In My World

I don't know if I'm a good test taker or not. I'm a good memorizer. I had to take the SAT twice in order to get the score I wanted. I think that the new SAT they put out, the one with a writing section, is better for evaluating students. Still, brilliant kids can freak out under pressure. A lot of colleges are moving towards test-free applications. Still, evaluating the performance of middle- and elementary-schoolers is difficult. I don't really think it's necessary.

@Steph (#1)
What about IQ tests? What do you think of those? How can you test someone to see how smart they are? What if they are so smart that they know better than the test. (Do I make sense?)

Also, the ACTs and SATs are in English. Is that fair for the foriegn students studying in the United States?

That's why I like that many colleges/universites are going test-optional. There are a lot of different ways to administer IQ tests, but I think that they only give a ballpark range. Just because someone can integrate the volume of a solid revolved around an axis on a plane doesn't mean that they can write a grammatically correct sentence. I think generally people stick to what they're good at, and I wish it weren't neccessary to judge people on test scores.

And some of us just freak out on tests. I think ultimately, children need to be pushed to their extremes to see what they are able to do. If it wasn't for my parents constant pressure, you wouldn't see this site. You wouldn't see me in college. You wouldn't see me doing amazing things with my mind and computers.

But I digress. I don't know what the best method of testing is, or if "testing" is the best method. But yet again, how do you know the person has learned the material?

LOL See, I'm the opposite. Everything I've done since high school was done because I thought it was the right thing to do, not because my parents did. I'm in school in Wisconsin because I didn't feel like staying in state. I'm a history major instead of an engineering major because I hate math and science, even though my mom thinks I'll never get a job. Everyone is different. How do you allow for that?

Don't get me wrong, I did lots of it by myself, but I wouldn't be here without my parents. I've seen some children that I grew up with, that had the same education as I, not be able to even get into a college. Everyone's raised differently, everyone has their own morals and views. That's where it's hard to figure out; how do you test individuals without being too individual, but not too vague?

Maybe they should do individual subject testing for all grades. In Colorado we have the CSAP (Colorado State Aptitude something or other) that is required to be taken by all school children from the third grade until sophmore year in high school. It tests individual subjects, but not well. And they still teach the test instead of the material.

I've heard of the CSAP before. Some other states follow this method.

See what bothers me is that teachers now teach the test, and not the material. I remember taking classes in high school where the teachers would teach leasons just because "it will be on the graduations test." Yet, there was no graduation test when I graduated. (Read more here: OEA: Wisconsin High School Graduation Test)

Yeah, I know. And they had after-school classes (for money) that taught kids how to take the SAT. Isn't that pathetic? It's so stupid that we put so much importance on a sheet of paper with some graphite attached to it. Of course, tell that to the Europeans, they have it worse than we do.

It's so bad around the world. Why must we spend so much money for just a peice of paper with the institution that ripped us off on it? A cheap university in the United States can run around $8000-$10000 a semester. That's basically 5 or 6 months for that much money. Wouldn't you gain more value if you spent that money on books and maybe private tutors on subjects you had problems on?

However, I do think college is a learning experience. You learn how to deal with people better. You learn how the so called "real world" is like.

I've only been at college for a year but it was easily the best year of my life. I think college is more than just a learning experience, it's...just awesome.

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything learned in school."
--Albert Einstein

That's how you measure intelligence. There is no true way to evalute what a person has learned in a class by a test. Many students are either good memorizers but haven't truly learned the information, or they are intimidated by tests and are not able to show how much they have learned. The only way to measure intelligence is to see what you remember and know years after leaving school so that all the memorized information is gone and the pressure of tests is not there.

LR: So, what do employers do? Hire who they think is adequate and learn that they aren't five to ten years into the job?

I do believe in what you said, no one can really know. Everyone, including me, believes that Albert Einstein was one of the most brilliant minds in our time, but he didn't consider it to be so.

That's a ligit question...and I think the truth is that a lot of the time, that's what happens. However, most employers end up not doing anything about these employees that turn out not to know what they're doing. Talk to my mom. When she was working, there were several people in positions above her that had no idea what they were doing and she ended up doing their job, or their secretaries did their job. One time she was promoted to the job that she was basically already doing for another person. The person who promoted her had no idea that she had already been doing this work all along.

Also, I think that some employees end up learning a lot more than they ever did or would have in school just by being immersed in the job. Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way to tell which kind of employee you will be hiring, even with tests, until they have tried them out.

Side note: This is turning into a discussion about who to employ, but still a good discussion.

I believe that the best way to find who to hire is to look at what they have done so far with their lives. For example, one person can be book smart, but not be able to work with others, work under pressure, or isn't able to learn quickly enough to adapt. Now their scores show an outstanding individual, but does that make them a good employee? Person #2 has decent grades, didn't graduate top of their class, but did graduate. However, this person started their own company, while in school, and sold it off to pursue other endeavors. They are quick-witted, can easily adapt to the environment and loves to learn.

Who do you hire?

Good point. You win. I think that's why things such as research and interships are so encouraged in college. They show you, and other people such as possible future employers, what you can really do outside of the classroom.

By the way, you can be frusterating to argue with...but I don't mind because I like intelligent conversations and debates and that's what I get with you.

Hey look-- 16 COMMENTS!!! Whoa!

So, what's the point of going to an university at the end? Is it to prove that you can work through the system and finish require work? Is it that you can buckle down and spend time and do something?

I just think that college used to be for the "elite" a few decades ago and now many people go. There needs to be something new that sets you apart from the rest. But what's next?

But everyone should have an equal opportunity to learn. I'm not saying that people who go to college either actually learn nothing or they already know everything. College gives them an opportunity to learn MORE if they choose. Some go to college and don't CHOOSE to actually learn more. They blow it off or they just go through it for the grades, memorizing instead of learning. But some take the opportunity and expand their knowledge with the help of professors. I don't think it should be for the "elite." If you think about it, grad school could be considered something that sets you apart from the rest. Getting a PhD.

So we have to gradually go to school more years to prove ourselves? PhD., Dr., what's next?

Why do we have to prove ourselves at all? If we have the ability, we will naturally be rewarded. You said that we need something else to set the special apart. That happens no matter what. Do you really think it is fair to only allow the "elite" to further their education, not give everyone an equal opportunity? The "best" will naturally prove themselves, but everyone deserves the chance to achieve as much as they are possibly able to if they choose to. It's not fair for only specific types of people to be given the opportunity.

Well, basically thinking, US teaching custom is a sort of "learn and quit" process. We obtain the knowledge for breif periods of time but then if they're not reinforecd on a timely basis, we'll eventually forget it. When thinking of a thought process, we're accustomed to thinking to mental images in our head. As long as we're not constantly thinking of them, the thoughts are pushed back into our subconcious state of mind and eventually, but not permanantly, lost. If knowledge was constantly reinforced in US society (IE, basic tests like calvin has before him) then we'd obtain the knowledge we once had.

It's sort of like a computer, if you're not using a program, you'll free up space to get more programs on your computer. That old program is now deleted, but can be reinstalled if needed. Same process with our mind, now we have an unlimited space, but we'll free up space, or tend to forget by not reinforcing the thought/knowledge.

So, in conclusion, although we'll constantly retain knowledge by reinforcing simple knowledge into more complex (algebra and other advanced mathematics for example) we would have a higher levels of stress, then again, that's only in my opinion.

George, I understand what you are trying to say about how our minds work, but I thought I'd clear is up a little better.

Unlike computers, our minds have UNLIMITED space. That means, we can hold as much as we want, and do so until we die. Unless the brain is damaged somehow (i.e. accident), the information is always there, but there needs to be some sort of trigger to recall it (i.e. someone running the program). Now, when the data is fresh, it's still in the RAM. That is why our computers run faster when we have more RAM.

Run more and more programs and the computer will slow down. That concept is the same as doing 10-15 things at once (Human example: doing homework, watching tv, listening to the radio, using the calculator, and talking to your friend). This is called multitasking. Computers are made to multitask real well because they have a hierarchy of tasks. We humans have a hierachy also. The best example is Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I know I'm babbling, but I do have a point. As similar as our computers are built to match our minds, it will never come close to what we can do. Unlike computers, nothing is ever deleted from our minds, so why not jam is full; like you jam your computer full of music. :P

Education deals with how the mind can process and comprehend information given to it... How you are able to store, analyze, process, and use that data is what is being tested, i.e. more of a way to see how your knowledge is able to be used when attempted to be recalled. Employers often times will hire solely on 'potential', what they see as an individual who can work and process their data as they become more knowledgeable in HOW to process it. In my opinion, education all comes down to showing that you can use your brain(just getting to college in one way or another, no matter how, is some kind of an indicator of a person who either holds the right cards, or knows how to play the game with what they got!)

Ali, you're incorrect in saying that the brain has unlimited storage space. The mind gets to a certain age where every new thing that is learned pushes something old out. I don't know what age that's at, but it's true. I do agree that when you hire a teacher you should take more into account than just their credentials; I think every teacher should have to go through a test-class with the school they're applying at. Some schools do that already, and most do consider more than just the credentials. Bruce Coville wrote once that "Teaching is the most important job on the planet." I agree. Where would society be without teachers? Isn't the measuring of the success of the student also partially a measure of the success of the teacher?

Steph, I believe that you are incorrect about the fact that our brains have unlimited storage space. Here's a quick test you can run, if the resources are available. Find a person over the age of 65 and ask them about their childhood. Be sure to use examples or something that will trigger it. They will most likely remember it.


After doing some research on Wikipedia, I ran across this:

"The brain does not store memories in one unified structure, as might be seen in a computer's hard disk drive. Instead, different types of memory are stored in different regions of the brain. LTM is typically divided up into two major headings: declarative memory and procedural memory."[Ref.]