This is my experience with standardized testing:
My whole life, I have done well in almost every standardized test I have taken. In New York, where you are required to take Regents in order to graduate, I have not failed a single Regents test I have taken. My critical reading score on the SAT's is a 620, which places me in the 99th percentile in my school and in the 84th percentile nationwide. The average critical reading score in my school is a 390, which is pretty much terrible (If the average score for each section is a 400 in my school, then the average CR + M score would be an 800 out of 1600, not too good).
I've always known I have a greater aptitude for learning than most of the kids in my grade. It has been repeated to me many times since the first grade, when my teacher suggested I skip a grade and go into third by the end of the year (I declined, my first grade mentality not knowing what "skipping a grade" really meant).
In middle school and high school, however, my mediocre grades were not matching my above-average test scores. The reason for this was that I did not always turn in my work on time, and I hated doing extensive school assignments like projects and at-home essays. If I turned them in at all, they were usually late. As of right now my GPA is a 3.0, which is perfectly average. If it wasn't for my SAT score, I would not have had any advantage over my classmates (or even any senior in the country) applying to college.
There are a few kids in my grade that are known as geniuses. Not because they've shown any genius-level work, but because they have near perfect GPAs. One of them even has a 99% average. (And yes, that's ALL four years combined!)
When we were all registering for the SATs, I was sure they would blow everyone out of the water. Near-perfect GPAs, near-perfect attendance, how could they not get an amazing score?
When the scores came back however, it turns out they did not do as I expected. For the most part, they got average scores although one of them got around a 1300 with all three parts combined, which is pretty low.
To be completely honest I was not surprised by my score. With all three parts combined I got a 1680 which was a little above average. I've always been an avid reader which has helped me build an extensive vocabulary. My math score was average, which I expected because although I learn math rules quickly, I forget them quickly as well.
When everyone learned that they did terribly on the SATs, they were quick to say, "The SATs are obviously unfair. How can I have a 90 average and score so low?"
Well I think I've figured it out.
For starters, some of the things you are graded on at school are participation, attendance, group work, whether or not you turn in your assignments on time, etc. Obviously these criteria are irrelevant when scoring the SATs, because they are only testing your knowledge in specific areas and not how friendly of a person you are or how many times you raise your hand within one class period. These criteria combined can contribute as much as 40 percent of your grade, so even if you are below grade level in a school subject you can still attain a decent grade if you just turn in your work, whether or not the answers are correct.
Also, the actual student work you are graded on is subjective to whatever you are learning in class. Therefore, it's not a reliable measure of intelligence. For example, if my teacher's method for one semester is giving out handouts and the students answering them and handing them in on time, you can easily get a 95% in that class. This doesn't mean you are smarter than the rest of your peers, it just means you turned in all your work and showed up to class.
So if you have perfect attendance, participate in class, do well on quizzes and hand in your work on time, you will most likely be an A student. When you tell people that your average is a 95%, they'll probably say, "Wow, you're really smart!" instead of, "Wow, you showed up to school, did all your schoolwork, and got graded accordingly!"
Doesn't really sound like something congratulatory now, does it?
The second reason why students score so low on the SATs is because the American public school education system is terrible. It's a well-known fact that private school students can vastly outperform public school students. There is simply not enough funding for public schools, and it is way too easy for ineffective teachers to keep their jobs at public schools (I know this for a fact). In terms of education, America ranks 25th out of 30 developed nations in math, arguably the most important school subject you need to learn in order to get the most important jobs in this country. There are all sorts of problems when it comes to our public education. So when you've got the SATs, which is a test taken by public and private school students, it becomes easier to see how little we really know.
Many people say that the reason they did so badly on the SATs is because they are just not good test takers, or they were nervous, or something along those lines. I think they don't realize that being a great student and scoring low SAT scores are not mutually exclusive. We have been conditioned to think that the higher you average is, the more intelligent you are, but this is not always the case. My best friend Gil scored the highest critical reading score in my school with a 660, which places him in the 91st percentile nationwide. His GPA is a 2.7.
Surprising, huh?
I personally don't mind standardized tests when it comes to showing how knowledgeable you are in math, reading, and writing. However, just because someone scores low on the SATs doesn't mean they are stupid and it is not entirely their fault. The first finger I'd point would be towards America's inadequate public school system and the sub-par education we recieve. Everyone is capable of getting a good education, we just haven't been given the opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment