5 ms·

> Standardized tests are designed such that preparing for the test isn't helpful. Not quite --- "preparing for the test" is also known as "studying". You were

> Standardized tests are designed such that preparing for the test isn't helpful. Not quite --- "preparing for the test" is also known as "studying". You were probably thinking of IQ tests.

drc500free 5y ago
There's also an industry to prepare kids for IQ tests, since gifted placement depends on it, and college admissions depends on gifted placement, and .... so on.
rahimnathwani 5y ago
GP is mistaken for sure. But I think there's a difference between preparing for a specific test, and studying in general. Let's say you have 2 days left to study for the GMAT. You could study the relevant math, reasoning or whatever. That might help. But you'd do far better by working through problems in a Princeton Review GMAT book, and looking at their tips for the questions you got wrong. The tips might be generic test-taking tips (e.g. eliminate obviously wrong answers) or they might be more specific (e.g. relating to specific types of problems found on the GMAT).
- RyEgswuCsn 5y ago
  True. The point of standard tests though is that it scales. The hope is that the test is able to identify at least those who have studied in general (or even better, geniuses are able to pass without studying). "Get-to-know-each-other" type of interviews are nice, but it's rather inefficient when a job posting receives hundreds of applications.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> You were probably thinking of IQ tests. Quite the opposite. The common IQ tests are not resistant to preparation. But the big standardized tests are.
- RyEgswuCsn 5y ago
  One is expected to score higher in an ideal standardized test if they prepare for it. One should not be able to score higher in an ideal IQ test if they prepare for it, since IQ tests by definition evaluate an innate ability. Of course, in the real world no IQ test is ideal.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    Don't confuse the properties you'd like the tests to have with the properties they do have, or with the properties they need in order to serve their purpose effectively. No effort is put into getting IQ tests to resist practice effects or knowledge of the structure of the questions, because taking the tests is not common. Mountains of effort go into the same project for standardized tests, because taking those tests is common, and the whole point is to evaluate people for what they are rather than what they would like you to think they are.
jcadam 5y ago
I've had one potential employer give me an IQ test (literally this is how they screened people before formally interviewing them - I went in, took an IQ test proctored by an HR person, and then went home and awaited the results). I was then called back in and subjected to multiple rounds of tech interviews involving whiteboard programming and a take-home assignment (with follow-up code review). The engineers I talked to all seemed very pleased with my performance and made it sound like I all but had the job. However, ultimately, I failed the final test, which was a non-technical sit-down with a company executive. Not a cultural fit. I like remote work. Nobody cares if you're a "cultural" fit.

> Standardized tests are designed such that preparing for the test isn't helpful. Not quite --- "preparing for the test" is also known as "studying". You were probably thinking of IQ tests.

drc500free 5y ago

There's also an industry to prepare kids for IQ tests, since gifted placement depends on it, and college admissions depends on gifted placement, and .... so on.

rahimnathwani 5y ago

GP is mistaken for sure. But I think there's a difference between preparing for a specific test, and studying in general. Let's say you have 2 days left to study for the GMAT. You could study the relevant math, reasoning or whatever. That might help. But you'd do far better by working through problems in a Princeton Review GMAT book, and looking at their tips for the questions you got wrong. The tips might be generic test-taking tips (e.g. eliminate obviously wrong answers) or they might be more specific (e.g. relating to specific types of problems found on the GMAT).

RyEgswuCsn 5y ago
True. The point of standard tests though is that it scales. The hope is that the test is able to identify at least those who have studied in general (or even better, geniuses are able to pass without studying). "Get-to-know-each-other" type of interviews are nice, but it's rather inefficient when a job posting receives hundreds of applications.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> You were probably thinking of IQ tests. Quite the opposite. The common IQ tests are not resistant to preparation. But the big standardized tests are.

RyEgswuCsn 5y ago
One is expected to score higher in an ideal standardized test if they prepare for it. One should not be able to score higher in an ideal IQ test if they prepare for it, since IQ tests by definition evaluate an innate ability. Of course, in the real world no IQ test is ideal.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Don't confuse the properties you'd like the tests to have with the properties they do have, or with the properties they need in order to serve their purpose effectively. No effort is put into getting IQ tests to resist practice effects or knowledge of the structure of the questions, because taking the tests is not common. Mountains of effort go into the same project for standardized tests, because taking those tests is common, and the whole point is to evaluate people for what they are rather than what they would like you to think they are.

jcadam 5y ago

I've had one potential employer give me an IQ test (literally this is how they screened people before formally interviewing them - I went in, took an IQ test proctored by an HR person, and then went home and awaited the results). I was then called back in and subjected to multiple rounds of tech interviews involving whiteboard programming and a take-home assignment (with follow-up code review). The engineers I talked to all seemed very pleased with my performance and made it sound like I all but had the job. However, ultimately, I failed the final test, which was a non-technical sit-down with a company executive. Not a cultural fit. I like remote work. Nobody cares if you're a "cultural" fit.