# is "not testing well" really a thing? or do dumb people just say that?



## Vic (Dec 4, 2010)

I like essay questions. You can really go nuts.


----------



## bigstupidgrin (Sep 26, 2014)

Not testing well is a very real thing. While I was practically a savant with tests (my sense of recall is preposterous), my twin sister was not. When we were kids, I aced the TAG (talented and gifted) test, and she did not, even though she was just as smart as I was, if not smarter. Eventually administration shoe-horned her into the TAG program because it was obvious she should be there. 

Something that works for me, other than the obvious "learn test taking skills" advice: I go intentionally fast on tests. Speed and trusting your gut are your two biggest weapons. Doubt and spending too much time on a question can only throw you off. If you find a question you can't answer quickly, skip it. At the end, go back to your skipped questions with the surplus of time you have, and work on those.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

Indeed, you're imposed to answer the way they want you to; they implicitly tell you early on that you need to be deceitful in order to get by. The trick is using information as tools instead of beliefs.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I definitely think that test anxiety can affect a person's scores. I often face tremendous anxiety during and after a test, but I somehow manage to score well on school tests in spite of that problem. I did have to take my practical driving exam three times until I finally passed because the driving instructors did not want to pass someone who seemed as nervous as I did during the first two tests.

Before major tests that could end up determining if a person gets into some kind of college program or can enter a profession, I look at the format of the tests and take extra time to study the material. I know one person who failed an exam to become an English teacher because he hadn't expected to face one of the major components of the test (a particular essay question). I often have a hard time finishing a test within a time limit if it has many short answer or essay questions. Before I take a test, I try to estimate how long I have to complete certain sections. I put a watch on my wrist and keep track of the time when I take tests that don't have special security requirements.

Many of the major tests have a lot of study guides and practice material available. Look at online study guides like Sparknotes while you're learning a concept and for review before a test, but make sure that you prioritize what you were taught by the teacher in class.

As many people have said, school can be a very different environment from a job. I did extremely well in my preparatory coursework to become a teacher, but I wasn't ultimately recommended for teaching because I had anxiety issues during student teaching and weak classroom management skills. I can test well and do well in school because I have a good memory and strong writing skills, but I also have weaknesses that can impair my ability to succeed in some jobs.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

Yep, this has been a problem all my life and I can't wait to leave academia! I really enjoy studying and learning but the tests frsutrate me SOOO much! I do so much work, I study hard, often doing more than what is necessary, read all the material, do homework, attend classes, go through everything making sure I understand it and can TEACH it to others. Yet I always score badly in tests. I run out of time and panic. I feel like I should be on a First but am on a 2:1 - and that's only just! I don't get why I go so wrong. I'm usually fine in longer tests and coursework but the short tests drain me. And the problem is the way the tests are set up and the questions asked are not possible to answer in the time given. I feel so worthless even though I know (and indeed my tutors know) that I'm a good student. I don't spend any time socialising, any spare time I get I play video games or go back home for the weekends. It's such a horrible feeling - as if your whole life is falling apart just because of one stupid test - and this is worse when it happens regularly. I have always had this problem, what's worse I often do better in tests that I study less for and worse in ones which I try really hard and understand everything! It's definitely not a lame excuse, I can vouch for that. I'm glad I'm not the only one


----------



## birdsintrees (Aug 20, 2012)

I had this issue throughout uni. In class I would do really well, contribute to discussions and have a really good grasp of the material.. and then when the actual exam came along it just wouldn't translate to paper very well and I would score significantly lower than me or the professor would've expected. 

Although I really hated the team based project work of my early years in uni, that was the time I excelled with my grades most because the grade would be determined over a longer period of time and based on a broader scope rather than just a snapshot exam in a pressured environment.

Taking tests is a skill that you can practice. It's usually not the knowledge that's the issue, it's the skill of being able to answer the question the way that the examiner wants to see it answered. Doing lots of test exams leading up to the actual exam can definitely help improve your performance.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Well just think about how stress of exams can affect certain people and you'll have your answer! I sometimes black out, especially when it comes to oral exams, even if my understanding of the subject is great!


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Have you ever seen your tests? If you can't score above a certain grade and you don't know what you did wrong it's no wonder you're not getting better. Even if your mistakes are about how you present your answers and typical stuff like that.


----------



## Ode to Trees (Aug 25, 2011)

No, it is not just a thing that 'dumb' people say.

I have students who know the answers to the same questions before the test, and they manage to get a bad grade on the test. It is baffling to me especially when I know they do not have any test anxiety. On the other side, some are very good test takers and do well on the test despite the fact that they do not know the topic/topics tested. They are good guessers. That is why I avoid giving multiple choice questions. Yes, there is a such a thing as test anxiety as well as a lack of focus while testing. Some are rushing to have a test done asap, which is always in my experience a bad choice. Others have problem with the test-taking skills. Too much time is spent on the difficult questions instead of focusing on easier questions first. There are usually two answers that are close to each other, and the other two that do not make any sense (at least when I was a student, my instructors where giving those kind of responses to questions). Short answer or essay response items usually do better job in distinguishing how someone understands the topic tested.
It happened to me that I would pull overnighters before a test; however, during the timed tests, the questions would become blurry, and for moment or few I could not see anything due to exhaustion. Good sleep before the test is important, and later I learned that there should be always a few days before an instructor completes a chapter and gives a quiz on it. Students need some time to process thought information before a quiz is given. That is for those who care to study.


----------



## Actvscenei (Jul 10, 2014)

As a high school teacher, I have very strong beliefs on this subject. Testing students is meaningless...unless you're testing skills in hacking a system. It does not measure what is learned in material, it measures abilities in figuring out the "politics" in test taking. If you aren't reporting high scores, you are not "dumb." Intelligence isn't something that, I believe, can be figured out through exams (especially ones given in high school). Let me explain why:

1) Test anxiety is the most common factor. It's like stage fright. It doesn't happen to everyone, but those who believe they can't do well on tests will more likely turn up poor results because that way of thought generates this anxiety. You don't need to be physically freaking out to have test anxiety - it can purely be a mental, subconscious, filter. Some students are given quieter spaces, different room settings, familiar proctors, and other accommodations, but I'm not sure that *really* helps all of the time. In a few cases, maybe. 

2) Life factors are always to consider. One day a student may be SO ready to take a test. Whether there is a test or not. The cognitive ability is there because the student is just in that mental state of mind. Another day, it may be completely gone for whatever reason. Sleep, stressors, preoccupying thoughts, or even just a lack of the mood. 

3) Multiple choice is a guessing game. Sure, some students will likely know the answers, some maybe not (it's for people who are good at educated guesses, process of elimination, or memorization). It doesn't test intelligence at all. It's trivia. You shouldn't feel bad if you don't do well on multiple choice. I NEVER give my students multiple choice questions. 

4) Open response questions/essays are better at testing level of skills, but still not intelligence. Can a student write a paragraph successfully? Has the student answered the prompt? Can the student introduce an idea, defend an idea, and conclude an idea? Does the student know how to use evidence effectively? That's what open responses and essays can test (basically). Anything else is, again, trivia in content. It does not test your intelligence. Failing this does not mean you're "dumb." It means you need practice in those specific skills. 

If a student fails a test, I look at why. How was the student feeling that day? What was the environment like? How does this student do on daily work/assignments? 

The state tells me I must test my students. My district tells me I must give district based assessments. So I do. But what I really test my students with are unit projects, varieties of creative work, logic work, critical thinking, and writing prompts (both analytical and creative). I had one student who failed at writing decent open responses; however, this kid wrote incredible creative stories. He had paragraphs, evidence of progressive thoughts, an intro and conclusion, and it was well written. The problem is this...so many students feel they must perform a certain way on tests. Their voice changes, their thoughts change, their way of understanding education changes because they feel if they don't perform to this very specific standard, they're "dumb." It the hardest thing to teach students....this idea that tests and grades don't measure intelligence, but it's what they really need to know most sometimes. 

Earlier in this post I mentioned "hacking the system." Students who can do very well on tests are those who have mastered the ability to figure out what the scorer is looking for. They realize it's less about proving what you know, and more about how that knowledge is presented. I've seen many intelligent students fail exams over and over again because based on rubrics, I can't score what they know, but rather how they are showing me what they know. 

I want to be clear: there are some skills you need for real life. You must be able to problem solve, defend, and analyze - no matter what field you want to enter. If that's where you're having difficulty, I would recommend seeking extra help. The sad truth, also, is that you do need to do well on tests in order to do well in school. The advice I always give my students before a test is don't study. So many students cram and spend all this time trying to memorize information which actually hinders the brain from remembering the long term stuff and focusing only on short term stuff. You need to trust that your teacher has taught you what you needed to know. The more open you keep your brain, the easier it will be to recall that long term information. Many students find this method helpful. 

You're not "dumb." And the better term to use over "retarded classes" is special education. I hope this helps!


----------



## AliceKettle (Feb 2, 2014)

I'm not usually a great test taker, but I know people who are generally great test-takers say that they are a big load of BS. 
Think about it, why do humans, the most complex and free-thinking organisms on the planet, have to be DEFINED by a number/percentage on a piece of paper? There's so much more going on within a human's mind than the questions on a standardized test can tell. I think that tests are a horrible way to measure people. As a matter of fact, why measure a human's intellectual capacity at all? someone is mentally impaired it will be obvious eventually through their behavior. However, for the seemingly normal crowd standardized tests only act as ego boosters or a reason to not work as hard for those who score high on them, and as a destroyer of self-esteem for those who have been unfairly tested (those with neurological disabilities, learning disabilities, communication difficulties, and cultural differences).


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

I think understanding concepts differ from remembering facts or equations. Tests in high school, for me, generally succumbed to memorization. In college, however, I have noticed that tests are geared more towards understanding and applying concepts. 

This notion of being a bad test taker is more about anxiety than anything else. If someone understands the concept behind a mathematical principle, then that person should be capable of learning the equations, facts, and ultimately get the answers to the test questions. The only things I can think of in understanding the subjects, but do poorly on the exams would be either inefficient studying or nervousness. Other than that, if you truly understand economics, then doing well on a test should be as simple as correct preparation. In saying this, I think I could fail my economics class if I take it again next semester despite getting an A in the class. This is due, in my estimation, to not remembering fine details and facts. I still understand concepts, so I could easily study and get good grades based off of the test material. 

Does this prove tests are bad indicators? That's a different debate.


----------



## HowDareThey (Dec 31, 2010)

Do you have any theory as to your poor marks? If you like the topic, what do you think the obstacle is to getting better grades? Is it due to answering questions wrong on tests? Or do you have to write papers, and you are marked poorly on papers? Or do you have to give peresentations?


----------



## witchy_fingers (Dec 2, 2014)

It's nice that you have such a broad knowledge of those subjects, but are you actually studying the specific material taught in class? How can you expect your mind to figure out a problem if it does not have the appropriate references? Tests are fairly straightforward. If you think they aren't, make an effort to learn principles inside and out. Is the problem that you forget the information? Do you make mistakes because you are not careful, or does your mind race under pressure? If the reason is anxiety-related, I would speak to a guidance counselor or your teacher, who might be able to accommodate you. I was always an extremely slow test-taker, especially when it came to essays, but when I had more sympathetic teachers, it made the difference between pulling an F or an A. You may also be overloading your brain with too many new concepts and are misapplying/confusing self-taught information with what you're learning in school because you do not have a solid understanding of it yet.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Tests in public school are a joke.


----------



## rhoynarqueen (Dec 12, 2014)

I test unreasonably well. I got a 5/5 on the AP US History exam. I slacked off all year, clashed with the teacher, did no work, and my studying only consisted of reading wikipedia articles about oldies musicians and watching all of the Doctor Who episodes that took place in America. Most of the class, that worked much harder than me, failed the AP exam. 

Though, teachers need to be very clear with me as to what they want. I write very concise, to-the-point answers to essay questions. Most profs like that. One prof wanted me to ramble, and "implied" all sorts of sub-parts to his test questions that weren't even hinted at in the questions themselves. I only got a C- in that class.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

People who dont test well are generally dumb, yes. Having read the material is not the important thing, it is understanding it. Tests test understanding, generally, not "having read the text".

So yeah, you are probably dumber than you think you are.


----------



## witchy_fingers (Dec 2, 2014)

10050101 said:


> People who dont test well are generally dumb, yes. Having read the material is not the important thing, it is understanding it. Tests test understanding, generally, not "having read the text".
> 
> So yeah, you are probably dumber than you think you are.


I'm sorry, but I have to object to your harsh judgment of poor test-takers. While you seem to be narrow-minded when it comes to the potential reasons why a person might not do well on tests, I will play by your rules. Although comprehension may come more effortlessly to some people who feel less of a need to study, calling someone "dumb" is extremely limiting to that person. It is not only counterproductive, but inaccurate. In the majority of situations in which people study and fail, it's not because they lack the capacity to understand. Usually, they are just not receptive to the information because they are unfocused and unmotivated to learn. They acquire a superficial understanding of the lesson, but then come test time, they realize they have overlooked a small yet crucial detail that winds up being fatal to their grade. Some people do not engage their brains at all and just rely on memorization to slip by because they simply don't care. After more exposure/practice with the material, along with having it explained step by step and in different ways if need be (that's what the internet is for), the average brain will begin to grasp the patterns. Time, effort, and motivation are key to surmounting obstacles and becoming successful.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

witchy_fingers said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to object to your harsh judgment of poor test-takers. While you seem to be narrow-minded when it comes to the potential reasons a person may not do well on tests, I will play by your rules. Although comprehension may come more effortlessly to some people who feel less of a need to study, calling someone "dumb" is extremely limiting to that person. It is not only counterproductive, but inaccurate. In the majority of situations in which people study and fail, it's not because they lack the capacity to understand. Usually, they are just not receptive because they are unfocused and unmotivated to learn. They acquire a superficial understanding of the lesson, but then come test time, they realize they have overlooked a small yet crucial detail that winds up being fatal to their grade. Some people do not engage their brains at all and just rely on memorization to slip by because they simply don't care. After more exposure/practice with the material, along with having it explained to you step by step and in different ways if need be (that's what the internet is for), the average brain will begin to grasp the patterns. Time, work, and motivation are key to being successful.


Ok, so i think you are confusing people who do not do well on (a) test(s) with people who don't test well. People who don't test well are the students who in spite of actually making an effort perform worse than what one would expect given their level of effort. People who do not do well on tests are simply people who get a poor grade. The discussion wasn't about them though, it was about simply being bad at test taking. 

I agree with you that most people who get bad marks are simply not motivated enough to study properly. But some? They're just dumb. I went to college for engineering. Some of my peers barely studied and got As, some had to fight hard for a B, even though they actually "knew" the material. Usually it was because though they knew the material, they simply lacked the capacity to "do" something with it. Rote learning? Sure, that they can do. But actually applying the knowledge? Nope, they're too dumb.


----------



## witchy_fingers (Dec 2, 2014)

10050101 said:


> Ok, so i think you are confusing people who do not do well on (a) test(s) with people who don't test well. People who don't test well are the students who in spite of actually making an effort perform worse than what one would expect given their level of effort. People who do not do well on tests are simply people who get a poor grade. The discussion wasn't about them though, it was about simply being bad at test taking.
> 
> I agree with you that most people who get bad marks are simply not motivated enough to study properly. But some? They're just dumb. I went to college for engineering. Some of my peers barely studied and got As, some had to fight hard for a B, even though they actually "knew" the material. Usually it was because though they knew the material, they simply lacked the capacity to "do" something with it. Rote learning? Sure, that they can do. But actually applying the knowledge? Nope, they're too dumb.


Maybe I'm just being too optimistic, but I see it like becoming skilled at chess. Strategic thinking may not be a person's forte, but when you research different strategies or are caught off guard by others' tactics, you can begin to train yourself to think like them and gain experiential foresight. Sometimes people fail because they do not give the right _types_ of answers or don't address the question within the question. One can be made aware of these things and learn _how _to respond on tests and what questions to ask _themselves_. It may not be original, but I feel that if you are shown the different methods, you should be able to make the connection and apply them appropriately to situations based on certain criteria and knowledge of patterns. Then again, I never studied engineering, so for all I know, you could have a point. I still have a hard time believing that OP is incapable of passing her courses, which don't seem particularly challenging, even if she doesn't receive straight As.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

some people are practical, they are better with hands on stuff. also there are those people feel stressed under test enviroments and go nuts xD


----------



## S33K3RZ (Oct 18, 2014)

laura palmer said:


> Can any one relate? I feel like people who say "they dont test well" are usually dumb, but I know I am not that dumb.


Yes it is a real thing and I identify with that strongly.

Some people say you need to learn for the test, and to that I would agree only to the extent that you get a 'C' in the class. Standardized tests are basically worthless in your life.. you won't remember that material the summer after you complete the course. On the other hand learning how to learn matters as much as catching the important things in class. No matter what you do you will not remember everything, so just learn the important things and then the minimal things you need to pass the test; that is my advice. Public education is pretty terrible in the USA especially after the implementation of common core. You can't count on getting an education from school any more, and probably not even from universities in the near future. Most of how much you learn will depend on you alone, yet involvement and modeling from your parents at a young age is critical to making it easier.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

witchy_fingers said:


> Maybe I'm just being too optimistic, but I see it like becoming skilled at chess. Strategic thinking may not be a person's forte, but when you research different strategies or are caught off guard by others' tactics, you can begin to train yourself to think like them and gain experiential foresight. Sometimes people fail because they do not give the right _types_ of answers or don't address the question within the question. One can be made aware of these things and learn _how _to respond on tests and what questions to ask _themselves_. It may not be original, but I feel that if you are shown the different methods, you should be able to make the connection and apply them appropriately to situations based on certain criteria and knowledge of patterns. Then again, I never studied engineering, so for all I know, you could have a point. I still have a hard time believing that OP is incapable of passing her courses, which don't seem particularly challenging, even if she doesn't receive straight As.


But this is exactly what i am talking about. Smart people intuitively see what the question is actually about. People who are bad at taking tests though? They don't. They misinterpret, see ambiguity where there is none. Yes, taking tests is a skill. People who are bad at tests are the people who lack aptitude for that skill. However i do agree that most people can learn how to do it. I am convinced that most people of at least average intelligence can get through most courses of study. But excel? Hell no. I too think OP should be capable of passing, but it might just be that OP is incapable of actually doing well. 

I mean that's just the harsh reality of life. Some people are born with an aptitude for academics, and some are not. That aptitude is mostly intelligence, as in the intelligence that is measured in IQ tests and commonly referred to as "g".


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Coming from the other side...

I test well. It's definitely a thing. Testing well doesn't mean you're smarter all around... It doesn't mean you know more... It doesn't mean you're going to perform better IRL... It doesn't mean you have more potential. It just means you have some bizarre innate skill for picking up on what a test is asking for and delivering that. It is useful in producing good test scores and... Producing good test scores. Woo!

Please don't think I'm bragging - it has its moments, but it also has its downsides. I had shit study habits until I was a post-bac. Learning how to most effectively acquire and retain information for longterm holistic comprehension is a very different and far, far more important skill, and not the kind of thing I recommend putting off until you're 25. Someday you reach the point where you want the knowledge because you actually want to use the knowledge, and that's where "testing well" rears its ugly side. Surprise, you passed your last exam with flying colors yet aren't really sure you know what you're talking about. That's not the person I want being my instructor, mechanic, pilot, athletic trainer, financial planner, architect, counselor, or attorney, and god forbid that person is my surgeon. And that's not the person I aspire to be myself.

As for poor test-takers - my mom always said she was a bad test-taker, that the stress got to her so much it made it hard for her to focus. Crazy to me because she's so detail-attentive, has a great memory, and is excellent at applying knowledge. She produces tangible results of her applied knowledge daily with excellent reliability. No way she is significantly lacking in intelligence or learning ability.

I say BS to the idea that test performance is positively correlated to holistic intelligence and/or applied performance.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

If I am given choice between oral exam and written test, I would always take oral.

For me it is:
test - finds out questions/facts you don't exactly know
oral - finds how much you know know about a domain and how you can think about he problems

Being a guy with preference for logic, I was always quite lazy to memorize everything. I prefer to understand principles, memorize basics and then use deduction to fill gaps. I could also use the interaction and show that I could get it right with just a little hint, or expand my answer if needed. 
I guess people with good memory and bad understanding of topic have their preference opposite.

I don't recall ever failing at oral exam in university, but I failed a couple of tests. Sometimes I barely passed test to get to the oral exam and then got A.


----------



## marbleous (Feb 21, 2014)

Tests actually do have a lot of merit in gauging ability, especially in the region with the highest percentiles.



DiamondDays said:


> I agree with you that most people who get bad marks are simply not motivated enough to study properly. I went to college for engineering. Some of my peers barely studied and got As, some had to fight hard for a B, even though they actually "knew" the material. Usually it was because though they knew the material, they simply lacked the capacity to "do" something with it. Rote learning? Sure, that they can do. But actually applying the knowledge?
> 
> But this is exactly what i am talking about. Smart people intuitively see what the question is actually about. People who are bad at taking tests though? They don't. They misinterpret, see ambiguity where there is none. Yes, taking tests is a skill. People who are bad at tests are the people who lack aptitude for that skill. However i do agree that most people can learn how to do it. I am convinced that most people of at least average intelligence can get through most courses of study. But excel? Hell no. I too think OP should be capable of passing
> 
> I mean that's just the harsh reality of life. Some people are born with an aptitude for academics, and some are not.


My experience has been much the same as this^ to be honest. 

In my major (math-based), while you can break into the above average region with hard work, there is always a small group at the very top that are mostly "untouchable" with hard work alone (unless the test is easier ). A few of my friends are in the top 1% of the class (top 1 and 2 actually!) and test extremely well. The solo "curve-breakers." The anonymous of everyone's testing angst. It is very obvious that they have superb intelligence with technical subjects, they see things with much more clarity than others and are hyper-focused. (They also don't have great social skills...)

Also, the number of students in my classes are small (10-40 students) so you can pretty much figure out other people's ranks. (non-competitive though). Most people are in the same rank group in every class, with some rising and falling of a few ranks which can be attributed to hard work put into that class. Thus, everyone has their own unique level of intelligence lol. Not all brains are made equal.

It is important to note that math-based subjects tend to be more application-based. These tests commonly ask you to analyze situations you have never seen before. We get to use crib sheets with every formula on them and don't really need to remember anything concrete! (although my 1% friend argues that crib sheets are just a crutch and that we shouldn't use them). I have taken 2 tests that were open notes, open book, open laptop. Also every test is curved. That is because the difficulty comes from recognizing the situation correctly and understanding how the formulas work. Other subjects are based more on ability to memorize and retain. I believe excellence in these subjects are more attainable through hard work alone. One that comes to mind is medicine.

------
That said, not testing well is definitely a thing as far as nervousness is concerned. Confidence is the cure to nervousness. Yet confidence comes from good results, and results depend on the goal. Perhaps the goal should not be to achieve a high score, but a more manageable goal, like getting 6% better on a test, passing the class (as opposed to excelling), learning information you can use in Life, and/or increasing the amount of time you study by 30 minutes per day. Goals should not be set too high. They should be attainable, right? lol High expectations impede performance (for most), and comparing yourself to others creates such feeble confidence that is begging to be broken. Rather, have low expectations for how you do and then be pleasantly surprised. I learned this the hard way! XD Don't waste your time being unhappy if you tried really hard! (Motivational pep talks I have learned to give myself throughout college.)


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

DiamondDays said:


> Smart people intuitively see what the question is actually about. People who are bad at taking tests though? They don't. They misinterpret, see ambiguity where there is none.


Well, that depends on quality of the test. I have seen too many tests with ambiguous questions. Then you have to guess in which context it was meant.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

SilverFalcon said:


> Well, that depends on quality of the test. I have seen too many tests with ambiguous questions. Then you have to guess in which context it was meant.


I guess that is possible, but during my 6 years as a college student and during my master i rarely if ever came across a question that was actually ambiguous, when i knew the material well.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

DiamondDays said:


> I guess that is possible, but during my 6 years as a college student and during my master i rarely if ever came across a question that was actually ambiguous, when i knew the material well.


Knew the material by author of the test or knew the topic of the test deeply from various sources?


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

SilverFalcon said:


> Knew the material by author of the test or knew the topic of the test deeply from various sources?


Well, various sources as in the litterature used as course litterature. Which was generally a buttload more than what was tested for.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Probably what I'm about to say has been said a dozen times over, _buuut_

There's a different between the type of intelligence focused on in education and in schools, and what's actually applied outside of school. Some people are hands on, some people prefer the arts, some prefer working with just Technology (computers, etc) and excel in some areas, yet fail in others. I never did well in school when I actually attended, but I've been told countless times by others when I told them that I'd never attended middle or high school that I'm oddly 'intelligent' for my lack of education.

lmao, whatever that means. I'm currently working on getting my GED, but not being in school really only deprived me of social interaction, public speaking skills and organizational skills. Everything I'm learning (mathematics, science, history) I can learn with [more or less] ease. I've zoomed through 5th-8th grade level Math within the span of like 1-2 months of moderate study sessions. 

People assume there's this one definition of intelligence, and it's usually based around Math and the general schooling system's method of education.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Definitely a real thing.

I got a fairly inflated score on my SAT because I was overly calm at the time, thinking I would be taking it just as practice. I feel it allowed me to function a bit better than most students in that context.

My friend, who was always a better student than me (the type that got 5's on all her AP classes), never got above average on the SAT because of her bad nerves. She generally did better on school tests because they were less important than the actual SAT.

It's worth noting that while she refers to herself as a "bad tester", she was the reason I didn't fail my junior year of high school. Definitely not a "dumb person".


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Metasentient said:


> Definitely a real thing.
> 
> I got a fairly inflated score on my SAT because I was overly calm at the time, thinking I would be taking it just as practice. I feel it allowed me to function a bit better than most students in that context.


"Inflated" is a strange way of saying that you were able to perform to the best of your ability.

I think that is the part we need to unravel - the performance aspect vs underlying ability or knowledge.

There are some fields, e.g. performance arts, sports where if you can't perform, you can't succeed. In those fields, you won't always have a great day and part of the skill is knowing how to fail gracefully.

But performance on a test is not the same as performance in whatever field you are studying, and performance failure on a test doesn't necessarily lead to failure in practise.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Snowy Leopard said:


> "Inflated" is a strange way of saying that you were able to perform to the best of your ability.
> 
> I think that is the part we need to unravel - the performance aspect vs underlying ability or knowledge.
> 
> ...


I meant "inflated" as compared to what it would have been under normal test conditions, in which that particular score will presumably be the one I would submit. But I understand your point.

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a way around standardized testing - they have to somehow enforce academic standards, and can you imagine what a mess it would be if we were to make all of them ambiguous? As I understand, that was the reason they implemented Regents/SAT's in the first place; because the schools' own systems of grading were unreliable, especially in terms of gauging national ability. 

Many European and Asian countries have outstanding systems of education, but I'm also not seeing a way to implement them without addressing our myriad of national issues first. Fixing the disease first instead of just the symptom.

Probably not what you had in mind, but what you are talking about reminds me of fluid intelligence vs. crystallized intelligence, at least in terms of mental ability.


----------



## zpsych (Jan 28, 2015)

Mmm...


----------



## BlabbermouthZ (Jan 29, 2015)

It is not really about dumb people. Some are really smart people but a lot of factors affect them. 

Educational system, which at times focus too much on facts and details, put at a disadvantage people who are more into understanding the concepts and produce a story out of such. There have been occasions that I had low exam scores for I cannot pay attention into detail.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

I truly believe in this following clip:






If you understand the material, I mean truly understand it, not be able to bullshit your way through it, there is NO reason why you shouldn't do well on a test about it. If you're "nervous" it means that you aren't yet confident because you don't actually understand the material, and you know that to be true deep down.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

You can be very intelligent, but test or score poorly because you don't study and aren't organized.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Cesspool said:


> I truly believe in this following clip:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's simply not true. Some people get extremely nervous under pressure and can't focus on anything until they calm down.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Such people don't deserve to work a job that has pressure - I.E they don't deserve whatever job they would get once they get their degree.

If you're going to crack under the pressure of a test, then you do not deserve to be a surgeon, or a lawyer, or an engineer, or a scientist, or a businessman, or any other job that actually will effect other people if you make a mistake. These jobs have WAY more pressure than any test. 

A surgeon can mess up and kill their patient.
A lawyer can mess up and cost their client millions (this isn't counting a public defense attorney, which could potentially cost an innocent person their life).
An engineer can make a miscalculation and kill dozens of people (Like the Santiago de Compostela train crash).
A scientist can do the same as an engineer.
A businessperson can mess up and cost their company millions of dollars. 
The list can keep going but it doesn't matter.

For most of these jobs, you don't get a chance to calm down.


----------

