Students who claim to be bad test takers

[jduster]

If a person studies hard (not just attending parties the whole week and then cramming the last day) and is knowledgeable on the subject, they should be a good test taker.

 

[nismaratwork]

When I was a first year, I heard the horror stories about PMSs[*] who'd go out, and attempt to do just that. Those who'd attempt to sink the rest of the class and depress the curve (through checking out and squatting on the only copy of a required library resource, ripping down assignment solutions, or spreading misinformation about assignment due / exam dates) to secure the top end of the curve for themselves, and ensure entrance into med school.

Since I was in engineering (which was nowhere near as competitive), I never saw anything like that, and didn't really hear any first hand stories from my friends in the Arts / Science. Given that, I don't know if there's really anything to the stories (they seemed to always be generational--"My folks / older siblings told me that...") but I always thought that, if the stories were true, these seemingly sociopathic individuals would be the LAST people that should've gone into the field.


[*]Pre-Medicine Student--Even that's pejorative since there's no such programs, and it seems like most of the Science students (at least in first year) are self-declared PMSs.

Whoa... that is... man I hate any form of cheating, or rigging.
I'd add, I remember PMS'... as far as I recall they were the campus booze-hounds. People who actually had a specialty in mind, such as yours truly, majored in something(s) else, and in doing so you cover "pre-med".

Sooooo depressing to see someone passed out in their own vomit and think, "Gee, he'll be my cardiologist some day!"

 

[nismaratwork]

If a person studies hard (not just attending parties the whole week and then cramming the last day) and is knowledgeable on the subject, they should be a good test taker.

I conditionally agree, if you mean "overall"... anyone test may be flubbed due to nerves or other factors such as weariness.

 

[dydxforsn]

People can be good at taking certain tests and bad at others.

I know that I am better at tests in subjects like optics, solid state, or statistical mechanics because I feel like most of the testing involved knowledge rather than rubik's cube solving skills (save doing countless problems beforehand to get ready). I felt like mechanics and electrodynamics devolved/evolved into problem solving skills where you can just show up for a test knowing a list of equations and try your best to "figure out" how to do each problem. There were certain tests in E&M especially where I went over all the HW problems and was thorough in the material yet I just couldn't figure out how to do half the problems on the test. I'm pretty average intelligence, physics expects more though. I feel like studying (a tasteful amount) would be much more effective in a different major (save artistic skills in things like art..) Solving problems using the calculus of variations in mechanics, or certain difficult problems in E&M just felt like rubik's cube's to me (though I may pass up one problem and am able to do a different problem that other students are having trouble with.) I'm a senior now, and sometimes I just feel like I'm being tested all day and have been the last 2 years rather than learning. Course I've been apathetic about school for a year now, it's quite possible that I have a personal problem and am simply not putting in enough to get anything out.. anyway..

Just my experiences, not saying anything I've said should be taken to the bank or anything, but it's my impressions of physics.

Summary: Some might test better than others on particular tests.

 

[AtomicJoe]

I always did well in tests, my course work would usually get fairly poor grades but I usually came top in tests (well in school not university).
I was pretty good as getting to the bones of stuff and that is what comes up in tests. I was also good at memorising stuff. Maths is a good one because you don't need to memorise stuff at all really you just think logically and work it out, however the more advance it is the harder that becomes.
A lot of course work is basically people just copying stuff out of books. I always just concentrated on the 'examinable' stuff, the rest of it was essentially a waste of time, nobody is a walking textbook.

 

[KingNothing]

I think the term gets misused a lot, but it is real. It is a manner of poor performance under high stress, and stress management.

Because it's become such an acceptable quality, people say it all the time. I'd say a large portion (~50-75%, just guessing) of people who say "I'm just bad at tests" really do not prepare properly.

I have always been just the opposite, I perform much better in high stress situations, not just tests but in general.

 

[DrWillVKN]

For me, it's all about reading comprehension (not the SAT kind, but it's related) and checking pages and pages of calculations. When I go from one line to the other and plug in variables from other equations, sometimes I would miss variables because I wrote them too small (because the whole thing is so dense). Or I would glance at a paragraph, and my eyes would jump around and try to speed read the whole thing due to the little time I have, and then miss out on a few important details. All of this is done because I'm forced to rush through a test given how little time I have, whereas if I'm debugging a program or going through a problem at home, I don't rush and will find errors.

But I think, besides bad pacing, that it has more to do with my slow intake of information than anything else. It takes a long time for me to 'click'; I find an error in the calculation, and I estimate it to be around "this" range, but no matter how many times I glance at it, it takes me a while to 'click' and find it. This is why I'm not going to be working in a job that requires me to solve problems extremely fast.

The only thing that keeps me going in life is that eventually, I DO find what's wrong and get the right answer, and that time period, though longer than say 5 minutes (maybe 20-30 minutes), does not come very very late. This information will usually last in my head for a long time, and matures until it can be applied elsewhere. I'm thankful that I am able to understand hard problems in a prolonged, but not THAT prolonged, period of time, as compared to others less fortunate who take even longer than I do.

 

[Geezer]

Do people actually buy into this argument that some students use to explain poor performances on exams? It's always bugged the hell out of me when I hear people say this! Maybe I'm bias, but it sounds like a complete crock of you know what to me!

Documented disabilities are one thing, but beyond that, a tough exam is tough for everybody, either you know the material or you don't!

(end of rant)

I developed HORRIBLE test anxiety as a physics undergrad. In my case, I put so much pressure on myself to do well--I wanted to get into a good grad school, after all--that I started having panic attacks during tests (like, with full-on hyperventilation). But when you're hyperventilating, oxygen isn't getting to your head like it should, and you can't think very well. Consequently, you can bomb tests even if you're well prepared.

Around my junior year I finally sought help. Now, before any test, I pop an Ativan or two (prescribed, of course). Even for the inconsequential tests like the General GRE, I have take something to calm down. Test anxiety really is that bad for me.

 

[Geezer]

I didn't have abnormal amounts of test anxiety, but I hated tests because I was distracted easily, especially in a room full of people.

When I would study, I would sit in a cubical, with earplugs. That was what I needed to focus.

True for me as well. It's been speculated that I have an auditory processing disorder (actually, I'm 99.9% certain I have an auditor processing disorder...I'll share the details, if you want). However, my insurance won't cover testing, and testing costs thousands of bucks. So, it's still officially undiagnosed.

Yes, ear plugs are a must. I also got some commercial-grade earphones that I use when I study. If you can, when you're in lecture, sit against a wall--though one that doesn't have a clock on it (you want to avoid hearing the clock tick)--so that you don't have any students to one side of you. Then also put a single ear plug in the ear that's closest to the wall. If you have dichotic hearing issues like I do, this is a great way to help you understand what's being spoken during lectures.

***

Re: Test issues. My issues aren't limited to aural input. I also have an extremely difficult time processing speech, so most lectures are a complete waste of time. But I also mis-read things--like, it's pretty bad...I have to read, and re-read, and then re-read again, just to make sure I "got" everything correctly--and that impacts my test-taking. On several occasions, I've misinterpreted what a professor was asking for on a test; consequently, I make lots of mistakes that I wouldn't have made if I had read everything correctly.