graduate collegeget married- get a doctorate
- be a professor
I just do NOT understand the point of standardized tests.
Okay, no. I guess that to some extent, I understand the point. The point is to have one standard test so that all people can be equally measured across the country, so that schools have something to go on as far as a person's intellectual level.
Fair enough. Standards have to happen I suppose. This is America after all. Except that's pretty much where its usefulness ends. Because I don't believe for a second that a standardized, sit-in-a-taupe-colored-air-conditioned-room-and-bring-your-fancy-calculator-just-in-case test is going to portray a person's intellectual level. Their analytical reasoning skills? Sure. But I don't see why schools consider this as a huge part of accepting you or not.
Personal Rant Disclaimers:
a) I want to study English, in which it is hard to pin down qualitative or logical Correct Answers, and not only that, but I want to study Composition and Rhetoric, which is about writing and not even about comprehending and analyzing literature. (comprehending and analyzing life, maybe, but who cares about how well i can do that). So maybe my rant is a little biased in that direction (because I don't know a thing about what it's like to be a business student or whathaveyou).
b) I don't actually know how much schools consider ACT/GRE scores. I know that a lot of program informational things will say how much it is relevant for the program, but nevertheless the school itself requires a certain score in order to be accepted.
c) The FAQ page of the GRE website pretty much says straight-up that they're measuring reasoning skills:
"Does the GRE revised General Test measure knowledge in any specific disciplines? The GRE revised General Test measures your verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, critical thinking and analytical writing skills — skills that have been developed over a long period of time and are not related to a specific field of study but are important for all. The GRE revised General Test features question types that reflect the kind of thinking you'll do — and the skills you need to succeed — in today's demanding graduate and business school programs."Well, good. I'm glad the GRE website knows what skills I'll need to succeed in "today's demanding graduate and business school programs" because I certainly don't. So maybe I should trust them and just learn how to take the damn test.
OR (and here the disclaimers end and my rant continues) I could continue doing what I do, which is think not as though I were programmed to regurgitate The Correct Answers. And to take on each class for what it is, that is, its own individual semester-long experience with different teachers, or even the same teachers with different subject material. When I need to apply my brain in a "qualitative reasoning" direction, I will do so. But I will be greatly affected by varying factors like the professor, or the curriculum, or the time of the year, or work, or my group partners, or whether I'm pregnant at that point, or whether I care enough to get anything higher than a C in that class.
And so someone please tell me why one solitary outside-of-anything-close-to-normal-life test is going to assess a person's actual ability to think qualitatively? Last time I checked, nothing in life can really be singled out and tested without any surrounding factors. Because everything in a person's life is connected by (go figure) that person, and that person is continuously being affected by... something.
And not only that, but (surprise, America!) not all people think equally or in accordance with some kind of standard. And certainly an argument can be made for people all meeting the same standard, because I do actually think that students should be expected to reach a certain standard, and also that said standard should not be lowered just because our kids are getting dumber (I'm going to get in trouble for that one). It's just that this standard is more or less impossible to asses on a national level. Because when the numbers get into the millions (or heck, even if they were just in the hundreds), no one would have the time to meet and talk to a person and figure out their story and how they apply their brain and what have they learned in the last four years of school. That's just... ridiculously impossible. It would be tricky even for 20 students. The fact of the matter is that people all learn differently, and a person's progress cannot be tracked without knowing that actual person. Sally might have made straight As and then gotten a high score on her test, but she hasn't actually improved her mind or really learned anything except how to take a test and how to impress a teacher. Tommy on the other hand might have gone from failing to getting pretty consistent Cs, but he'll get a lower score and Sally will be chosen for the competitive medical program even though Tommy's little sister died of cancer and he wants nothing more than to start researching ways to save other kid's little sisters--
--aaaand breathe wow I just got a little dramatic and carried away just there.
The point is: I don't think it makes sense to require a standard that really doesn't asses anything other than how well you take a test. The study guide section of the GRE website even says that you don't have to know actual information:
"Reading passages are drawn from many different disciplines and sources, so you may encounter material with which you are not familiar. Do not be discouraged if you encounter unfamiliar material; all the questions can be answered on the basis of the information provided in the passage."Well how does that help anybody? Because the kicker, the real actual kicker, is that they already give you the answer. It's either A, B, C, or D, but it's there, and the Gamemakers (whoops sorry, that was a scarily apt Hunger Games reference just there) have already decided which one it is. So I don't even have to learn how to take a test ... I have to learn how to interpret a question that some group of Very Smart People has decided is relevant to my critical thinking skills. I wonder if anyone in that special group of people has a life, let alone a relationship, and what they actually do when they aren't constructing (poorly-written) paragraphs for us poor Tributes to analyze critically but also correctly.
I wonder if I can bypass this torture by writing a very intelligent and well-researched letter to UW-Madison explaining all the reasons I shouldn't have to take the GRE to prove that I would be a worthwhile student.
post script: i know that i'm breaking every single rule about citation with my url-link quotes. i also don't care, because i trust that you'll trust me not to make this shit up, and to be smart enough to find the quote if you care enough to click the link.
Dear Piera,
ReplyDeleteTake the GRE. You want to do English, so screw the Math part. You'll do JUST fine. Besides, its more about the recommendations and your undergrad grades. It's just a hoop. A big flaming hoop. Now, just shut up and drink the kool-aid like the rest of us English Master types did.
Love ya!
Uselton
Mr Uselton! wow! this post blew my mind and made my day at the same time. Thanks for your support and don't worry, I am actually still going to drink the kool-aid, I just really hate grape flavored things.
Deleteps, I still fondly remember that time we ate cheese and strawberries and stuff and then wrote about how the combinations tasted. thanks for that class too
Couldn't agree more with this post. I hate that we have to be enslaved to standardized tests like this. This is one of the primary reasons I'm considering homeschooling -- I don't want my kids to grow up with that pervasive "it's all about the tests" mindset. (Of course, if I homeschool my kids for the next eighteen or so years, that pretty much guarantees that I won't get to grad school anyway, GRE aside. Blah.)
ReplyDeleteActually, the real problem is #4 on your list. There are hundreds of applicants for every post and by the time you qualify the number will have shrunk even further. Having survived a PhD myself, I'd say, don't do it unless you really can't do anything else in your life and be happy; and be prepared not to be a professor at the end of it.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I think you're the first person to ask me, in so many words, if I really want to do what I think I want to do. So thanks for that, because it was nice to realize that for all my indignation, taking the GRE will be worth it. I do passionately want to go back to school, and to teach people (in one capacity or another), and if I have to spend all summer hating everything about the test I'm studying for, then I guess that's how it goes.
DeleteThis is one of those things I wobble back and forth on. I know that when I send my kids to school, there's going to be a flurry of research-doing on my part to figure out which one. Which one will teach them the most? Which one will teach them to think outside the box? Which one will let them be themselves and offer individualized support and assessment?
ReplyDeleteBut then I think, I went to public school and I learned more than I was taught because I like learning. II went to public school and stayed an individual and still think outside the box. And I've learned how to do well on standardized tests (though I really think that's not something that's taught, you just have to have a knack for them and I think also that THAT is the major problem with them, they test your unlearnable knack for taking tests).
ANYWAY, THEN I think that this standardization is something that society, to some extent, expects. As much as we Americans claim to value individuality and so forth, the fact remains that 53% of the population are still line-following SJs (sorry, Babe). You and I (INFPs - I assume, Idk for sure what you are), we're a paltry 5% - and I've seen that number go as low as fractions of a percent. We're already individualistic thinkers-outside-the-box. No one had to teach us to do that, we can't help it. It doesn't matter where we went to school or what standardized tests we can pass, we are who we are regardless.
So then I think, maybe I want to send my kid to public school. Maybe I want him/her to learn how to jump through hoops and keep their head down (when necessary) and be standard, because in the end, they're going to need that skill. There's a time to stand out and shine, and a time to buckle down and do what people expect, even when it's killing you dead inside, and find ways to keep your true self going underneath for when it's best used. Because everyone else went to public school, everyone else just functions this way naturally, everyone else understands and hits this standard, and that's what everyone else is expecting. They're not going to give you individualized attention or understand why you function differently, or appreciate your true value unless you meet their standards first, then work to make your individuality work for you.
Which has not a ton to do with your post, but your musing made me muse.
My point is, just do it. Standardize. Take their stupid test. Kick its ass, and when you come out on the other side of graduate school and they can see you for who you really are, then's the time to kick them in the teeth and say, "This is what I'm capable of."
This is why i appreciate you :)
DeleteAnd also, it is for these reasons that Aaron and I compromised on homsechooling through 8th grade, and then public high school. It IS important to learn how to fit the standard, because that's how the world works. The dangerous side of homeschooling is that kids grow up with a lot of attention and a lot of creative opportunities, and then sometimes they aren't able to understand or then fit in to the "adult" world because they only know how to exist as an individual and not as a part of society. I also think that the choice to homeschool or send to school really has to depend on case-by-case circumstances. Some kids fit better into the structure of school, and some don't. And some parents can provide the right kind of educational setting, and some can't ... so I guess I should say that we're *planning* on this homeschool/high school situation but we have to actually meet our kids before we make actual decisions :P
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf the standards are wrong, but everyone who realizes this just sucks it up and jumps through the stupid hoops to get by, it may help us individually to get jobs, but it doesn't help to change society for the better. There are plenty of "quick" people who figure out how to work the system, but there are also plenty of people with learning disabilities who can't learn how to work the system, and who are marginalized because society teaches us that the standardized way of learning is the only "right" way to learn. Obviously awareness of learning disabilities and special needs has increased over the years, but I think the public (and in most instances, private) school system(s) still actually perpetuate the idea that there's only one right way, and if you don't like it, tough. (In fact, the whole concept that "if you can't learn the way we want you to learn, you must be disabled" is kind of messed up). I don't want my kids to learn how to jump through hoops if it kills their desire to learn how to do other things. They might find out that when they actually have the time to learn independently again, they've lost the knack. Many scientific studies have shown independent learning is a learned behavior which can be gained and lost, not simply a personality trait. (See "Your Brain on Childhood: The Unexpected Side Effects of Classrooms, Ballparks, Family Rooms, and the Minivan" by Gabrielle Principe). I do think there are some people who are naturally more inclined that way. But that does not mean, as it's typically interpreted, that people can't learn how to love learning, that who you are as a learner is set in stone at birth. We're also overlooking the influence parents have on how kids learn to learn. I'd be really curious to know if Linfalas has a parent or parents who are also INFP's, and were encouraging in this way. Positive parental involvement has a huge impact on development, obviously. I'm far more intellectual and "book-smart" than either of my parents (my mom has a learning disability, dad has mild autism, neither of them got higher than a high school degree) but I attribute my "natural" curiosity and drive to learn almost entirely to their influence and encouragement during the first ten years of my life (during which I was home schooled). If they hadn't taught me to see learning as a positive thing and to seek out knowledge, it wouldn't matter how intelligent or gifted I was.
ReplyDeleteThis is why (to add on to my comment on Linfalas' comment) decisions about homeschooling and education kind of do have to be personal, individual. Parents have to know their kids enough to know if they will benefit from independent learning or from structured classwork, and they have to understand that even IF their daughter fits better into a classroom setting, she might face challenges in that setting, and it doesn't necessarily mean that she isn't suited for the classroom after all. Which leads us into a discussion on parenting in general, which is a whole different ball of wax (who even came up with that phrase?!).
DeleteI agree with you about the case by case basis, with the key thing being knowing your kids well. I've known a lot of maladjusted home schooled kids, and have been a maladjusted home schooled kid myself, so I get the dangers of not introducing your kids to the outside world. But I'm also really really frustrated by the kids who seem to function perfectly well within a structured setting, but who aren't actually learning to their full potential in that setting. There's always those people who get straight A's because they're organized and get to class on time and do all their homework, but they have zero interest in engaging in any learning if they know it's not being graded. They play within the rules of the system, and they get rewarded for it, but they aren't actually gaining much. I think those are exactly the kinds of kids who SHOULD be homeschooled, even though outwardly it seems like they're doing just fine. I'm afraid I won't be able to keep my kids from developing this mentality if they're in school, especially because I've had personal experience with losing my love of learning after entering into a structured setting. When I was homeschooled, I loved learning, but I sucked at social interaction with my peers. After being in the school system for a few years, my social skills went up, and my ability/drive to teach myself things went down. I'm still trying to figure out how to go about getting a good balance of the two skills for my own kids. But Phil and I have pretty much decided, like you and Aaron, to give homeschooling through eighth grade a try (I say "try" cause I'm not sure if I'm actually fit to be a teacher; I don't know if I'll even be capable of teaching them anything except literature, and if we have kids with special needs I know I'm not equipped for that) Then we'll give them a choice of public or private high school (assuming/hoping they're actually mature enough to make such a choice). That way they won't have the test mentality forced on them at such a young age.
DeleteThe social interaction angle is always an important one to consider when homeschooling is involved, but the key is to remember that being "socialized" doesn't have to mean "going to a school." I was in rec soccer and girl scouts, i had swim lessons and ballet and youth group, etc, and I think this is a lot of why people are so surprised when I tell them I was homeschooled. I also think it helps to start getting kids involved when they're younger, because being different doesn't matter quite as much when you're little. It was always normal for me to talk about being homeschooled, and it was never "weird," because it had always been that way and it never stopped me from making friends. Plus, on the flip side, there are plenty of people who have been in school their whole lives who are less social than some people, and that might just be their personality.
DeleteMy bio-folks are ENTP and ESFJ, I was raised by two ESFJs. It could be kinda rough, and I cried both when I learned that my best friend's favorite things about me were the things my folks thought were wrong with me, and also when I read up on INFPs and realized that it's a thing, and I'm not deficient. My mum feels bad about the stuff she's realized, like that Introverts aren't really that weird. But yeah, I was raised (by SJs, of course) to fit into the mold. And I never did, and I rebelled against it, and I love the INFP that I am. I think that it's a sort of worship to be the best YOU you can be, since God made you the way you are. Still, I have tremendous trouble at my job because I have trouble with jumping through hoops and fitting into the mold. I try, but I'm never really sure what that mold is. So, clearly, the SJ parents and public schooling didn't end up preparing me for mold-fitting. So maybe I'm wrong about that bit...
DeleteI was also one of those kids who got through school without being terribly engaged, but that was largely because the gifted/talented program at my school sucked, and I have a natural aptitude for standardized tests. So I slacked the entire time. But my mum Loves learning, and instilled that in me, so I read voraciously and learned on my own anyway. My brother seems to be going the same route, though he generally gets better grades than I did. As you two say, it is all about the kid.
Also, there's the whole religious aspect to factor in, and that depends hugely on the kid as well. I found that going to a religious school crippled my faith. I do better in an environment where I have to fight for it, where I'm reminded every day why I need God. So I've always been a big advocate for public school (not only because of that, but because I'm a bit terrified of the bubble-kid mentality. Eew).
DeleteBut my brother hasn't been doing so well. At 14, he still hasn't managed to finish confirmation class, and he's pretty sure he doesn't believe in God. He's not a fighter. He's not stubborn and he has trouble sticking to his guns when he gets attacked. I think a religious school would have been better for him, where his faith could have been nurtured.
(Also, my bf is the most open-minded, egalitarian people I know, and he was a bubble-kid all the way.)
What a mess! There really are very few black-and-whites in this life.