5 ms·

Part of the problem I see with standardized testing is that the stakes are so high. Some fraction of the people out there just get nervous or have a bad day.

Part of the problem I see with standardized testing is that the stakes are so high. Some fraction of the people out there just get nervous or have a bad day. Nothing about these high pressure situations really reflects anything important in the real world. I'm a law student now. In law school, your entire grade usually comes from one 3-4 hour essay exam. Much depends on luck, how well you slept the night before, and how frantically you can type. It's absurd. It's been that way for some 100 years. I've always been able to play ball with standardized, timed exams, but I have had enough exposure to neuro-diversity that I can empathize with many. I just wish there was a way to de-stress these kinds of exams somehow. I don't know the solution, but I think it would answer of a lot of objections to them.

rossdavidh 5y ago
I can't comment on law, but back when I took the SAT and ACT (granted, it was a previous millenium) you could retake the test. The issue was, unless you were sick or otherwise in an abnormal state, you would usually get a pretty similar score the second time. They provide a few examples of old tests, so you know going in what your score is likely to be, thus you will know if it is likely to improve much if you take it again.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
criddell 5y ago
I think I'd have less of a problem with the tests if the time limit was removed and you could bring reference materials with you.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> Nothing about these high pressure situations really reflects anything important in the real world. Then why do the rest scores correlate better with college performance than other factors? If SAT scores also correlate well with, say, income, would you then accept that they actually reflect something important in the real world?
- jordanpg 5y ago
  I'm not saying that these tests are not effective predictors of something. In fact, I'm sure they are. I'm saying that it's certain that they way they are administered leave a lot of people behind, and I don't think it has to be that way. There are many objections to these kinds of metrics, often involving disabilities or socioeconomic issues. I guess I'm just wondering out loud how much of that has to do with the physical way in which the tests are administered. As to reflecting the real world, all I can do is point to my own experiences: military, academic, legal, and corporate, and say being good at high stakes, infrequent, timed, standardized tests is not very important in those contexts. Here are 2 Malcolm Gladwell podcasts on the startling disconnect between the skills required to succeed on the LSAT and the skills required to succeed as a high-prestige lawyer: https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/puzzle-rush/ https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/puzzle-rush/ https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/the-tortoise-and-the-hare/ https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/the-tortoise-and-the-hare/ While the LSAT does predict success in those jobs, the skills needed to succeed on the LSAT have nothing to do with being a good Supreme Court clerk -- especially the going super fast part.
tzs 5y ago
> I'm a law student now. In law school, your entire grade usually comes from one 3-4 hour essay exam. Much depends on luck, how well you slept the night before, and how frantically you can type. It's absurd. It's been that way for some 100 years. Well, not quite that way for 100 years. When I was in law school 30 years ago (University of Washington) it would for most people be "how frantically you can handwrite" rather than "how frantically you can type". There was a room set aside for people who wanted to bring and use typewriters but it was fairly hard to actually find a typewriter that they would allow. By the early '90s even low end typewriters often had several lines of buffer memory and an LCD display so that you could store and edit text before printing it, and higher end models were essentially specialized laptops that only ran a word processor and a printer driver. At my school if it had two or more lines of text storage it was considered to be a word processor or computer and not allowed. I had to drive all over Seattle before finding a place that still sold typewriters plain enough to be allowed.
- jordanpg 5y ago
  Law schools put so much energy into these exam procedures! And all under the banner of preventing cheating and producing a nice curve. Now the technological arms race faced by law schools is how to get students to read anything in a world where case summaries (eg. Quimbee) and all hornbooks are freely, trivially available. I suspect the schools will continue defend the case method for a long time to come, even as the vast majority of students don't read cases any more and even practitioners rely heavily on headnotes and other electronic research tools.
Ekaros 5y ago
Still standardized tests are the most fair and least gameable way for admissions. Just because there is some issues, doesn't mean everything else isn't infinitely worse.

rossdavidh 5y ago

I can't comment on law, but back when I took the SAT and ACT (granted, it was a previous millenium) you could retake the test. The issue was, unless you were sick or otherwise in an abnormal state, you would usually get a pretty similar score the second time. They provide a few examples of old tests, so you know going in what your score is likely to be, thus you will know if it is likely to improve much if you take it again.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

criddell 5y ago

I think I'd have less of a problem with the tests if the time limit was removed and you could bring reference materials with you.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> Nothing about these high pressure situations really reflects anything important in the real world. Then why do the rest scores correlate better with college performance than other factors? If SAT scores also correlate well with, say, income, would you then accept that they actually reflect something important in the real world?

jordanpg 5y ago
I'm not saying that these tests are not effective predictors of something. In fact, I'm sure they are. I'm saying that it's certain that they way they are administered leave a lot of people behind, and I don't think it has to be that way. There are many objections to these kinds of metrics, often involving disabilities or socioeconomic issues. I guess I'm just wondering out loud how much of that has to do with the physical way in which the tests are administered. As to reflecting the real world, all I can do is point to my own experiences: military, academic, legal, and corporate, and say being good at high stakes, infrequent, timed, standardized tests is not very important in those contexts. Here are 2 Malcolm Gladwell podcasts on the startling disconnect between the skills required to succeed on the LSAT and the skills required to succeed as a high-prestige lawyer: https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/puzzle-rush/ https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/puzzle-rush/ https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/the-tortoise-and-the-hare/ https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/the-tortoise-and-the-hare/ While the LSAT does predict success in those jobs, the skills needed to succeed on the LSAT have nothing to do with being a good Supreme Court clerk -- especially the going super fast part.

tzs 5y ago

> I'm a law student now. In law school, your entire grade usually comes from one 3-4 hour essay exam. Much depends on luck, how well you slept the night before, and how frantically you can type. It's absurd. It's been that way for some 100 years. Well, not quite that way for 100 years. When I was in law school 30 years ago (University of Washington) it would for most people be "how frantically you can handwrite" rather than "how frantically you can type". There was a room set aside for people who wanted to bring and use typewriters but it was fairly hard to actually find a typewriter that they would allow. By the early '90s even low end typewriters often had several lines of buffer memory and an LCD display so that you could store and edit text before printing it, and higher end models were essentially specialized laptops that only ran a word processor and a printer driver. At my school if it had two or more lines of text storage it was considered to be a word processor or computer and not allowed. I had to drive all over Seattle before finding a place that still sold typewriters plain enough to be allowed.

jordanpg 5y ago
Law schools put so much energy into these exam procedures! And all under the banner of preventing cheating and producing a nice curve. Now the technological arms race faced by law schools is how to get students to read anything in a world where case summaries (eg. Quimbee) and all hornbooks are freely, trivially available. I suspect the schools will continue defend the case method for a long time to come, even as the vast majority of students don't read cases any more and even practitioners rely heavily on headnotes and other electronic research tools.

Ekaros 5y ago

Still standardized tests are the most fair and least gameable way for admissions. Just because there is some issues, doesn't mean everything else isn't infinitely worse.