Standardized testing--good, bad, or...?

• What purpose should standardized tests have?

Depends on the purpose of learning. Is the purpose to learn to be something quantified and easily measurable or is the purpose to learn to support creativity and critical thinking? Standardized tests provide with the former but not necessarily the latter. If they did the latter, they would not be considered standardized, since there would be no way you could compare test results across platforms. You know, I recall sitting a standardised test that was meant to see which children were particularly gifted, to allow them to engage in special programs that the schools were running. Most of test questions were the usual kind of stuff, like the IQ test style mathematical Q's, where all students would be given a limited amount of time to figure out which object out of five was different if you were to rotate them, stuff like that. But then there was also a question where we were given a number of half-completed shapes on a page, and asked to draw, to turn them into objects however we liked. I recall I turned them into Pokemon and may or may not have scored well as a result I recall for the final section, we were asked to write a short story, and where probably graded on how creative we were. Other standardized tests, however, would purely test maths, science, or literary skills. So really: it depends what you want to test. A kid could go through their whole schooling life thinking that they're an idiot if they were only ever given one kind of test, when they could have gone well in another. If a kid were to flunk the test I just described though, they'd know themselves to not be much of an all-rounder.

• How fair is standardized testing?

What is fair? See the above. Standardized tests assume that we are all equally good at the same thing or possess knowledge and the capability to do the same thing equally well, and if we don't, this ability can be practiced. I am not so sure this is the case. I am going to cross-reference to the MBTI system because this highlights what I am trying to say quite well. When it comes to standardized tests, the STJ types and to a degree NTJ types will most likely have the easiest time scoring well. NTPs, especially ENTPs, can probably wiggle their way around with dominant Ne intuiting the right answer. For me being an INTP however, I find standardized tests awful. They do not show my real strength as a person, as they force me to engage with functions that are not my dominant ones (Si and Te compared to Ne and Ti). Give me a problem that I must sovle and I will do it. I will provide with an extremely rational line of reasoning why my solution is the best, but trying to remember the different cities in Argentina will never work for me. Si is not one of my stronger functions. Do note that the STJ will have problems with tests that require independent and critical thinking though, while this is my personal forte.

This is why standardized tests cannot be fair because it ignores that people have different strengths and weaknesses.

I can see this becoming the most debated point

Here's the thing: if the standardised test was, say, one testing memory, and every kid was given a list of items that they would have 1 minute to look at, and then a following 5 minutes to recall and write down: I wouldn't call that "unfair on the kids with bad memory", because exposing their weakness was the entire point of the exercise. As appallingly mean as that might sound, standardized tests aren't necessarily all about seeing how kids can shine. Aren't they mainly about seeing precisely where they fall down?

I've got no idea how if fit into the MBTI system, but I suppose I can relate to your point. For one thing, people in our culture who've learnt all manner of unnecessary facts might seem smart, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. I'd like to say that anyone is capable of gaining general knowledge, and the ones who have gone ahead and overdone it probably aren't the brightest, because no one needs to know all the names of the different rivers in Australia

But on a more personal note, the kinds of questions that get to me are the kind found in IQ tests. Never actually sat one, but you know the kind. They all strike me as purely mathematical. In trying to answer them, I noticed that all the questions were forcing me to use a part of my brain that I never use, which I call "my mathematical part". At no point was I able to draw upon other parts of my brain or knowledge to answer them. But worst of all, I realized that IQ tests are like a kind of game where, once you have the language of how they work down pat, you'll know how to play it and score well. But I don't know the language. I don't know the rules of the game. I'm fantastic in my own habitus where I know precisely what is expected (in the same way I'm sure you know exactly what to do to excel in anthropology) but I'd have to take some time to learn how to go well at the IQ-style Q's. Currently, I'd flunk. Get a perfect zero. But maybe I'm not going to say that's unfair. The kids who managed to learn what to do early on probably deserve their good marks. It only becomes unfair when someone undeserving get the label of "retard" or "genius" pegged on to them later. It's unfair if our culture only places value on one kind of intellectual ability

Source: http://bleachasylum.com/threads/21252-Standardized-testing-good-bad-or...

iowa caucus results sickle cell trait michigan football michigan football sugar bowl mild kidney failure presidential candidates