Why are some people really good at standardized testing? Forum

[slax]

I've worked for the lsac as a proctor for three years and now for over a year at hq. Basically standardized test scores are a function of African ancestry, or the lack their of.

So...when are our scores being released??

[Merr]

Oh, didn't realize we were distinguishing between upper middle class and the upper class. In this case, I don't have much to say since i was only really talking about the upper middle class.

The term "rich" is thrown around pretty liberally on the thread so I figured I would make the distinction.

[SuperFreak]

I've worked for the lsac as a proctor for three years and now for over a year at hq. Basically standardized test scores are a function of African ancestry, or the lack their of.

Weird flame.

[jason8821]

The book mostly theorizes over IQ tests, but it also touches on standardized tests. You could also check out Outliers by Gladwell for more on why successful people are so successful. Much more plays into it than hard work. Rich kids have been prepped for this type of testing since they were toddlers. Poor kids just can't compete with that in a general sense. There will always be exceptions of course. I had a full school schedule and worked 20 hours a week while studying for the LSAT. I got half off of a prep course. So you'd think I'd be even with a poor person in the sense that I did not have the advantage of being off while studying and not having to dish out much for a class. But I was born with an unfair advantage because of my parents. I was groomed to do well in school and on tests.

The book mostly theorizes over IQ tests, but it also touches on standardized tests. You could also check out Outliers by Gladwell for more on why successful people are so successful. Much more plays into it than hard work. Rich kids have been prepped for this type of testing since they were toddlers. Poor kids just can't compete with that in a general sense. There will always be exceptions of course. I had a full school schedule and worked 20 hours a week while studying for the LSAT. I got half off of a prep course. So you'd think I'd be even with a poor person in the sense that I did not have the advantage of being off while studying and not having to dish out much for a class. But I was born with an unfair advantage because of my parents. I was groomed to do well in school and on tests.

This is my opinion. When I first started studying for the LSAT I thought URM status was complete bullshit. I now believe it is a sort of flawed system that needs to incorporate more races and types of backgrounds than it does. A lot of Arabs, Eastern Europeans, some groups of Asians, and even certain georgraphic regions that are primarily caucasian are at a huge disadvantage due to wealth, and living situations. As some people have mentioned, I think you can only understand this if you grew up in a poorer area.

Imagine being encouraged to read, and always seeing your parents reading. Imagine being exposed to people that were passionate about teaching and learning all of the time, Imagine being at a young age and being taught to think critically rather than just regurgitate simple facts/arithmetic. I personally did not know these things existed until I went to a summer camp after my junior year of high school at a prestigious school, and when I did it was like "what the fuck?" you mean, it's a big deal to you and your parents to take expensive sat prep classes? You mean you were taking music classes while participating in sports, while getting a personal tutor for school if you had trouble? Now I am good friends with a lot more eclectic group (after college) and so I have been exposed to this.

[Hey-O]

To the people who claim to never read and have a huge vocabulary I call bullshit on them. The vocab on the LSAT isn't killer (it's easier than Foucalt or Umberto Eco, for example), but it's not simplistic. Case in point: aegis. When did you or your friends and family use the word aegis in conversation? There a lot of words out there that people read, but aren't a part of normal conversational English.

[sumus romani]

To the people who claim to never read and have a huge vocabulary I call bullshit on them. The vocab on the LSAT isn't killer (it's easier than Foucalt or Umberto Eco, for example), but it's not simplistic. Case in point: aegis. When did you or your friends and family use the word aegis in conversation? There a lot of words out there that people read, but aren't a part of normal conversational English.

I too think that the vocab is more difficult than people are letting on. Still though, since pure vocab isn't tested, you can often get the meaning of the term from the context. So, even though the LSAT does pull from a big vocab, it is not as though you have to have that vocab to do well. But that's just my two cents. BTW, I'm all for the pattern recognition explanation, but this is just speculation.

[alexonfyre]

My mom was an English major, and the only thing she ever used it for was parenting. So I happen to know a lot of words, though I haven't read a lot. And yes, I have heard her say "aegis" in a conversation that was not about the word "aegis." It sucks in bundles.

[jason8821]

I can sort of believe that someone doesn't read a lot, but there is absolutely no way that you didn't practice focus/processing speed somehow. Maybe you spent 15 years with a zen master in Tibet, Maybe just stared at the wall for 2 hours straight without letting a thought cross your mind, but none of the people who say they "didn't read" sat around playing video games, and watching nick @ night growing up while and other activities that don't augment brain processing speed. After reading these books on psychology/IQ by Gladwell and others it's so frustrating how some people approach life. You could call it jealousy, but I detest people who get 1580 on the SAT, and act like they didn't study for it, You fuckin studied for it whether you knew it or not, and sure you might not get an 800 if you never saw shit/had extra attention given to you in gifted etc. but you probably won't score 15-1600 either. Conversely, I don't like people who are on the other end of the spectrum and think of themselves as "dumb" so they don't try at anything an offer nothing to society. I just don't think people are that much different, a couple outliers on one end, and a couple on the other but most (way over half) of people (genetically speaking) have somewhat similar cognitive capabilities, or so i believe.

[TCScrutinizer]

My mom was an English major, and the only thing she ever used it for was parenting. So I happen to know a lot of words, though I haven't read a lot. And yes, I have heard her say "aegis" in a conversation that was not about the word "aegis." It sucks in bundles.

Aegis is a good word when you're talking about a protective relationship between two entities. Don't hate.

[09042014]

I can sort of believe that someone doesn't read a lot, but there is absolutely no way that you didn't practice focus/processing speed somehow. Maybe you spent 15 years with a zen master in Tibet, Maybe just stared at the wall for 2 hours straight without letting a thought cross your mind, but none of the people who say they "didn't read" sat around playing video games, and watching nick @ night growing up while and other activities that don't augment brain processing speed.

Of course some of them did. They are just born smarter than you.

Not everyone is a sTTTriver.

[alexonfyre]

I can sort of believe that someone doesn't read a lot, but there is absolutely no way that you didn't practice focus/processing speed somehow. Maybe you spent 15 years with a zen master in Tibet, Maybe just stared at the wall for 2 hours straight without letting a thought cross your mind, but none of the people who say they "didn't read" sat around playing video games, and watching nick @ night growing up while and other activities that don't augment brain processing speed. After reading these books on psychology/IQ by Gladwell and others it's so frustrating how some people approach life. You could call it jealousy, but I detest people who get 1580 on the SAT, and act like they didn't study for it, You fuckin studied for it whether you knew it or not, and sure you might not get an 800 if you never saw shit/had extra attention given to you in gifted etc. but you probably won't score 15-1600 either. Conversely, I don't like people who are on the other end of the spectrum and think of themselves as "dumb" so they don't try at anything an offer nothing to society. I just don't think people are that much different, a couple outliers on one end, and a couple on the other but most (way over half) of people (genetically speaking) have somewhat similar cognitive capabilities, or so i believe.

Truth in that, I score high on vocab low on RC. I don't have a problem with the "C" part, but my "R" speed sucks.

EDIT: SCIENCE!
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/jou ... _final.pdf
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ult ... processing
Don't dis my vidjamagames son.

[094320]

..

[Tautology]

I can sort of believe that someone doesn't read a lot, but there is absolutely no way that you didn't practice focus/processing speed somehow. Maybe you spent 15 years with a zen master in Tibet, Maybe just stared at the wall for 2 hours straight without letting a thought cross your mind, but none of the people who say they "didn't read" sat around playing video games, and watching nick @ night growing up while and other activities that don't augment brain processing speed. After reading these books on psychology/IQ by Gladwell and others it's so frustrating how some people approach life. You could call it jealousy, but I detest people who get 1580 on the SAT, and act like they didn't study for it, You fuckin studied for it whether you knew it or not, and sure you might not get an 800 if you never saw shit/had extra attention given to you in gifted etc. but you probably won't score 15-1600 either. Conversely, I don't like people who are on the other end of the spectrum and think of themselves as "dumb" so they don't try at anything an offer nothing to society. I just don't think people are that much different, a couple outliers on one end, and a couple on the other but most (way over half) of people (genetically speaking) have somewhat similar cognitive capabilities, or so i believe.

Problem with words like "study" and "practice" is it implies intent. Sure, a lot of high-scorers probably did stuff that helped develop skills, but not with intention. When I sat around reading Nancy Drew mysteries as a kid, it was because I liked the series, not because I was actively studying or practicing my reading comprehension for the future. Fwiw, I also spent a ridiculous amount of time playing video/computer games(Age of Empires, anyone? Also, Halo) and watching Nick@Nite(pathetically, Bewitched was a highlight of my day...)

People who claim they got 1500-1600 on the SAT(old-scale) without studying mean without active prepping, with test prep review books and practice exams. And that's incredibly believable and happens often.

Exactly, this is what a good "natural" test-taker is. Not that I think there are no cognitive differences among individuals that simply a matter of genetics/embryology, but I doubt that fully explains "natural" test-takers, just like "natural" athletes.

[witorres89]

Exactly, this is what a good "natural" test-taker is. Not that I think there are no cognitive differences among individuals that simply a matter of genetics/embryology, but I doubt that fully explains "natural" test-takers, just like "natural" athletes

"Ritalin" "steroids"

[alexonfyre]

I had a really good friend who used to be a natural test taker, but lost it hard.
Our middle school made us take the SAT in 7th grade for some reason. They just sort of showed up one day, we sat out of class for 3 hours and they proctored it to us. He ended up with a 1310.
In the PSATs throughout high school he usually scored in the mid 1500s. He averaged a 34 on our practice ACTs (my high school was brutal with pretests, generally 2-3 times a year)
Then senior year comes around and he is all set to apply to Duke and MIT and hit the official tests. He studied and practiced and did the flash cards and took extra tests, etc. He ends up getting a 1350 on his SAT and a 27 ACT. He was upset, figured he was just cocky and phoned it in, redoubled his study efforts, even applied for and got special conditions testing for ADHD. He got a 1380 and another 27.
Since then he can't test well to save his life.
I know a lot of natural athletes, and they may not be pro-level, but even without exercise or practice they can pick up and play mean ball whenever. I don't think this type of thing would have happened if test taking was like athleticism.
I feel like it is probably a culture and lifestyle thing. The dude used to read voraciously and tinker with chem sets and science experiments all the time, but in 11th and 12th finally made some friends and stopped doing all of that, going out to movies and stuff instead.
I know it is only a case study, and not exactly a scientifically rigorous one either, but I think you could establish a correlation between amount of self-motivated learning and enrichment that is done and how high one's standardized test scores are.

EDIT: Another major change was that he started taking Ritalin in 11th grade, just now thought about that, but trying to establish that type of connection is specious at best, though it is what helped him make more friends (or so he claims.)

[094320]

..

[alexonfyre]

I had a really good friend who used to be a natural test taker, but lost it hard.
Our middle school made us take the SAT in 7th grade for some reason. They just sort of showed up one day, we sat out of class for 3 hours and they proctored it to us. He ended up with a 1310.
In the PSATs throughout high school he usually scored in the mid 1500s. He averaged a 34 on our practice ACTs (my high school was brutal with pretests, generally 2-3 times a year)
Then senior year comes around and he is all set to apply to Duke and MIT and hit the official tests. He studied and practiced and did the flash cards and took extra tests, etc. He ends up getting a 1350 on his SAT and a 27 ACT. He was upset, figured he was just cocky and phoned it in, redoubled his study efforts, even applied for and got special conditions testing for ADHD. He got a 1380 and another 27.
Since then he can't test well to save his life.
I know a lot of natural athletes, and they may not be pro-level, but even without exercise or practice they can pick up and play mean ball whenever. I don't think this type of thing would have happened if test taking was like athleticism.
I feel like it is probably a culture and lifestyle thing. The dude used to read voraciously and tinker with chem sets and science experiments all the time, but in 11th and 12th finally made some friends and stopped doing all of that, going out to movies and stuff instead.
I know it is only a case study, and not exactly a scientifically rigorous one either, but I think you could establish a correlation between amount of self-motivated learning and enrichment that is done and how high one's standardized test scores are

EDIT: Another major change was that he started taking Ritalin in 11th grade, just now thought about that, but trying to establish that type of connection is specious at best, though it is what helped him make more friends (or so he claims.)

Wait....so your friend "magically" loses his ability to test well after starting Ritalin, despite prepping and effort, and you attribute this to culture? Wuh?

It all happened at the same time, and I felt like making a statement as bold as "Ritalin makes you worse at testing," based on one guy, would be laughed it. I simply put the fact out there for consideration.

[094320]

..

[alexonfyre]

Wait....so your friend "magically" loses his ability to test well after starting Ritalin, despite prepping and effort, and you attribute this to culture? Wuh?

It all happened at the same time, and I felt like making a statement as bold as "Ritalin makes you worse at testing," based on one guy, would be laughed it. I simply put the fact out there for consideration.

Right. There might have also been other things gone unnoticed, like a random concussion he didn't think was serious or mentioned, etc. I just don't see how his suddenly doing worse at tests leads to a cultural explanation (culture may be true, but I don't see how this example supports that).

A change in values mainly. I mean the guy had almost no friends when he was younger, the only things he ever did were read and play video games. He was a forum guy when he was really young, back when forums were BB's and IM was IRC. He traveled a lot and the sightseeing stuff he did was always academic, science museums, libraries historical districts, etc. Once he started making friends it all went to the wayside. It was all about what are my friends up to, which movie are we going to this weekend, how do I make sure these people like me, and aren't just hanging out because I am the only one with a car? etc.
And while I have seen athletes that lost their conditioning and can still play, he didn't have that, unfortunately.

[Merr]

I can sort of believe that someone doesn't read a lot, but there is absolutely no way that you didn't practice focus/processing speed somehow. Maybe you spent 15 years with a zen master in Tibet, Maybe just stared at the wall for 2 hours straight without letting a thought cross your mind, but none of the people who say they "didn't read" sat around playing video games, and watching nick @ night growing up while and other activities that don't augment brain processing speed. After reading these books on psychology/IQ by Gladwell and others it's so frustrating how some people approach life. You could call it jealousy, but I detest people who get 1580 on the SAT, and act like they didn't study for it, You fuckin studied for it whether you knew it or not, and sure you might not get an 800 if you never saw shit/had extra attention given to you in gifted etc. but you probably won't score 15-1600 either. Conversely, I don't like people who are on the other end of the spectrum and think of themselves as "dumb" so they don't try at anything an offer nothing to society. I just don't think people are that much different, a couple outliers on one end, and a couple on the other but most (way over half) of people (genetically speaking) have somewhat similar cognitive capabilities, or so i believe.

Problem with words like "study" and "practice" is it implies intent. Sure, a lot of high-scorers probably did stuff that helped develop skills, but not with intention. When I sat around reading Nancy Drew mysteries as a kid, it was because I liked the series, not because I was actively studying or practicing my reading comprehension for the future. Fwiw, I also spent a ridiculous amount of time playing video/computer games(Age of Empires, anyone? Also, Halo) and watching Nick@Nite(pathetically, Bewitched was a highlight of my day...)

People who claim they got 1500-1600 on the SAT(old-scale) without studying mean without active prepping, with test prep review books and practice exams. And that's incredibly believable and happens often.

I agree with this. I remember when I in took the SAT 2 for Math back in high school, I was told I could take 2 more SAT 2s because I had payed for 3 for whatever reason. So just for the heck of it I took the SAT 2 World history and US history and scored 800 and 750 respectively. I had not studied or practiced for these exams as I had no clue I would be taking them prior to test day, but I had spend a fair amount of my life doing stuff that helped me develop related skills.

[Tautology]

Wait....so your friend "magically" loses his ability to test well after starting Ritalin, despite prepping and effort, and you attribute this to culture? Wuh?

It all happened at the same time, and I felt like making a statement as bold as "Ritalin makes you worse at testing," based on one guy, would be laughed it. I simply put the fact out there for consideration.

Right. There might have also been other things gone unnoticed, like a random concussion he didn't think was serious or mentioned, etc. I just don't see how his suddenly doing worse at tests leads to a cultural explanation (culture may be true, but I don't see how this example supports that).

A change in values mainly. I mean the guy had almost no friends when he was younger, the only things he ever did were read and play video games. He was a forum guy when he was really young, back when forums were BB's and IM was IRC. He traveled a lot and the sightseeing stuff he did was always academic, science museums, libraries historical districts, etc. Once he started making friends it all went to the wayside. It was all about what are my friends up to, which movie are we going to this weekend, how do I make sure these people like me, and aren't just hanging out because I am the only one with a car? etc.
And while I have seen athletes that lost their conditioning and can still play, he didn't have that, unfortunately.

Maybe he wasn't actually a natural test taker in the first place.

[alexonfyre]

Maybe he wasn't actually a natural test taker in the first place.

You might be right, but he was awfully good at tests for a while there.

[094320]

..

[alexonfyre]

Maybe he wasn't actually a natural test taker in the first place.

You might be right, but he was awfully good at tests for a while there.

I find it extremely doubtful that becoming extra social caused a random plunge in his SAT scores unless it meant that on test day he didn't take it seriously. But, as you noted, he prepped. He did take it seriously. It's not like by goofing off in 11th grade you magically undo all the reading comprehension and math skills you've acquired in previous years. One thing that distinguishes the PSAT from the SAT is that the PSAT is shorter...so someone with attention problems might find that drop. I'm way more inclined in this particular case to look at neurological differences, not his social life.

I agree that culture/lifestyle can affect how different individuals do on the exam because of how these things influence the development of skills---but
1) Focusing solely on hanging out with friends and going to movies doesn't undo whatever skills you've created, it just doesn't help one progress. and
2) I don't think these factors affect a single individual within such a short timespan unless it's like he was hungover prior to the SAT or had blown his brain out on hard drugs or just didn't put the effort in and didn't care anymore.

Nothing that extreme, but it was clear he didn't quite take it seriously, given that he had done so well before with little to no prepping. Most of the study he did the first time was due to parental goading, the second time around he tried harder, and got ADD status for the test (Basically the time limits are gone, other than the entire thing must be done in 3 hours.) same scores

[094320]

..