Why are some people really good at standardized testing? Forum

[094320]

..

[Hey-O]

This is an interesting idea. Let me get what you're saying here. Working memory is really the ability to hold complex ideas in your head long enough to make connections between them.

I think we're agreeing about substance and disagreeing about the definition of memory. It is still all about the ability to make connections.

Exactly! Or to apply them or to do something to them or whatever. I think we agree as well, just thought I'd supply the actual official terms to make discussion more clear. But there's different kinds of memory(like long-term), thus only using one definition in this discussion is hampering the discussion. This is all I've studied during undergrad...

EDIT: There are many more distinctions and categories of memory than what I have detailed here. (For ex, long-term can be divided into episodic vs procedural vs semantic, etc.) but these distinctions are irrelevant to this discussion so I have left them out.

In what capacity do you study cognition? I find this subject to be very interesting. Have you read this series:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... is-part-5/

[094320]

..

[Hey-O]

In what capacity do you study cognition? I find this subject to be very interesting. Have you read this series:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... is-part-5/

Just undergrad, though I've taken so many courses that I like to think I have a good enough understanding and that I'm recent enough with research to be able to talk about it with some degree of credibility on an online forum. Different from psych---I only do cognition(Memory, Learning, Perception, Attention, etc.) and I don't touch the other areas usually required by psych at most universities such as personality, clinical, etc. I was contemplating going for a PhD, but decided to opt out and do law instead....Haven't read this series, though I'm reading through it now and I'm familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect--read the original research papers in class this semester, as well as some follow-up articles and lit reviews. It's an interesting field. I recommend Rational Choice in an Uncertain World by Hastie and Dawes if you find this stuff interesting.
EDIT: You may or may not find this blog interesting as well: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/one-among-many

You might enjoy "The Black Swan" by Taleb. It is a very interesting look at the limits of statistical analysis and human predictive capabilities.

[094320]

..

[Hey-O]

You might enjoy "The Black Swan" by Taleb. It is a very interesting look at the limits of statistical analysis and human predictive capabilities.

I had a seminar that discussed that book last semester. This is true, though statistical predictions often do better than flat-out human predictions.

Really? I would be interested in this. Where are you getting this from? Is this general human predictions or this targeted predictions? For instance, I would take the prediction of a particular's student teacher over the prediction of how that student would do based on test scores.

[daesonesb]

I've always done well on standardized tests, all the way back to the CAT testing in elementary school.

I think it might be because I don't experience test day anxiety and because I always read alot of books, ever since I was a kid.

Other than that, who knows?

[094320]

..

[Hey-O]

I think I'll pick up the Dawes book the next time I'm at the library. I still lean towards human predictions over statical models but I'm definitely open to reading this.

My personal (completely untested) belief is that statistical models are good for general predictions, but bad at individual situations.

[094320]

..

[Hey-O]

I think I'll pick up the Dawes book the next time I'm at the library. I still lean towards human predictions over statical models but I'm definitely open to reading this.

My personal (completely untested) belief is that statistical models are good for general predictions, but bad at individual situations.

I'm of the belief that statistical models & human judgment both suck at individual situations. It's a pick your poison where human judgment is like ridiculously bad. For all of our talk of intelligence on this thread, humans actually aren't very bright in general.

Yes, people might be stupid in general, but a person can be smart, and that is really the point I'm getting at. That a smart person in their field is better at predictions than a statistical model, because a person can change their thinking while a model can't change.

[094320]

..

[Hey-O]

Shit. Well, I'd better start welcoming our machine overlords.

[094320]

..

[howcani111]

ME.
Undergrad:
SAT: 1030
GPA: 4.3

obviously I got screwed when I was applying for undergrad. MY GPA (rounded cuz all of those damn APS) saved me. Also, I studied for the SAT for like a year taking prep classes like PR.

Now:
GPA 3.7
LSAT: 171

Go figure. I think I'm better with the critical thinking type stuff.

I always sucked on standardized testing.

[Hey-O]

Shit. Well, I'd better start welcoming our machine overlords.

Don't forget, humans create the statistical models and can refine and improve them. It's just that the human brain can't handle and weight variables of prediction that well without sitting down and writing things out and doing math. It's beyond the capacity of even really smart people with good working memories.

This makes sense. I think my real problem is with people using statistical models without thinking about them. That is where you come up with the problems like the recent stock market crash.

Edit: Typos

[jason8821]

ME.
Undergrad:
SAT: 1030
GPA: 4.3

obviously I got screwed when I was applying for undergrad. MY GPA (rounded cuz all of those damn APS) saved me. Also, I studied for the SAT for like a year taking prep classes like PR.

Now:
GPA 3.7
LSAT: 171

Go figure. I think I'm better with the critical thinking type stuff.

I always sucked on standardized testing.

That is what I am talking about. The people that are outliers are important because there is obviously something that goes beyond innate ability in some cases while not at all in others. I can't put my finger on it, and apparently no one else can. Perhaps you are someone who has an incredibly strong working memory, but very little in the way of long term memory, but GPA indicates more long term, so it's hard to say. Did you have a huge verbal/math split? I think people underestimate the importance of "being good at math" when taking the LSAT, if you have decent RC skills, and your very good at algebra, you should score at the very minimum mid 160's. The LR, and LG are often times destroyed by people who have those skills.

[094320]

..

[Tautology]

Did you ever take the GRE acrossthelake? It is probably the worst test I've ever taken, although the format is interesting and different.

[094320]

..

[Tautology]

Did you ever take the GRE acrossthelake? It is probably the worst test I've ever taken, although the format is interesting and different.

No, although I skimmed through it once out of curiosity. It looks weird and seems to emphasize vocab to a degree I don't understand the purpose of. Why'd you take it? Yeah that is one test where I think you actually need to prep even if you're fairly bright. I have friends with large vocabularies that think the GRE is trippy.

The vocab is retarded, there is no reason anyone would know half those words if they didn't specifically prep, although you can still usually eliminate a few answers without knowing some of the words. I didn't prep though and still managed to do fairly well, so I think smart people can get through it without prep, but I was a math major so math wasn't something I hadn't done in four years. Both the math and the vocab strike me as things that don't really say much about the majority of college graduates. It also has really weird percentile-to-score correspondences. I got an 800 in math which was like 90th percentile and a 650 or something in verbal which was like 94th percentile.

To answer your question, I took the GRE before the first time I went to grad school. Law school is my plan B.

[094320]

..

[Tautology]

The vocab is retarded, there is no reason anyone would know half those words if they didn't specifically prep, although you can still usually eliminate a few answers without knowing some of the words. I didn't prep though and still managed to do fairly well, so I think smart people can get through it without prep, but I was a math major so math wasn't something I hadn't done in four years. Both the math and the vocab strike me as things that don't really say much about the majority of college graduates. It also has really weird percentile-to-score correspondences. I got an 800 in math which was like 90th percentile and a 650 or something in verbal which was like 94th percentile.

To answer your question, I took the GRE before the first time I went to grad school. Law school is my plan B.

Out of all standardized entrance exams I've seen, the GRE is the one where the connection between material tested and skills needed in grad school seem to have a huge disconnect. The obscure vocab is not needed in most(any?) fields and the math tested is irrelevant to those in the humanities and social sciences. The GRE looks to me like someone was like oh gee, grad school needs an entrance exam, let's just take the SAT and bastardize it.

Pretty much.

[PDaddy]

Genes.

This is true; some of it is just genetic. Standardized testing is about 30% intelligence, 30% early nurturing and environmental factors, 30% preparation, and 10% luck. The LSAT and other tests can be learned, however, the degrees of learning are different for each individual. The tests do not measure "intelligence". How could they? There are different types of intelligence, and everyone is endowed with a degree of several different types of intelligence. One of the primary reasons people suck at the LSAT is poor language skills. Another is poor reasoning skills. But, again, both of these things can be learned.

[Thomas Jefferson]

.