www.ditl.org

Tests that are, I might add, utterly useless for anything except giving various governments something to brag about, and are one of the main reasons why schools teach pupils how to pass tests rather than actually knowing the subject matter.

Well i'll always be against them. But thats because i have to take them

SATs (and GCSEs to an extent), were the most worthless thing I've ever done. If I'd have known now what I knew then, I wouldn't have turned up to most of them and just got my required 5 Cs to get into the best 6th form in the country.

GCSE's i can live with. SAT's are pointless.

Reliant121 wrote:SAT's are pointless.

Not quite pointless - they allow Labour and the Tories to throw statistics at each other.

As i said, Useless .

I'm not sure what country you're in reliant, or exactly what test you're taking.

But don't screw around with the PSAT/NMSQT. They didn't hype the PSAT at my HS when I took it, but then it turns out I was just a couple points shy of getting a national merit full ride scholarship through college!

That woulda been a lotta money. I suppose at least I got an honorable mention certificate I could toss on my resume, scholarship applications, and college applications. So it might have still netted me a couple grand, or at least helped, though my actual ACT test scores probably had more to do with that.

And my GRE scores probably had a lot to do with the government funding I bagged as a grad student.

Anyway the point is you can laugh at whether the tests reflect reality or whatever. But take them seriously, because they can make a big difference to your pocketbook and future.

sunnyside wrote:I'm not sure what country you're in reliant, or exactly what test you're taking.

But don't screw around with the PSAT/NMSQT. They didn't hype the PSAT at my HS when I took it, but then it turns out I was just a couple points shy of getting a national merit full ride scholarship through college!

That woulda been a lotta money. I suppose at least I got an honorable mention certificate I could toss on my resume, scholarship applications, and college applications. So it might have still netted me a couple grand, or at least helped, though my actual ACT test scores probably had more to do with that.

And my GRE scores probably had a lot to do with the government funding I bagged as a grad student.

Anyway the point is you can laugh at whether the tests reflect reality or whatever. But take them seriously, because they can make a big difference to your pocketbook and future.

I understood 0% of that. Reliant is from the UK, and SATs are tests for 13/14 year olds.

Reliant, ignore everything sunnyside just said, don't take SATs seriously - don't bother wasting your time with them. As long as you know the stuff (for SATs at least), don't worry about the 'tests'.

Ah, it sounds like SATs are tests on both sides of the pond, but are very different over here, which is what threw me off. I thought maybe that was the case.

Checking a quick google search it looks like British SAT tests are all sorts of silly. Would it even hurt you to protest them by getting everything wrong?

Strangely, through years of US films and TV programs I know what US SAT tests are. I'd never heard of them in a British context. The education system seems to evolved a bewildering number of new tests and qualifications in the 15 years since I left school. Even today we seem to got a new one, with these MacDonald's A levels. From what I heard on the radio, I might as well burn my bloody A levels as they've just been rendered worthless.

sunnyside wrote:Would it even hurt you to protest them by getting everything wrong?

Not at all. As I said, that is precisely what I would have done (scarce of turning up at all), had I known then what I know now. In fact, in protest of one of my exams now, I purposefully put stupid and wrong answers ('General Studies' A Level, if anyone cares). For example, an essay question about politics and nuclear deterrant, 'how justified is this statement'. My response was 'very' - this was worth 50% of the exam
If you're wondering why, it's because it's not a proper exam, and 99% of universities don't accept it is a real qualification.

sunnyside wrote:Would it even hurt you to protest them by getting everything wrong?

Not at all. As I said, that is precisely what I would have done (scarce of turning up at all), had I known then what I know now. In fact, in protest of one of my exams now, I purposefully put stupid and wrong answers ('General Studies' A Level, if anyone cares). For example, an essay question about politics and nuclear deterrant, 'how justified is this statement'. My response was 'very' - this was worth 50% of the exam
If you're wondering why, it's because, regardless of what teachers tell you (it is a forced A-Level), 99% of universities don't accept it is a real qualification. Why? Because it is learned in literally 10% of the time of the other qualifications, yet is suppose to be worth as much as them.

Wow. In the US, Scholastic Aptitude Tests are one of the primary factors on which college applicants are judged. They are normally taken in the junior (third) year of high school, but thanks to a program offered through Johns Hopkins University I was afforded the opportunity to take them beginning in seventh grade (four years early) which practice helped quite a bit.

Man... reading that brings me back. I'm glad my test-taking and school days are over.

Farking masters thesis... comparing the ideals of constructivist teaching to the realities of being a young teacher in the classroom. Fascinating stuff. Pain to write.