"i'm just not a good test taker"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
J

jbing

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
181
Reaction score
1
.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
To be fair to them, I think they usually mean standardized tests. I know people who could get 100% on all of their written exams but couldn't do well on a multiple choice exam (i.e. standardized test) to save their lives. If you aren't doing well on ANY exams then I think your assertion might be more applicable.
 
No because I know some people who will dazzile the sh#t out of you with their knowledge but they perform average on the test. This Doctor at Kaiser I helped out told me he didn't do well on the MCAT but when you talk to him its like talking to a damn genius.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It depends. I know that some people say it to cover up a poor test score, but then there are those who are actually bad at writing tests. I know there have been times when I blanked out completely turning tests, and then somehow had an inspiration of luck to pull it off before the end of the test. Some people don't get so lucky. :(
 
I'll humor you.

I guess it depends on how you quantitate intelligence. If it's with a test, and if somebody is a bad test taker, then I guess that would make them stupid. But there is a lot more than test-taking intelligence that makes somebody successful in medicine, or successful in anything else for that matter.
 
Originally posted by jbing
does it not annoy the **** out of you when people say this?

maybe you are stupid. maybe that's why you don't do well on tests.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that those who out-perform you on standardized tests are smarter than you and those who do worse are dumber than you? That seems like a stupidly simple way to characterize the world.
 
Originally posted by Nutmeg
Are you suggesting that those who out-perform you on standardized tests are smarter than you and those who do worse are dumber than you? That seems like a stupidly simple way to characterize the world.
Click to expand...

talk about simple, that was a very simplistic (and incorrect) conclusion to draw from my original statements.

why is it that some "smart" people don't perform well on tests, but you never hear about idiots going in and acing standardized tests. it seems to me that good standardized test takers are simply a subset of "smart" people. and i never knew any truly gifted individuals who didn't more or less ace standardized tests.

and probably what is most annoying about all this is that these people use the "good test taker" excuse to invalidate your own high scores. i mean, if they are soooo smart but didn't do well on a standardized test because they aren't "good test takers", does that mean that my high score on a standardized test just means that im a "good test taker"? puh-leez.
 
I've taught a lot of people how to take standardized tests, and I definitely think that there are two separate skills at work.

First, you have to have a baseline level of knowledge or skills for any test, whether it's the MCAT, the LSAT, the SAT, or an elementary school skills assessment.

Second, you have to have standardized test taking skills. This is entirely independent of intelligence and knowledge.

There are a whole lot of people out there who have the first but not the second. These are the people who are really smart, but can't take a standardized test to save their lives.

There are a few people whose test-taking skills can make up for a huge lack of knowledge, but there are much fewer of these, which is why there aren't too many dumb people who do really well on standardized tests.

That said, there are some people who lack both knowledge and test taking skills, and they blame all of their failure on their lack of test taking prowess. That is obnoxious. However, given that I make money by teaching testing skills (not, for the most part, knowledge) and see people's scores improve dramatically, it's obvious that there are many people who test considerably below their ability.
 
no offense- but i would think anyone who quotes johnny knoxville might not be the smartest guy on the block

point being--tons of things come into play when talking about intelligence; not just standarized tests.
 
to settle it for once and for all. these people who th op is refering too are usually very good memorizers. they can memorize terms, how to solve a certain type of problem [if glucose and allolactose are present will the the lac operon be active? no], and other random facts. they can regurtitate the crap there teacher spewed to them a few weeks before and walk away with a decent test grade on most all undergrad exams. most ug exams focus on memorization and not problem solving. they might be good at memorizing vast amounts of data or have the time [no job, no ecs] to do this. when it comes time for the mcat they brick on it because they can't solve novel problems well.

problem solving ability is strongly tied to (well basically is) iq (and mcat and step 1 scores). these people tend to rock the mcats. and when you consider that the mcat focuses very little on memorization and places a heavy emphasis on problem solving. people with 3.1 gpas can rock the mcats (30+) and why 4.0ers can drop a score in the high teens.

medical schools of course love the high mcat-high gpa crowd because they can memorize data and solve probs. this is also why a low gpa [with a high mcat] isn't the killer that a low mcat score is. the high mcat crowd can be molded into an effecient memorizer quickly enough but iq [problem solving ability-mcat scores] is relatively static through one's life. just my $.03.
 
Originally posted by jbing
i mean, if they are soooo smart but didn't do well on a standardized test because they aren't "good test takers", does that mean that my high score on a standardized test just means that im a "good test taker"? puh-leez.
Click to expand...

That's my case exactly. I got a D- in my 12th grade "Algebra 2 and Trig" class, but when I went to JC, I tested into calculus--above the so-called "decision zone." I don't speak any languages but English, I can't play any musical instruments, I'm completely ******ed when playing basketball, my GPA is marginal at best, but I'm great at many tests--particularly standardized tests. There is very little that you can point to in my life that shows that I'm smart, but I regularly test into the 99th percentile; on the PSAT (i never took the real SAT because it was unnecessary and I could afford it), the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery), the MCAT, Golden State exams, and the CTBS-school-grading tests. I just know how to take standardized tests. As a skill, it is largely different than and independent of many other things that are characteristic of intelligent people.
 
.
 
Last edited:
.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Tests do nothing but "test" the amount of imformation that you can remember over a short period of time. A test does not adequately show that someone has learned or comprehended a particular subject....Why do you think M.S. and Ph.D schools are "hands on" based? Why do you think that you have a "clinical" practical exam in medschool, why do we even have practicals period......It's easy to remember something....but can you apply it? I've seen so many doctors and nurses who were 4.0 students all through school...but you put them in a REAL clinical situation..and they're useless and clueless. It's good to pass a course with flying colors..but after you do so....ask yourself...did you actually learn..or memorize?

Btw, some people do have test anxiety....and it can cause some testing issues.

Cya.
 
Originally posted by YaFwiendToluene
Tests do nothing but "test" the amount of imformation that you can remember over a short period of time. A test does not adequately show that someone has learned or comprehended a particular subject....Why do you think M.S. and Ph.D schools are "hands on" based? Why do you think that you have a "clinical" practical exam in medschool, why do we even have practicals period......It's easy to remember something....but can you apply it? I've seen so many doctors and nurses who were 4.0 students all through school...but you put them in a REAL clinical situation..and they're useless and clueless. It's good to pass a course with flying colors..but after you do so....ask yourself...did you actually learn..or memorize?

Btw, some people do have test anxiety....and it can cause some testing issues.

Cya.
Click to expand...

The MCAT does a hell of a lot more to test your ability to comprehend and reason than it does to memorize large quantities of information. Most of my ChemE tests are open book/open notes, and thus they do absolutely nothing to test your ability to memorize.
 
I am a good standardized test taker, always have been. Used to always get first or second highest score in my school when we took our yearly state tests in grade school. However, I am not incredibly smart and my grades tend to be pretty average (my gpa is what scares me going into the app process).
 
Originally posted by Nutmeg
Most of my ChemE tests are open book/open notes, and thus they do absolutely nothing to test your ability to memorize.
Click to expand...

Hence the advantage of an engineering undergrad degree! Seriously though, I have never had a "memorization" engineering exam. They are all very tricky problem solving. For those of you who claim that undergrad tests are all memorization, what are your majors? I'd like to take some classes like that.
 
Originally posted by J33
Hence the advantage of an engineering undergrad degree! Seriously though, I have never had a "memorization" engineering exam. They are all very tricky problem solving. For those of you who claim that undergrad tests are all memorization, what are your majors? I'd like to take some classes like that.
Click to expand...

I'm a ChemE/Molecular bio double major, and I must say I prefer the engineering tests to the memorization tests all the way. I'm good with memorization, and I can do well with those types of tests, but they never get any easier or any less boring. Memorization is such a huge waste of time that I have difficulty motivating myself to care. With engineering tests, they get easier as you progress because you advance in you ability to analyze problems and look for trends. I didn't need to study nearly so hard for my tests last year as I did my first year, and my grades were markedly better last year.
 
Jbing,

Since you must have missed something - cheesypoofs's comment was intended to show the faulty reasoning of the your argument.

Not doing well on standardized test makes one stupid in the same way that anyone who qutoes j. knoxville is stupid.

Point being, you can't use such simple notions to classify people as stupid.



~Lubdubb
 
Originally posted by Nutmeg
I'm a ChemE/Molecular bio double major, and I must say I prefer the engineering tests to the memorization tests all the way. I'm good with memorization, and I can do well with those types of tests, but they never get any easier or any less boring. Memorization is such a huge waste of time that I have difficulty motivating myself to care. With engineering tests, they get easier as you progress because you advance in you ability to analyze problems and look for trends. I didn't need to study nearly so hard for my tests last year as I did my first year, and my grades were markedly better last year.
Click to expand...

I agree. I find the memorization tests much more time-consuming to study than problem-based exams. If you don't know a bunch of little facts, there's nothing you call pull out of your ... on test day. Memorization tests are a good indicator of work ethic. I have a difficult time making myself sit there and read the stuff and review review review the info, so I'm a little worried about med school, especially gross anatomy.
 
Originally posted by YaFwiendToluene
Tests do nothing but "test" the amount of imformation that you can remember over a short period of time. A test does not adequately show that someone has learned or comprehended a particular subject....
Click to expand...

I agree with this...

My university offers a relatively low priced MCAT prep course, which I was able to take over the month of January. I did pretty well on my practice exams but I always got tired by the end of the exam so I made a lot of careless errors in the Bio section that I knew I shouldn't have made.

Knowing this, I was able to make some slight changes in the way I approached the later half of the exam. I brought a bottle of Gatorade and a few snacks with me on test day and I ate a very healthy lunch during the lunch break. When the bio section rolled around, I felt refreshed and ready to kick some @$$. Because of this, my overall score improved about 5-6 points.

My point here is that the improvements in my score had nothing to do with my level of preparation - rather, my improved score reflected a change in my test taking strategy.
 
I think it all comes down to wondering if standardized exams do in fact measure intelligence. The reason the MCAT is given is to determine is a student can handle to work load involved in medical school. However, it does not mean the person is stupid.

The MCAT is a timed exam, I could have done better with more time, as is the case for most individuals. How fast you can figure something out (within a degree of reason) is no factor of intelligence.

In addition, I know people who can spin circles around me and they scored substantially lower than me on the MCAT. I do not consider myself smarter than them.

Finally, why should you care? All that matters is that you perform to your standards. If the MCAT is easy for you then be HUMBLE about it and help others raise their score.

Being a doctor isn't about gloating about how "smart" you are because you did well on a standardized exam. Also, I know that I want my doctor to be intelligent yet compassionant and altruistic.

Seriously, why judge others by your own standards?
Hopefully you won't do that to your patients.


Rocco
 
"The MCAT does a hell of a lot more to test your ability to comprehend and reason than it does to memorize large quantities of information"
( i dont know how to really quote )

do you guys agree with this?

I think that this is usually what most people view standard tests as being good for, testing problem solving, reasoning abilities. But i really just dont think that the mcat is a true test of these things, can anything be?

I agree that a standardized test IS needed in this process, but I feel the MCAT opens doors for some and shuts doors on others pretty randomly. I mean it is a test with specific properties right?

4 possible answers, not 5 or 6 or 3
time pressure
a certain amount of minutes per section
a certain number of sections (stamina)
scantron bubbles
different test forms

So certain people are more apt to doing well due to these arbitrary properties, that i think we would all agree are arbitrary. I mean its not as if they give you LITERAL real world problems to solve, which is what everyone ultimately really cares about id hope.

i mean come on there are so many variables, and in this very sensitive admissions process, these can really become factors in ones ultimate goal.

I agree that to some degree, smart people do well on standardized tests, and not smart people dont do well. But when you are talking about the difference between a 27 and a 30, a big difference in reality, I think unfortunatly it might be attributed to powers beyond ones control.
 
The MCAT is a standardized exam. Therefore ultimately it tells you how you compared with the rest of the test takers. If you are "better" at certain areas you will perform well. However, I always say that if torque was on my exam, I would not have gotten a single interview!

So, it basically tells who the stronger candidates are when faced with a universal set of similar problems. Thats my take.


Rocco
 
Originally posted by JayMiranti
"The MCAT does a hell of a lot more to test your ability to comprehend and reason than it does to memorize large quantities of information"
( i dont know how to really quote )

do you guys agree with this?

I think that this is usually what most people view standard tests as being good for, testing problem solving, reasoning abilities. But i really just dont think that the mcat is a true test of these things, can anything be?

I agree that a standardized test IS needed in this process, but I feel the MCAT opens doors for some and shuts doors on others pretty randomly. I mean it is a test with specific properties right?

4 possible answers, not 5 or 6 or 3
time pressure
a certain amount of minutes per section
a certain number of sections (stamina)
scantron bubbles
different test forms

So certain people are more apt to doing well due to these arbitrary properties, that i think we would all agree are arbitrary. I mean its not as if they give you LITERAL real world problems to solve, which is what everyone ultimately really cares about id hope.

i mean come on there are so many variables, and in this very sensitive admissions process, these can really become factors in ones ultimate goal.

I agree that to some degree, smart people do well on standardized tests, and not smart people dont do well. But when you are talking about the difference between a 27 and a 30, a big difference in reality, I think unfortunatly it might be attributed to powers beyond ones control.
Click to expand...

:confused: :confused: I agree with all of this, but I don't see how it relates to my claim you quoted. (BTW--just hit the quote button at the bottom of the post). I feel like very little of the test actually drew upon specific knowledge, and about 50-60% was just reading comprehension.
 
I wunt to be a docter.....

buut Im justt a reely badd teste taaker....
 
I guess my point was that I dont think it does an accurate job of assessing ones ability to comprehend and/or reason.

I dont think its a matter of, either regurgitation of facts or understanding concepts. I think most applicants can do well at both, and that its uncommon to have the guy who doesnt study a lot suddenly get a 35 or a guy who is a memorizor/hard worker getting a 25, unlike many other standardized tests that would follow this trend.

I think for the most part those unbalanced candidates dont exist, and its a lot more of a test-taking game than meets the eye.
 
Originally posted by RoccoWJ
I wunt to be a docter.....

buut Im justt a reely badd teste taaker....
Click to expand...

what re your ec's like and can you write a 'killer' personal statement? ;)
 
You have to know things in a different way on a standardized test than you do on a standard written test. Specifically, you have to recognize the correct answer instead of coming up with it yourself. I don't know exactly how to describe it, but it's like knowing the subject material backwards instead of forwards -- you compare the answers to see if they fit with the question.
 
Originally posted by NE_Cornhusker1
what re your ec's like and can you write a 'killer' personal statement? ;)
Click to expand...



Nah, i dunt do none of that there exter stuff. Personlle Statement? Ummm.... I ain't worked with noone befor..


I dunno, keppin my fingurs crioosed.!!


Paarty ON DUDES!
 
Originally posted by jbing
does it not annoy the **** out of you when people say this?

maybe you are stupid. maybe that's why you don't do well on tests.
Click to expand...

i think you sound a little insecure about your own intelligence. because if there is such a thing as 'just a bad test taker', then there might be such a thing as 'just a good test taker'. personally, i think both exist.
i think i'm a good test taker- but i have a terrible memory. i forget what i said 20 seconds ago, i forget where i'm going as i walk out the door, i forget to turn the stove off, i forget 1,000,000 anatomy terms and so i started and quit med school after one semester. not what you would expect for someone with my mcat, probably.
but what can i say? i'm just a good test taker, and not ashamed of it or in any way threatened by people who may be smarter than me but just aren't good at taking tests.

now, if this isn't the case for you and you are an all around smart person who also does well on tests, then good for you :) you should be pleased with yourself. but there's no need to be annoyed by people who do badly on them for whatever reason, but still maintain that they are intelligent people.
 
Originally posted by jbing
does it not annoy the **** out of you when people say this?

maybe you are stupid. maybe that's why you don't do well on tests.
Click to expand...

Josh, an LSAT teacher with the princeton review was tired of hearing premeds complain how hard the MCAT was in 1996. This was before the acquisition of hyperlearning in So Cal in late 1996/7. He studied a barebones, one book, premed science review from the princeton review (our materials are voluminous now) for 4 weeks, and sat for the MCAT. He scored a composite 38, as an English major, with no science background whatsoever.

Josh was a good test taker.

First and foremost, the MCAT is a standardized test, before it is a subject test. Do NOT think the AAMC has not consulted extensively with ETS and other agencies to develop this test after 1991. Study for it accordingly and you will do well. Fail and you run a huge risk. My guess is that people who hate people who say they are good test takers are not good test takers themselves. You CAN become a good test taker, everyone can.

Good luck,
Coops
 
i hated gross anatomy.. never did well in gross anatomy.. even though i studied my brains out (e.g. doing every single lab all over).. i managed to screw up nearly every gross anatomy practical..

yet when surgery came around.. i got the highest score on the in-house exam..
 
I tend to agree w/ the OP.

Sure, people can not know how to take a test well, but that is a pretty lame excuse for doing poorly on a test. Any normal person (by normal I mean someone without a disorder that compromises reading, e.g. dyslexia) can learn how to take a test well by reading test prep materials or getting advise from someone, if he or she can't figure it out for themselves. Bottom line: Test taking is not rocket surgery. Either you can read a passage and correctly answer a question about it, or you can't.

Part of what the MCAT, and other tests, try to acertain is how well you can assimilate and synthesize information, with speed being a factor. IMHO, the people who use the "I'm a bad test taker" excuse are the same people who get A's in classes only by studying for countless hours, in order to exhaustively commit the neccessary facts to memory. In otherwords, these people are extremely dedicated but not neccessarily "just a bad test taker". (dedication is a great quality for a physician to possess I might add)
 
Originally posted by DrBodacious
I tend to agree w/ the OP.

In otherwords, these people are extremely dedicated but not neccessarily "just a bad test taker". (dedication is a great quality for a physician to possess I might add)
Click to expand...


I couldn't have said it better myself.


Rocco
 
Originally posted by AznTrojan-MS
i hated gross anatomy.. never did well in gross anatomy.. even though i studied my brains out (e.g. doing every single lab all over).. i managed to screw up nearly every gross anatomy practical..

yet when surgery came around.. i got the highest score on the in-house exam..
Click to expand...

Yes, anatomy can make you cry sometime. When they stick that pin sometime you think they might have stuck it on a nerve or whatnot, and in fact you're being a lot more precise than the question is asking.

Personally, I've always had a big problem with multiple choice tests: I always see tricks when there are none. When they ask a question, I try to view the question from multiple angles and it can be quite an annoying habit. You see which is the "right" answer, but they all of a sudden you can see how other answers might be right too, and you're trying to decide which one best simplistically answers the questions. Drives me nuts sometimes.
 
Originally posted by TTSD
Personally, I've always had a big problem with multiple choice tests: I always see tricks when there are none. When they ask a question, I try to view the question from multiple angles and it can be quite an annoying habit. You see which is the "right" answer, but they all of a sudden you can see how other answers might be right too, and you're trying to decide which one best simplistically answers the questions. Drives me nuts sometimes.
Click to expand...

Which is why I always do much better on the short answer sections on my bio tests than the multpile choice. With short answer, you get a question, you give an answer. Done. There are no "distractors" or tricks to look out for.
 
Whether or not being "a bad test taker" is a measure of one's intelligence or if there if even is such thing as a good or bad test taker, the fact remains that multiple choice/standardized tests are an undeniable fact of life. If you want to get into a good college, you have to take them and do well. If you want to get into a good medical school, you have to take them and do well. If you want to pass medical school, you have to take them and at least pass. Finally, if you want to get into a good residency, you have to take them and do well. (Yes people, standardized tests do not end with the MCAT, you have three sets of USMLE's and they are pretty important!!!!)

My point, if you really feel that you just lack the skill of taking standardized tests and this is the only thing holding you back from doing well then LEARN THE SKILL! Just like you would try to fix any other weakness that might hold you back from becoming a doctor, improve your test taking skills!
It has been shown time and time again that there are ways to improve your scores on standardized tests.

So, in a way, I do agree with the original poster. If by this point in their careers, people haven't figured out that they need to be good test takers, then they are stupid. They should be devoting just as much time to that as getting a good score in Organic Chemistry. Now if someone has really tried to improve their test-taking skills and just can't seem to score better, they have more of my sympathies. But I think the majority of people who say the "i am just not a good test taker" are using it as an excuse.

FYI: they don't go away in medical school...after every single one of our many multiple choice exams there will be people complaining that they just can't take mc exams.
 
Originally posted by Cooper_Wriston
Josh, an LSAT teacher with the princeton review was tired of hearing premeds complain how hard the MCAT was in 1996. This was before the acquisition of hyperlearning in So Cal in late 1996/7. He studied a barebones, one book, premed science review from the princeton review (our materials are voluminous now) for 4 weeks, and sat for the MCAT. He scored a composite 38, as an English major, with no science background whatsoever.

Josh was a good test taker.
Click to expand...

Hey, what does "the acquisition of hyperlearning in SoCal" refer to?

I thought that was a great story, btw.
 
Originally posted by JayMiranti
I agree that a standardized test IS needed in this process, but I feel the MCAT opens doors for some and shuts doors on others pretty randomly. I mean it is a test with specific properties right?

4 possible answers, not 5 or 6 or 3
time pressure
a certain amount of minutes per section
a certain number of sections (stamina)
scantron bubbles
different test forms

So certain people are more apt to doing well due to these arbitrary properties, that i think we would all agree are arbitrary. I mean its not as if they give you LITERAL real world problems to solve, which is what everyone ultimately really cares about id hope.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your reasoning here. Yes, everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, but I don't see how a test using "scantron bubbles" or "4 possible answers instead of 5, 6, or 3" would help some people due well over others. Anybody who says "I didn't do well on the mcat because I'm not good at bubbling in scantrons" or "I just can't do multiple-choice tests that have 4 possible answers -- but if there were 5, I would have kicked ass" is an idiot, IMHO. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Even something that is more tangible, such as "time pressure," is a property of every single test I've ever taken, as well as every assignment. Not to mention time pressure is something everyone has to deal with in their lives on a daily basis, whether they're a physician or not.

While I agree that some people are better test takers than others, I don't believe it's for the reason you stated. My $.02.
 
Originally posted by jbing
does it not annoy the **** out of you when people say this?

maybe you are stupid. maybe that's why you don't do well on tests.
Click to expand...

uh......no !! there are plenty of people out there including myself !! and I AM NOT STUPID :mad:
There are in fact people who are for example, more meticulous and thorough and thus, spend more time reading over a passage which in turn slows them down.....but that has nothing to do with their stupidity.....I think what you say is condescending and ignorant !!

And yes yes we all know you did great on MCAT so their is no need to put other people who truly have this problem down !
 
WHERE IS THE LOVE?:love:
 
Originally posted by jbing
does it not annoy the **** out of you when people say this?

maybe you are stupid. maybe that's why you don't do well on tests.
Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest sometimes if you have too much knowledge you might underperform on a test (especially standardized multiple choice tests)

I know this used to happen to me, you start to overthink choices and get bogged down with ambiguities that someone who might not have studied as much won't even get confused about...sometimes doing well on a test is about how you read the questions, and not strictly about how much you know

just my thoughts

~doc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Cailynn Wang
Doctor that writes me LOR got cancer and I’m not applying in the next two years …
Replies
2
Views
432
Moko
Moko
lilcinnamonbun7
Should I hit PTE if I'm on a waitlist? / CYMS Question
Replies
10
Views
1K
Goro
Goro
D
I’m confused
Replies
3
Views
656
pablo213
pablo213
S
Sociology as a REQUIRED prereq--not just a recommended prereq--for any med school right now?
Replies
2
Views
457
Goro
Goro
cardman5659
  • Question
Am I just bad at interviewing?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top