Things you consider academic dishonesty , but people do all the time?

[Geezer]

I've taught many classes with cheaters, the worst of which being pre-med students, but the most appalling things? Most of them suck at it! They cheat through their teeth but I'm too lazy to call them on it because they STILL come out with a 65%. TAing such courses has definitely crushed what little respect I had for medical doctors. Being a cheater is one thing, being a BAD cheater? That's 10 times worse.

Having TAed, I've come to dread/detest pre-med students. As far as I can tell, it's a pretty universal sentiment among physics grad students.

I was talking with another physics grad student who shared this story: A pre-med came up him, wanting help with his physics homework. Pre-med says, "What's the purpose of the Atwood machine anyway?"

Grad student replies, "To keep people like you out of med school."

 

[Office_Shredder]

Who wants a pile of crap average doctor to treat you?

If you iteratively remove the doctors who are average or worse, you won't have any doctors left...

 

[tedbradly]

If you iteratively remove the doctors who are average or worse, you won't have any doctors left...

I never suggested iteratively 'removing' average and below doctors (remove from what, by the way?). I suggested adding them to a personal blacklist and only using highly qualified ones, which doesn't change the population. It only changes the portion of the population you deem worthy. So no, nothing I've said leads to the removal of all doctors.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I always want to see my doctor's grades. Who wants a pile of crap average doctor to treat you? There's no good way to request it that I know of, though.

People in pre-med have a joke:

"What's the difference between a doctor who graduates with a 51% average and a doctor that graduates with a 90% average? Nothing. They're still a doctor"

Just a little food for thought next time you find yourself in the ER. Med students are assigned btw, via an elaborate algorithm. They're not like interviewed and only the best taken.

 

[JaredJames]

I never suggested iteratively 'removing' average and below doctors (remove from what, by the way?). I suggested adding them to a personal blacklist and only using highly qualified ones, which doesn't change the population. It only changes the portion of the population you deem worthy. So no, nothing I've said leads to the removal of all doctors.

And what about people who aren't good with tests?

There are those out there who are terrible with tests and only come out average or worse, yet when it comes to practical application they are brilliant.

Then you have people who religiously study past papers and learn only what they need to pass an exam. They appear to do fantastically in tests and yet have very limited knowledge with the rest of the subject matter.

I for one know of a number of people who were on my course in university who always did well in exams, yet when it came to using it in real life they were useless. I'm poor at exams and usually come out average, but I'm incredibly strong with practical stuff.

So then you have to question if your ideology on the matter is good or bad. You are going purely on test scores - test scores which simply mean "in those tests this person did well". It doesn't tell you how good they are in the real world. I'm not saying the results are completely useless, but you can't just go on them.

You could have a doctor who knows the subject well but doesn't get good grades due to trouble with exams, and a doctor who simply studied for the exam and only learned what they needed to whilst in training. Which do you want treating you?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

And what about people who aren't good with tests?

There are those out there who are terrible with tests and only come out average or worse, yet when it comes to practical application they are brilliant.

Then you have people who religiously study past papers and learn only what they need to pass an exam. They appear to do fantastically in tests and yet have very limited knowledge with the rest of the subject matter.

I for one know of a number of people who were on my course in university who always did well in exams, yet when it came to using it in real life they were useless. I'm poor at exams and usually come out average, but I'm incredibly strong with practical stuff.

So then you have to question if your ideology on the matter is good or bad. You are going purely on test scores - test scores which simply mean "in those tests this person did well". It doesn't tell you how good they are in the real world. I'm not saying the results are completely useless, but you can't just go on them.

You could have a doctor who knows the subject well but doesn't get good grades due to trouble with exams, and a doctor who simply studied for the exam and only learned what they needed to whilst in training. Which do you want treating you?

Totally agree with this. I'm much worse at exams than I am with anything practical. I constantly wish that I could be graded on how I did in lectures, workshops, seminars etc. There I could contribute much more than just sitting down and answering a set of questions that usually only cover a small fraction of the course.

 

[mege]

And what about people who aren't good with tests?

There are those out there who are terrible with tests and only come out average or worse, yet when it comes to practical application they are brilliant.

Then you have people who religiously study past papers and learn only what they need to pass an exam. They appear to do fantastically in tests and yet have very limited knowledge with the rest of the subject matter.

I for one know of a number of people who were on my course in university who always did well in exams, yet when it came to using it in real life they were useless. I'm poor at exams and usually come out average, but I'm incredibly strong with practical stuff.

So then you have to question if your ideology on the matter is good or bad. You are going purely on test scores - test scores which simply mean "in those tests this person did well". It doesn't tell you how good they are in the real world. I'm not saying the results are completely useless, but you can't just go on them.

You could have a doctor who knows the subject well but doesn't get good grades due to trouble with exams, and a doctor who simply studied for the exam and only learned what they needed to whilst in training. Which do you want treating you?

If you could solve this problem (evaluation without traditional testing) then it would fundamentally change (for the better imo) the educational model of the world. Unfortunately, testing is the best we have - there are some that fall through the cracks via testing (for better and worse as you've pointed out) but for most people testing is a good indicator. I think it's a matter of efficiency and consistency. Traditional testing does both very well, at the expense of some accuracy. As you increase the accuracy of evaluation by personalizing the 'real life test' - efficiency and consistency neccessarilly drop quickly. As a society, we're better off with a consistent (more fair?) result than an individuals judgement.

A flaw in your Doctor example is that MDs do have to get past both a test and a 'real life' evaluation via residency. Lucky for us they have to pass both and can't just be 'good test takers' to be doing brain surgery.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If you could solve this problem (evaluation without traditional testing) then it would fundamentally change (for the better imo) the educational model of the world. Unfortunately, testing is the best we have - there are some that fall through the cracks via testing (for better and worse as you've pointed out) but for most people testing is a good indicator. I think it's a matter of efficiency and consistency. Traditional testing does both very well, at the expense of some accuracy. As you increase the accuracy of evaluation by personalizing the 'real life test' - efficiency and consistency neccessarilly drop quickly. As a society, we're better off with a consistent (more fair?) result than an individuals judgement.

A flaw in your Doctor example is that MDs do have to get past both a test and a 'real life' evaluation via residency. Lucky for us they have to pass both and can't just be 'good test takers' to be doing brain surgery.

I think the biggest problem is trying to devise a test that people who know the subject will pass but will catch the people that remember the subject, this will probably have to involve a change to teaching methods too.

There were some doctors on my MSc course who didn't have a clue about a huge amount of basic biology. They got by thanks to just memorising lecture slides or notes, in revision sessions they had very little capability to deal with practical scenarios where the situations they memorised were changed. For example instead of the question being "What is X" it would be "Design an efficient experiment to determine X using just A, B and C". This habit wasn't unique to the doctors but it did annoy me when people would stroll through a test purely because they had memorised the subject. When faced with a problem-type question they couldn't do it but not enough of them appeared in exams.

 

[JaredJames]

If you could solve this problem (evaluation without traditional testing) then it would fundamentally change (for the better imo) the educational model of the world. Unfortunately, testing is the best we have - there are some that fall through the cracks via testing (for better and worse as you've pointed out) but for most people testing is a good indicator. I think it's a matter of efficiency and consistency. Traditional testing does both very well, at the expense of some accuracy. As you increase the accuracy of evaluation by personalizing the 'real life test' - efficiency and consistency neccessarilly drop quickly. As a society, we're better off with a consistent (more fair?) result than an individuals judgement.

Don't get me wrong, I understand it's the only real option. The other methods I could imagine would require far too much resource use making them unfeasible.

A flaw in your Doctor example is that MDs do have to get past both a test and a 'real life' evaluation via residency. Lucky for us they have to pass both and can't just be 'good test takers' to be doing brain surgery.

Oh, of course. It's actually one of the things I like about doctor training. By including the real life aspect it really will help judge good from bad. However, when you consider an overall score, not doing so well in exams could have a large bearing on your final result even though there is little wrong with your knowledge on the subject.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Don't get me wrong, I understand it's the only real option. The other methods I could imagine would require far too much resource use making them unfeasible.


Oh, of course. It's actually one of the things I like about doctor training. By including the real life aspect it really will help judge good from bad. However, when you consider an overall score, not doing so well in exams could have a large bearing on your final result even though there is little wrong with your knowledge on the subject.

Except the difficulty of your residency (your "real life test") is entirely dependent on which hospital you're assigned to.

 

[JaredJames]

Except the difficulty of your residency (your "real life test") is entirely dependent on which hospital you're assigned to.

I don't know whether this supports my point or is meant to dispute it?

 

[tedbradly]

And what about people who aren't good with tests?

There are those out there who are terrible with tests and only come out average or worse, yet when it comes to practical application they are brilliant.

Then you have people who religiously study past papers and learn only what they need to pass an exam. They appear to do fantastically in tests and yet have very limited knowledge with the rest of the subject matter.

I for one know of a number of people who were on my course in university who always did well in exams, yet when it came to using it in real life they were useless. I'm poor at exams and usually come out average, but I'm incredibly strong with practical stuff.

So then you have to question if your ideology on the matter is good or bad. You are going purely on test scores - test scores which simply mean "in those tests this person did well". It doesn't tell you how good they are in the real world. I'm not saying the results are completely useless, but you can't just go on them.

You could have a doctor who knows the subject well but doesn't get good grades due to trouble with exams, and a doctor who simply studied for the exam and only learned what they needed to whilst in training. Which do you want treating you?

I've never heard of this problem. It sounds like a bunch of weak students got together and deluded themselves into believing their superiority regardless of the indicators of inferiority. That is, unless you're ignoring my suggestion to examine their standardized test scores and their GPA and location of graduation. The former can be misleading, but I don't see how a GPA can be misleading if it's from a good school.

 

[JaredJames]

I've never heard of this problem.

There's an entire thread on test anxiety here. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It sounds like a bunch of weak students got together and deluded themselves into believing their superiority regardless of the indicators of inferiority.

Weak students?

You mean students who excel at the practical applications of their course and its use in real life are deemed weak simply because they aren't good with exams and a student who learns only to answer exam questions 'parrot fashion' is considered strong even though they don't know much else?

That is, unless you're ignoring my suggestion to examine their standardized test scores and their GPA and location of graduation. The former can be misleading, but I don't see how a GPA can be misleading if it's from a good school.

Could you point out this suggestion? A quick search of this thread for "GPA" only flags your last post. Perhaps I missed something?

Regardless, that's only good if you have a GPA. I don't.

What if you can't go to a 'good school'? All of your suggestion from your previous post still requires testing as the primary component, except you add in the schools status.

 

[tedbradly]

There's an entire thread on test anxiety here. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Weak students?

You mean students who excel at the practical applications of their course and its use in real life are deemed weak simply because they aren't good with exams and a student who learns only to answer exam questions 'parrot fashion' is considered strong even though they don't know much else?Could you point out this suggestion? A quick search of this thread for "GPA" only flags your last post. Perhaps I missed something?

Regardless, that's only good if you have a GPA. I don't.

Sure:

If anything, I'd like to see both ratings of service (from users) and ratings of knowledge (from institutions designed for that measurement, i.e. schools and testing companies)

Both his performance from any required standardized test (from testing companies) and his performance from his school would be considered by me.

Now, are you stating your theory on bad test-takers still holds if someone is looking at this test-takers' overall performance from his school, which probably includes many real-world projects too?

 

[JaredJames]

Now, are you stating your theory on bad test-takers still holds if someone is looking at this test-takers' overall performance from his school, which probably includes many real-world projects too?

Does it really?

Regardless, yes it still holds.

As per previous posts, a doctor is slightly better off due to the residency, but there's still room for error.

Without such a real life 'experience' you are measured either on projects - which you can work with others (whether you should or not) with what ever resources you want (obvious issues there) - or via tests which face the issue I outline above. Meaning your "overall performance" could simply mean you are able to use resources and other people well enough to get you through a project and learn parrot fashion for tests. Which would look great on paper, but mean nothing in real life.

For the most part, university students are not put into a position which allows for real world application of their learning.

As someone who has done a placement for a year from university, I can tell you that working in the field was nothing like working in university.

 

[JaredJames]

Another important note: there are two doctors in my local surgery. Both are highly (the elder slightly better) qualified. One is cheery, nice and does their best to help you and the other is a bit grumpy and hates prescribing medicine unless you're crawling in dying.

I don't like going to the eldest, and most qualified doctor because of his grumpy and unhelpful attitude.

There's more to choosing a doctor than just what's on paper.

 

[tedbradly]

Does it really?

Regardless, yes it still holds.

As per previous posts, a doctor is slightly better off due to the residency, but there's still room for error.

Without such a real life 'experience' you are measured either on projects - which you can work with others (whether you should or not) with what ever resources you want (obvious issues there) - or via tests which face the issue I outline above. Meaning your "overall performance" could simply mean you are able to use resources and other people well enough to get you through a project and learn parrot fashion for tests. Which would look great on paper, but mean nothing in real life.

For the most part, university students are not put into a position which allows for real world application of their learning.

As someone who has done a placement for a year from university, I can tell you that working in the field was nothing like working in university.

It honestly sounds like you're in denial about your own inability (I saw you claim you're a hands-on guy). It's the inability of a person that creates the anxiety, not the anxiety that creates the inability. Someone confident in their ability has no reason to worry.

This entire spectrum of educational issues spawns from the world pushing their unable children toward mentally tougher, socially applauded jobs, because they cannot perceive their child to be average or even below average.

Another important note: there are two doctors in my local surgery. Both are highly (the elder slightly better) qualified. One is cheery, nice and does their best to help you and the other is a bit grumpy and hates prescribing medicine unless you're crawling in dying.

I don't like going to the eldest, and most qualified doctor because of his grumpy and unhelpful attitude.

There's more to choosing a doctor than just what's on paper.

Are you just ignoring everything I said? I just quoted my words, which included viewing the ratings of service from users. That includes (almost exclusively) customer service.

 

[micromass]

Test anxiety is a real issue. I've known brilliant students who knew everything inside out, but when the test came, they failed miserably. So I agree with Jared that tests are not good in measuring how good the student is.

But then again, I don't know much alternatives to tests. So maybe they're a necessary evil?

 

[physics girl phd]

I literally got into a yelling argument once with this prof over a question. Essentially the question was wrong and he admitted as much.

Whoa. This is off topic, but note: Anger management issues here that could seriously get you into trouble. Maybe in this case you had a point, but I HIGHLY suggest trying to keep yourself in control. I'm not sure about all schools' policies (of course), but depending on the professor's reporting to department head, etc., this could get you kicked out (of the class or institution), possibly put on probation, have a restraining order put on you, etc.

Now it's equally unprofessional if the professor was yelling in the discussion too (and if there was an error on the test he/she should have probably made some form of amends -- say a curve), but I'm not sure who the department/institution would support. I'm betting probably the professor/employee, rather than the student/consumer.

When I was in graduate school, a graduate student apparently got in a yelling match with his/her research advisor (and it may have even escalated to blows, but don't hold me to that... I wasn't present and I don't remember the many associated rumors, especially as I wasn't much interested). I do remember the graduate student left the program (whether voluntarily or via some sanctions, I'm not sure).

 

[tedbradly]

Test anxiety is a real issue. I've known brilliant students who knew everything inside out, but when the test came, they failed miserably. So I agree with Jared that tests are not good in measuring how good the student is.

But then again, I don't know much alternatives to tests. So maybe they're a necessary evil?

Their is no issue with a test weeding out the anxious.

 

[JaredJames]

It honestly sounds like you're in denial about your own inability (I saw you claim you're a hands-on guy). It's the inability of a person that creates the anxiety, not the anxiety that creates the inability. Someone confident in their ability has no reason to worry.

Well unfortunately, I'd love to say it was denial but I have the grades (and placement review) to support it.

You're missing out a number of key issues. Ability doesn't have to be the cause of getting worked up in exams. For myself I find the time gets to me. My working style is quite relaxed and I like to take my time and get on with it, perhaps with a bit of music for concentration. Stick me in a room with nothing but a calculator and say "you have three hours to do this" and suddenly I get a bit panicked.

Their is no issue with a test weeding out the anxious.

According to you, I should be "weeded out" because I can't perform in a completely unrealistic scenario - I'm unaware of many jobs that require you be put in a room in silence and told to answer a bunch of questions using nothing more than your own memory, with the onus of any talking or suspicious movements (including toilet breaks) being considered potentially grounds for failure.

 

[tedbradly]

Well unfortunately, I'd love to say it was denial but I have the grades (and placement review) to support it.

You're missing out a number of key issues. Ability doesn't have to be the cause of getting worked up in exams. For myself I find the time gets to me. My working style is quite relaxed and I like to take my time and get on with it. Stick me in a room with nothing but a calculator and say "you have three hours to do this" and suddenly I get a bit panicked.

How can you have the grades to prove it if you have the test anxiety? It sounds like, then, you either cheated by getting disability benefits or you are not actually debilitatingly anxious during tests.

And yeah, I agree that tests should have much more time than needed scheduled, and you should almost always have cheat-sheets allowed. There is no reason to test memory of every equation and detail. No teacher I've had has not done those two things, though (unless they were highly fundamental with memorization limited in quantity such as in a basic math course).

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Whoa. This is off topic, but note: Anger management issues here that could seriously get you into trouble. Maybe in this case you had a point, but I HIGHLY suggest trying to keep yourself in control. I'm not sure about all schools' policies (of course), but depending on the professor's reporting to department head, etc., this could get you kicked out (of the class or institution), possibly put on probation, have a restraining order put on you, etc.

Now it's equally unprofessional if the professor was yelling in the discussion too (and if there was an error on the test he/she should have probably made some form of amends -- say a curve), but I'm not sure who the department/institution would support. I'm betting probably the professor/employee, rather than the student/consumer.

When I was in graduate school, a graduate student apparently got in a yelling match with his/her research advisor (and it may have even escalated to blows, but don't hold me to that... I wasn't present and I don't remember the many associated rumors, especially as I wasn't much interested). I do remember the graduate student left the program (whether voluntarily or via some sanctions, I'm not sure).

Well yelling may have been a little hyperbolic. The guy got passed over for tenure the next month and left, he's yet to surface at another university. He wasn't exactly the departments golden boy.

 

[JaredJames]

How can you have the grades to prove it if you have the test anxiety? It sounds like, then, you either cheated by getting disability benefits or you are not actually debilitatingly anxious during tests.

By "grades to prove it" I mean I have have grades from all practical subjects and the 'real world' stuff that are fantastic, but the pure written exams are nowhere near as good.

In other words, when judged on real world application I receive high reviews (I have several). But if based only on written examination I am not so good (I have a fair few of these too).

I have no "disability benefits".

And yeah, I agree that tests should have much more time than needed scheduled, and you should almost always have cheat-sheets allowed. There is no reason to test memory of every equation and detail. No teacher I've had has not done those two things, though.

I have only one teacher who believes this, personally I agree with it. The ability to search through and utilise materials to gain the correct answer, IMO is far more important than being able to memorise something for a test that you won't remember in a few months.
As per my teacher, "exams aren't how the real world functions, they aren't how I am expected to function, so why should I make you do so?".

 

[tedbradly]

By "grades to prove it" I mean I have have grades from all practical subjects and the 'real world' stuff that are fantastic, but the pure written exams are nowhere near as good.

In other words, when judged on real world application I receive high reviews (I have several). But if based only on written examination I am not so good (I have a fair few of these too).

I have no "disability benefits".

You told me earlier that schools don't have any real-world projects. So which is it -- they don't or they do and you score well in them.

If it is the former, you're lying about your 'grades to prove it' and if the latter then you're lying about overall performance from a school being a bad estimator of knowledge due to the test-taking anxiety.

And from a while ago (when you said I said you should be weeded out): No, obviously not! If you have made it, then you should not have been weeded out. The proof is in the pudding for this one unless you're a cheater.

 

[micromass]

Their is no issue with a test weeding out the anxious.

Tests should weed out those that don't know the material or the ones who will not perform well later. Being anxious should have nothing to do with that.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

It honestly sounds like you're in denial about your own inability (I saw you claim you're a hands-on guy). It's the inability of a person that creates the anxiety, not the anxiety that creates the inability. Someone confident in their ability has no reason to worry.

This entire spectrum of educational issues spawns from the world pushing their unable children toward mentally tougher, socially applauded jobs, because they cannot perceive their child to be average or even below average.
Are you just ignoring everything I said? I just quoted my words, which included viewing the ratings of service from users. That includes (almost exclusively) customer service.

Sorry to shatter your little Randian dream but in reality arrogance and ability aren't particularly correlated. We all know that smart guy who was just too damn lazy or self-confident to put in the necessary amount of effort and failed out. Or, the type A over-achiever who obsesses anxiously over EVERYTHING despite (or resulting in) a near flawless average. Even if you know the material at a 90% average level you can still get yourself in mental quicksand if you hit a string of questions on a test that you don't know (even if they constitute only 10% of the mark), this than throws off your confidence and ability to focus for the rest of the test. Anxiety most definitely has an effect on performance. My problem is with the extremely vague notion of elevating the anxiety of a chosen few to the level of abnormal medical condition and singling them out for special treatment.

Cocky and competent are NOT the same things.

To be honest dude, on a forum like this, you'd better have a flawless GPA and be at one of the top 5 physics departments in your country if you expect people to buy the "school and tests are a cinch and if people have difficulty with them then they clearly are just inferior and suck at physics". If you DO have a flawless GPA and are in one of the best departments in your country then I could see where it comes from.

 

[JaredJames]

You told me earlier that schools don't have any real-world projects. So which is it -- they don't or they do and you score well in them. If it is the former, you're lying about your 'grades to prove it' and if they do then you're lying about overall performance from a school being a bad estimator of knowledge due to the test-taking anxiety.

Schools don't have that much real world stuff. My issue earlier was with your use of "many real world projects". There are some, but not enough to offset the exam results. For example, last year I had one 'real world type project' and seven exams.

The majority of my own real world results comes from me going that bit further (for example working hard to get a placement in a company) and trying to get it to prove I'm not as bad as my grades make out.

I'm neither lying about "having the grades to prove it", not am I lying about test anxiety.

 

[tedbradly]

Tests should weed out those that don't know the material or the ones who will not perform well later. Being anxious should have nothing to do with that.

Those with 'test-taking anxiety' appear not to know the material. They cannot work in a quick, accurate manner that would describe a knowledgeable student.

This test-taking anxiety derives from a couple of main, delusional places:

1.) The person did not study enough.
In this situation, the person's anxiety comes from his inability (he knows he will fail), his inability does not come from his anxiety.

2.) The person is not intelligent or has bad memory
In this situation, he doesn't have the brightness or memory to work quickly, and that inability (again) causes the anxiety, not the other way around.

Now, someone suffering from (2) may be good at 'hands-on stuff' because given enough time, dedication, and external resource he may be an exceptional worker. If that's the case, he should pass in his school with an overall performance of average to above-average.

Sorry to shatter your little Randian dream but in reality arrogance and ability aren't particularly correlated. We all know that smart guy who was just too damn lazy or self-confident to put in the necessary amount of effort and failed out. Or, the type A over-achiever who obsesses anxiously over EVERYTHING despite (or resulting in) a near flawless average. Even if you know the material at a 90% average level you can still get yourself in mental quicksand if you hit a string of questions on a test that you don't know (even if they constitute only 10% of the mark), this than throws off your confidence and ability to focus for the rest of the test. Anxiety most definitely has an effect on performance. My problem is with the extremely vague notion of elevating the anxiety of a chosen few to the level of abnormal medical condition and singling them out for special treatment.

Cocky and competent are NOT the same things.

To be honest dude, on a forum like this, you'd better have a flawless GPA and be at one of the top 5 physics departments in your country if you expect people to buy the "school and tests are a cinch and if people have difficulty with them then they clearly are just inferior and suck at physics". If you DO have a flawless GPA and are in one of the best departments in your country then I could see where it comes from.

Looks like you're a combination of (1) and (2). (1) is expressed in you admitting ignorance in 10% of the subject, and (2) is implied in you vilifying the good student who knows 100%. That is, you vilify him, because you are unable to match his skills, not because you choose not to match his skills. In a delusional mind, however, you have always chosen not to match his skills.

 

[Geezer]

Those with 'test-taking anxiety' appear not to know the material. They cannot work in a quick, accurate manner that would describe a knowledgeable student.

This test-taking anxiety derives from a couple of main, delusional places:

1.) The person did not study enough.
In this situation, the person's anxiety comes from his inability (he knows he will fail), his inability does not come from his anxiety.

2.) The person is not intelligent or has bad memory
In this situation, he doesn't have the brightness or memory to work quickly, and that inability (again) causes the anxiety, not the other way around.

Now, someone suffering from (2) may be good at 'hands-on stuff' because given enough time, dedication, and external resource he may be an exceptional worker. If that's the case, he should pass in his school with an overall performance of average to above-average.

I disagree. I'm both dedicated to studying AND smart enough, but that's not enough to keep my anxiety at bay.

 

[micromass]

Those with 'test-taking anxiety' appear not to know the material.

I doubt you know many people with test-taking anxiety then. People with test-taking anxiety might know their material perfectly and still perform lousy.
Anxiety on tests has nothing to do with not knowing the material with these people.

As always, you need to have a "disorder" in order to understand it...

 

[tedbradly]

I doubt you know many people with test-taking anxiety then. People with test-taking anxiety might know their material perfectly and still perform lousy.
Anxiety on tests has nothing to do with not knowing the material with these people.

As always, you need to have a "disorder" in order to understand it...

Ok. If they apparently know the material, they fall into category (2). It's actually their lack of brightness or memory that conceals the material by which the anxiety spawns. The anxiety is not responsible for concealing the material to the anxious.

 

[tedbradly]

I disagree. I'm both dedicated to studying AND smart enough, but that's not enough to keep my anxiety at bay.

I'm not sure I believe you. You'd have to be irrational to have anxiety if you truly have those three attributes.

Don't confuse being a bit anxious with having this apparent 'anxiety test-taking disorder.' As an example, I can feel my heart racing before getting a test, and I wake up 45 minutes before my clock fires on the day of a test, feeling my heart race. I am anxious and excited. However, the anxiety does not influence my abilities to regurgitate information or solve problems. And after I finish the test 45 minutes early, I take a nice sigh, drink from my water, and begin going over each problem once more.

 

[micromass]

Ok. If they apparently know the material, they fall into category (2). It's actually their lack of brightness or memory that conceals the material by which the anxiety spawns. The anxiety is not responsible for concealing the material to the anxious.

No, not at all. Ever heard of black-outs?? People know the material perfectly before the test and after the test, but can't do anything during the tests.

Don't generalize what you think is true for other people. Most people are very, very different from each other. Find some people with test-anxiety and talk to them with an open mind, you'll be surprised!

 

[tedbradly]

No, not at all. Ever heard of black-outs?? People know the material perfectly before the test and after the test, but can't do anything during the tests.

Don't generalize what you think is true for other people. Most people are very, very different from each other. Find some people with test-anxiety and talk to them with an open mind, you'll be surprised!

I've never heard of that. It sounds like a (2) lying about his state of affairs (to you and himself). See, it was his unintelligence that mired his progress on the test, despite him superficially knowing the material -- not some apparent blackout.