clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (03/31/88)
In article <1346@microsoft.UUCP>, Peter Labon writes: > First: I just wrote an xxAT test and I think they suck, > even though I think did well. I don't know of many who enjoy them. > 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). The idea that a 2-4 hour test can measure anything beyond achievement in certain areas is ludicrous; any "intelligence" test must fail in some respect. This all goes back to the same circle: what is intelligence? > 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" I tend to do well on such tests; this makes me feel good (why shouldn't it?), but I don't take the results very seriously, e.g. I don't feel myself "superior" to a person who didn't score as high. > 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". The xxAT tests are very seductive; they can virtually automate the process of admission to schools (want a 10% admission rate? No one under a 1250 allowed...). You'd be surprised at how much test scores can affect you. For example, in order to get into the general honors program here at Rutgers, you must have above a certain score on your SATs. This is patently absurd. Tests like these are greatly abused, mostly due to the laziness on the part of people interpreting them (quick, Steve has an IQ of 145, is he smarter than Bill with an IQ of 140?). Your PSAT scores can determine whether or not you get a scholarship to college ... ab infinum. SATs/etc. are easy ways to class people into percentiles. The question of their meaning is something altogether different. -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu
clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (03/31/88)
In article <Mar.31.09.14.59.1988.10831@topaz.rutgers.edu>, I wrote: > I tend to do well on such tests; this makes me feel good (why > shouldn't it?), but I don't take the results very seriously, e.g. > I don't feel myself "superior" to a person who didn't score as high. I should clarify this somewhat. I feel that someone who does well on such tests is intelligent (high score ==> intelligence), however low score !==> lack thereof. But I am still undecided on how much intelligence is represented by a high score on these exams. A person who gets a 1600 on his/her SATs is obviously intelligent, but to what extent? Is it even reasonable to attempt to measure intelligence on a scale, e.g. Bob smarter than Sandra, Sandra smarter than Roger ==> Bob smarter than Roger? I doubt this. -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu