t-peterl@microsoft.UUCP (Peter Labon) (03/30/88)
First: I just wrote an xxAT test and I think they suck, even though I think I did well. I do not believe in xxAT tests measuring what they _ideally_ should but I can't make them go away, or more importantly replace them with something that works, for the intended goal of measuring aptitude (w.r.t. the subject and not test test-taking). However, reading the High-I.Q. society bashing (as I like to call it) I find little insinuations from the bashers, regarding their superior intelligence, such as (use childish tone, e.g. Nanny, nanny boo boo) "I'm so smart I was exempted from xxAT tests" (not a quote, just quoted). An even worse one went along the lines of "I did better than you on the test [a test previously stated as not proving much about a person's ability]" (not a quote, but childish tone still works). Virtue is a reward unto itself (or something like that): If you're going to say that xxAT tests are not a fair representation of someone's intelligence, don't follow it up with ".. but if they were, I did well on them, so I still am intelligent" Let's cut the baby ego talk and show some strength of conviction. On a less cutting note: does anyone know (especially in the land of academia) what the popular attitude toward xxAT tests is? i.e. how important are these marks in getting into a reputable school. I assume that a _good_ (how do you measure this?) school would just glance at them in order to determine whether or not they differed greatly from the rest of the "evidence". I agree that smarter is better (in today's world), but was is smarter? How do you measure it? It seems that people have been trying to address these questions for a long time, but haven't quite succeeded. This, however, does not mean that the people who are trying (really trying, as opposed to making a fast buck) should be cut-up by the people who see that (the ones who try) haven't succeeded (as yet). What positive ideas do the bashers have? I'd love to hear something positive and not judging (like this posting). If you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at? (the serious types should disregard this last paragraph - you know who you are without the need for a test). --Peter t-peterl@microsoft
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (04/01/88)
In article <1346@microsoft.UUCP> t-peterl@forward.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >... does anyone know (especially in the land of academia) >what the popular attitude toward xxAT tests is? i.e. how important >are these marks in getting into a reputable school. I assume that >a _good_ (how do you measure this?) school would just glance >at them in order to determine whether or not they differed greatly >from the rest of the "evidence". My SO is currently applying to USC's (generally considered a "good" school) MSW program. She was told the *AT tests don't matter for getting into the program but are very important for things like grants, scholarships and student loans. Disclaimer: Above is single sample anecdotal evidence about a private college. Your mileage may vary. Void where regulated or prohibited by law. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombe
humbert@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Schachter) (04/08/88)
This is an interesting newsgroup, in a way. I read sci.math, and my impression there is that many professors and graduate students in mathematics contribute to the newsgroup. The amateurs who contribute seem to be seriously curious about some problem, and mostly they ask questions rather than answer them. (My impression may be laughably inaccurate, but that is my impression. It can certainly stand being corrected by a true professional). So when sci.psychology was recently formed, I expected to find a newsgroup controlled largely by professors and graduate students in psychology. Because of the 'sci' qualifier, I expected something like what the Monitor or the American Psychologist would be if we could eliminate the two-thirds of the APA membership who are clinicians, not scientists. I also expected some articules from seriously curious amateurs, literate, clear-thinking, and moderately well-prepared, who are more interested in asking questions than in answering them. Apparently, however, there are more people who feel qualified to utter an opinion in psychology, than who feel qualified to utter an opinion in mathematics, or physics, or biology. I guess people think something similar to, "I have some valuable insights into human nature, because I'm a sensitive and perceptive fellow, so why should I defer to someone who just runs rats through mazes all day long? My opinion is just a valid as his." So I'm about to unsubscribe to this newsgroup (I hope none of you takes this personally -- it was the other guy's articles), but I have a crucial question to ask this newsgroup before I go. You see, one of the many disappointing discussions I have read in this newsgroup concerns I.Q. societies. I have learned about Mensa, Triple-Nines, Cincinnatus, and the Four-Sigma Society (I had heard about Mensa before; I had never heard of any of the others). This I.Q. discussion has unburied an old memory about a society called DENSA. DENSA is a society for dense people, and I would very much like to join this society. Of course, I cannot be sure that I will qualify. You have to take a test to be admitted, just like Mensa. I recall a sample question from the DENSA qualifying examination: 6) What are the numbers from 1 to 10 and the letters from A to F? (Hint: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B C D E F) My question, then, is: Where is DENSA? Do any of you people know? Please, someone, send me their address or telephone number, so I can contact them and arrange to be admitted into their society, and then I can carry around my membership card with me, and also list it in my Curriculam Vita under "Association Memberships". Please send the information directly to me, because it is unlikely that I will see it if you post it to sci.psychology (unless you cross-post it to sci.math). But feel free to start a netnews discussion about it also, if you like. I thank you all in advance. Jay Shachter ...ihnp4!ihlpa!humbert humbert@ihlpa.att.com
grady@Apple.COM (Grady Ward) (04/09/88)
I am disappointed that Mr. Schacter chooses to boycott this
news group rather than make further contributions in order to make it
better. Although he cites the "hi-Q club" debate as one of the silly
muddlings which has tormented him, he neglects to give specific
examples of malignant ignorance so that propagators of such drivel,
such as myself, can potentially correct our error.
It seems to me to be supremely ironic that, while Mr. Schacter
removes the collimator from his flamer by his simple parody of hi-Q
clubs' entrance requirements ("Densa"), he does not see that one of
the biggest reasons for having entrance requirements, just as for
moderated newsgroups, is to pre-empt the protected discussion from
this kind of meta-criticism. In other words, it seems that Mr.
Schacter is more comfortable in freely flaming people, apparently
more sensitive than himself, that he is in permitting unmolested
association of those people through a set of entrance filters.
As we enter the nineties, it appears that the most fundamental
problem that mathematicians and scientists, including psychological
scientists, will have to overcome is the problem of incorporating
uncertainty into their theories while not regressing into superstition or
personality cults -- just as Physics had to in dealing with quantum
mechanics in the 20's. The naive realism of "proof" and "scientific
method" are insufficiently powerful to deal with, for example,
problems of Bayesian versus standard statistics or of the nature of
human intelligence and its relationship to democratic principles.
Similarly, dismissing non-experimental psychology as a priori
worthless or insignificant appears to be simply parochial and as
laughable as Aristotelian science became during the late middle ages.
I hope Mr. Schacter continues to explore, contribute, and to
criticize when warranted, but I think we all should expect that that
criticism, just like the other axes of theory-building, requires a
reasonably explicit description of one's standards and assumptions
before taking it too seriously. Parody is a cheap shot because it's too
easy to do.
For a free copy of the Cincinnatus Society Journal, which
offers extremely gifted people a pleasant conversation among people
with like opportunities and concerns, write to 380 N. Bayview Ave.,
Sunnyvale, CA 94086. Or e-mail grady@apple.hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (04/09/88)
In article <7599@ihlpa.ATT.COM> humbert@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Schachter) writes: >... So when sci.psychology was recently formed, I expected to find a newsgroup >controlled largely by professors and graduate students in psychology. Because >of the 'sci' qualifier, I expected something like what the Monitor or the >American Psychologist would be if we could eliminate the two-thirds of the >APA membership who are clinicians, not scientists. ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your are merely ignorant or misinformed. I have a master's degree in clinical psychology. To earn it I had to pass graduate level courses in, among other things, statistical analysis and experimental design. I had to write bachelor's and master's theses that were refereed by experts in those subjects. I consider myself every bit as much a scientist as someone with an equivalent degree in physics or mathematics. >This I.Q. discussion has unburied an old memory about a society called DENSA. >DENSA is a society for dense people, and I would very much like to join this >society. ... It's a pleasure to meet someone who knows their limitations. (-:{ >... My question, then, is: Where is DENSA? ... I don't think you intended this seriously, but I'll answer it anyway. Densa is a joke. It was originally invented by Mensans as a fictional society admitting only those whose IQs fall at or below the 2nd percentile. A few years ago someone gained some brief publicity by actually founding such an organization, though they loosened the requirements to include anyone who didn't qualify for Mensa. I don't know where you can find them, or if they still exist. It's amusing to note that they can only exist as a reflection of Mensa, thus providing an extra source of publicity for the high-IQ organizations. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombe
rmpinchback@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) (04/09/88)
In article <1346@microsoft.UUCP> t-peterl@forward.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >On a less cutting note: does anyone know (especially in the land of academia) >what the popular attitude toward xxAT tests is? i.e. how important >are these marks in getting into a reputable school. I assume that >a _good_ (how do you measure this?) school would just glance >at them in order to determine whether or not they differed greatly >from the rest of the "evidence". > Though I don't know the attitude re: xxAT tests, some schools have their own versions of such tests. The math department here at U of Waterloo uses their Descartes exams to HELP screen 1st-year entry students, particularly in allowing them automatic entrance to advance-honours level courses. They know the limitations of such tests, but they are in a good position to control the design of the test and check its relevance to the variables that they are interested in. In particular, it helps them adjust for differing qualities of Ontario high schools. I doubt that an xxAT exam would ever be so applicable to anything. Its like trying to use government statistics for marketing research. Census questionnaires are designed to answer different questions than most research problems imply, thus different data is collected (and in a different way). I suspect the same problems with xxAT tests, particularly when applied to students leaving high-school to enter college/university. Those students will be shifting to a different learning environment. From my own experiences as a student (good and bad), I suspect that other variables than aptitude might be more relevant. Good work/study habits is something that comes to mind. I've seen SO many B-level high school students outperform the A-level high school students in 1st year programs. I suspect that the A-level students found high school easy and never had to work. B-level students had to sweat blood for their marks and don't take them for granted. Conversations with students seem to bear this out, though this isn't conclusive obviously. If anybody is up on education research, do they have anything more conclusive to add to that hypothesis? Reid M. Pinchback ----------------- average