lot of faith that the market is going to cause better tests to succeed. Colleges want students that will make lots of money and therefore donate to them after graduation. If a test comes around that can measure the success of people more effectively, chances are they'll adopt it. It's happened with the ACT, and I'll bet it happens with other tests.
Agreed. Thanks for taking the time to understand my points instead of resorting to "you're salty cause you got a shitty score, didn't ya?" like some other people on the original thread lol. I was honestly just trying to have a civil discussion, glad we could reach the same page or at the very least understand each other's arguments.
26 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-11-15
Don't even try to kinkshame me. My kinks are my business.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 shallowm 2017-11-15
Without the first line, that sounds pretty similar to commies saying "fuck the execution of communism".
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-11-15
Kinda related (?) https://youtu.be/YDHO6e7hP7g
1 shallowm 2017-11-15
Interesting video. It made a lot of sense, and it's kind of ridiculous that Collegeboard is labeled as a non-profit organization when there are high costs for tests, especially AP tests and score reports.
I would have also mentioned that those companies (both Collegeboard and ACT) provide vouchers for some tests (not APs, just the regular tests and for Collegeboard, the SAT Subject Tests) for many students, but regardless, the prices are still crazy high.
1 restrout 2017-11-15
I'm with you u/zootskippedagroove6
Everyone is equally smart and capable just in different ways. Standardized tests can't capture all those different intelligences.
They're also self-evidently racist as they consistently overvalue White, Jew, and Asian intelligence while undervaluing Black and Hispanic intelligence. For a standardized test to even begin to be legitimate it must not have such egregious racial biases.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-11-15
If only we had a way to standarize an exam or test
1 wisty 2017-11-15
Seems like a lot of them have "test anxiety".
1 toynbeeidea16 2017-11-15
I did awesome on my SAT. I feel just fine about them.
1 zootskippedagroove6 2017-11-15
What the fuck lol you serious dude?
1 Ennui2778 2017-11-15
You seem super mad, Mr. 650.
1 zootskippedagroove6 2017-11-15
Lol
1 Sebaceous_Sebacious 2017-11-15
We're calling you stupid, just for clarification
1 zootskippedagroove6 2017-11-15
Oh fereals? Tell me more bro. Would love to hear your stance on the state of modern education, you fucking halfwit.
1 i_eat_crayons1 2017-11-15
u/zootskippedagroove6
You do realise that's what accommodations are for? Hell, they let you use a calculator on the mental math section if you have the right diagnosis. The SAT doesn't claim to be anything other than a "can you do math, understand reading, and know this stuff about history, science, etc." The fact is that the sort of intelligence that it tests for is very useful for most colleges, the other colleges usually don't require very high test scores.
1 zootskippedagroove6 2017-11-15
Lol at this conversation still going. I honestly stopped caring a while ago. The fact is that standardized testing right now now is tailored for a particular kind of mindset, one that people seem to think is the universal way of thinking and how education should be, all without taking into consideration that some people just don't work that way. SATS have had little application to my college and adult life. It's not autism, it's just that people are different enough to the point that standardized testing should attempt to encompass other ways of thinking, or at the very least, cease to be such an important factor in college applications. Not to mention the monetization and overall shadiness of these companies.
1 i_eat_crayons1 2017-11-15
Out of curiosity, what kind of mindset are you referring to?
1 zootskippedagroove6 2017-11-15
Just that some people handle stress differently than others, or understand reading material at different paces, or their ability to focus depends on their environment, things like that.
1 i_eat_crayons1 2017-11-15
Those are all useful and positive traits to be good at. The whole point of tests is to measure the skills of the person taking it. Are you saying that we should intentionally ignore positive traits, when disabilities are already accounted for by accommodations?
1 zootskippedagroove6 2017-11-15
Which traits? I didn't really mention any specifically, only that there are differences between the ways in which people process information and that these tests cannot be a 100% legitimate measurement of someone's intelligence when you factor in the numerous ways that will hinder one's ability to act their best. We give this things too much credit, similarly to how some people assume that an IQ test is a fool proof way of telling how smart someone is, when in reality it's not.
1 i_eat_crayons1 2017-11-15
I'm saying that the traits that help you sit down and do well on a test are also useful in the academic setting.
If you could do that, it might convince me that I'm wrong. Currently, I don't know of any ways in which a person can be mentally ill-suited to take a test because of the way they process information. If there are, I'm willing to bet that they are not significant enough to matter, especially when you seem to be advocating the suspension of standardized testing. I'm not saying that standardized testing isn't easier for some people. I'm saying that the line between intelligence, which it's supposed to measure, and mental structure is very blurry.
1 zootskippedagroove6 2017-11-15
Except that depends entirely on the academic setting, of which there are several. A biology major's college experience will differ greatly from that of a film major, right?
I'm not at all here to convince you you're wrong, and if you thought I was advocating the complete suspension of standardized testing in general then you must've misinterpreted. Apologies if I didn't clarify enough.
What I'm saying is that standardized testing implies that there's an end-all-be-all form of measuring the intelligence of a population, which I disagree with. Even further, this measurement is held in such high regard in our society that if one doesn't score well enough, their chances of getting into the college of their choice are slim to none. All I'm advocating is that perhaps we can continue reforming the idea of a standardized test and it's significance in the education system. I don't believe it's the best measurement of intelligence, nor do I have any groundbreaking ideas of my own at the moment. Does that mean that we shouldn't still try to do better? In my opinion, no. We should always strive for something better.
Standardized testing as of right now is little more than a greedy business, engraining in many people's minds "No, you're not good enough. Come back next time with another 30 dollar processing fee and we'll get back to you." It's simply a system in desperate need of reform, that's all I really meant to communicate.
1 i_eat_crayons1 2017-11-15
That's fair enough. I personally don't mind it being privatized since if it's bad enough, something else will replace it (SAT vs ACT, for example.) You do bring up some good points about your standardized test scores being equal to intelligence. Basically what you're saying is that the tests do their job somewhat well, but the stigma surrounding them is bad and the tests can also be improved in some way. I agree with this, although I have a lot of faith that the market is going to cause better tests to succeed. Colleges want students that will make lots of money and therefore donate to them after graduation. If a test comes around that can measure the success of people more effectively, chances are they'll adopt it. It's happened with the ACT, and I'll bet it happens with other tests.
1 zootskippedagroove6 2017-11-15
Agreed. Thanks for taking the time to understand my points instead of resorting to "you're salty cause you got a shitty score, didn't ya?" like some other people on the original thread lol. I was honestly just trying to have a civil discussion, glad we could reach the same page or at the very least understand each other's arguments.
1 ScientiaOmnisEst 2017-11-15
There's a mental math section on the SAT now?
1 i_eat_crayons1 2017-11-15
It's not called that, but it's the section in math where you aren't supposed to get a calculator. AKA the mental math section.
1 ScientiaOmnisEst 2017-11-15
Must have been different in my day. :/