Hi, I have a job interview in a few days and they want me to take a
psychometric test which I presume will include maths, spatial awareness
etc...

Anyway, having only done one beofe around 15 years ago -- which I did badly
in -- I thought I'd have a practice.

So anyway, I didn't get below average, I managed to get LOW in ALL the
tests. Which was quite dissapointing to say the least.

Anyway, I don't consider myself to be a genius, but I do possess a BSc
First Class Honours in Computing. I'm also a reasonable programmer - not
brilliant, but not too bad - hell I even get paid to do for a living.

Now my question is, why am I so hopeless at these tests? Can I improve my
scores? Or should I give my career to become a road-sweeper?

Am I just a very lucky idiot who fluked a First (75% average) in very a
technical degree at a decent university?

What's wrong with me?

From:	Tim Morrow
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:05:27 +1100

"Bozza" wrote in message
news:1f4ujq8fqx01k.dlg@invalid.come...
> Hi, I have a job interview in a few days and they want me to take a
> psychometric test which I presume will include maths, spatial awareness
> etc...
>
> Anyway, having only done one beofe around 15 years ago -- which I did
> badly
> in -- I thought I'd have a practice.
>
> So anyway, I didn't get below average, I managed to get LOW in ALL the
> tests. Which was quite dissapointing to say the least.
>
> Anyway, I don't consider myself to be a genius, but I do possess a BSc
> First Class Honours in Computing. I'm also a reasonable programmer - not
> brilliant, but not too bad - hell I even get paid to do for a living.
>
> Now my question is, why am I so hopeless at these tests? Can I improve my
> scores? Or should I give my career to become a road-sweeper?
>
> Am I just a very lucky idiot who fluked a First (75% average) in very a
> technical degree at a decent university?
>
> What's wrong with me?

Nothing's wrong with you. The test simply shows that you don't perform well
at those tests - nothing to do with your intelligence, ability to reason or
solve problems or to generally be useful in a work situation. I don't care
what psychologists or whoever prepared the test try to tell you. The skills
that got you through tertiary studies probably did not consist of a lot of
psychometric tests which is why you performed better there.

This doesn't mean you can't get better at these tests by practice if you
feel that it is seriously hindering your ability to find better work.

I rarely do well at those sort of tests either. Meanwhile I continue to do
real work and problem solving in a real work environment, working with real
people. At my place of work I tend to get the best projects involving new
technologies that are up against the hardest challenges? I get these jobs
owing to the quality of work I've delivered in past projects. If my company
had hired me on the basis of a psychometric test I'm sure I wouldn't be
working there now.

Despite discussion with psychologists on the subject I still fail to see how
a stressful environment like a job interview and and a battery of esoteric,
contrived and alien questions can lead to any sensible conclusions as to how
well a prospective employee will perform in most jobs.

I have several unresolved issues with most of the interview techniques /
recruitment tests that are in use today and those at a management level that
tend to do most of the interviewing. It is astonishing the number of
technical skilled staff that are employed without a single technical staff
representative at the interview.

There's no doubt that hiring suitable staff based on a brief interview is a
difficult task and employers are still not doing a very good job at it.

Tim

From:	Bozza
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:20:00 GMT

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:05:27 +1100, Tim Morrow wrote:

> "Bozza" wrote in message
> news:1f4ujq8fqx01k.dlg@invalid.come...
>> Hi, I have a job interview in a few days and they want me to take a
>> psychometric test which I presume will include maths, spatial awareness
>> etc...
>>
>> Anyway, having only done one beofe around 15 years ago -- which I did
>> badly
>> in -- I thought I'd have a practice.
>>
>> So anyway, I didn't get below average, I managed to get LOW in ALL the
>> tests. Which was quite dissapointing to say the least.
>>
>> Anyway, I don't consider myself to be a genius, but I do possess a BSc
>> First Class Honours in Computing. I'm also a reasonable programmer - not
>> brilliant, but not too bad - hell I even get paid to do for a living.
>>
>> Now my question is, why am I so hopeless at these tests? Can I improve my
>> scores? Or should I give my career to become a road-sweeper?
>>
>> Am I just a very lucky idiot who fluked a First (75% average) in very a
>> technical degree at a decent university?
>>
>> What's wrong with me?
>
> Nothing's wrong with you. The test simply shows that you don't perform well
> at those tests - nothing to do with your intelligence, ability to reason or
> solve problems or to generally be useful in a work situation. I don't care
> what psychologists or whoever prepared the test try to tell you. The skills
> that got you through tertiary studies probably did not consist of a lot of
> psychometric tests which is why you performed better there.

What bugs me is the fact that there's no evidence to back up the assumption
that those who do well in the tests will go on to become star employees.

> This doesn't mean you can't get better at these tests by practice if you
> feel that it is seriously hindering your ability to find better work.

Think I have to somehow.

> I rarely do well at those sort of tests either. Meanwhile I continue to do
> real work and problem solving in a real work environment, working with real
> people. At my place of work I tend to get the best projects involving new
> technologies that are up against the hardest challenges? I get these jobs
> owing to the quality of work I've delivered in past projects. If my company
> had hired me on the basis of a psychometric test I'm sure I wouldn't be
> working there now.

I've just taken a McQuaig Survey for another role. Felt more like a game
than a serious attempt to find a hard working employee.

> Despite discussion with psychologists on the subject I still fail to see how
> a stressful environment like a job interview and and a battery of esoteric,
> contrived and alien questions can lead to any sensible conclusions as to how
> well a prospective employee will perform in most jobs.
>
> I have several unresolved issues with most of the interview techniques /
> recruitment tests that are in use today and those at a management level that
> tend to do most of the interviewing. It is astonishing the number of
> technical skilled staff that are employed without a single technical staff
> representative at the interview.
>
> There's no doubt that hiring suitable staff based on a brief interview is a
> difficult task and employers are still not doing a very good job at it.

Absolutely and I do empathise with them as it must be tough, although
closer liaison with those at the coal-face might help at least find those
with the technical ability and those who fit. Not perfect but a better
start IMO.

From:	mathedman
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:46:19 GMT

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:13:08 GMT, Bozza wrote:

>Hi, I have a job interview in a few days and they want me to take a
>psychometric test which I presume will include maths, spatial awareness
>etc...
>
>Anyway, having only done one beofe around 15 years ago -- which I did badly
>in -- I thought I'd have a practice.
>
>So anyway, I didn't get below average, I managed to get LOW in ALL the
>tests. Which was quite dissapointing to say the least.
>
>Anyway, I don't consider myself to be a genius, but I do possess a BSc
>First Class Honours in Computing. I'm also a reasonable programmer - not
>brilliant, but not too bad - hell I even get paid to do for a living.
>
>Now my question is, why am I so hopeless at these tests? Can I improve my
>scores? Or should I give my career to become a road-sweeper?
>
>Am I just a very lucky idiot who fluked a First (75% average) in very a
>technical degree at a decent university?
>
>What's wrong with me?

sounds like you choke!

From:	Kara
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	16 Jan 2005 07:42:39 -0800

I used to say that my parents got me out before damage was done..but
that is not true. Damage was done.

My father (a Mathmatician) and my mother (an Economist) did poorly on
these so called tests.

My father is legally blind. He cant fill in those stupid bubbles!!

And my mom also has a vision problem.

Recently I have decided to change careers. The school that I wanted to
go to said I had to take the ACT over--guess what?? I dont think so. My
grades should be sufficient to prove I can do the work. So..I picked
somewhere else.

These tests (when it comes to the school issue) prove nothing. It is a
scam.

From:	Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:44:05 -0500

In <1105802395.600756.89880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, on
01/15/2005
at 07:19 AM, bryant_j_j@yahoo.com said:

>maybe u were feeling too anxious during the test so that you could
>not do your best. i've had experiences where i failed (almost)
>miserably on a test, yet when i changed my attitude and also the way
>i prepared for it. then i got a very good score. if you relax a
>little perhaps you will be able to concentrate better and show a
>better side of you.

My standard advice is:

1. Get a good nights sleep the night before the test.

2. Eat a good meal prior to the test, allowing time for digestion.

3. No alcohol or other mood-altering drugs.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

From:	JimC
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 06:48:26 GMT

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz writes:

> My standard advice is:
>
> 1. Get a good nights sleep the night before the test.
>
> 2. Eat a good meal prior to the test, allowing time for digestion.
>
> 3. No alcohol or other mood-altering drugs.
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
>

From Seymour's site:

"If you have been receiving bigoted e-mail attacking the Roman
Catholic Church and with a reference to my web site, it is a
vicious forgery by a limb of Satan."

What you need is a lot more than a good night's sleep.

From:	Kara
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	15 Jan 2005 20:16:32 -0800

I agree with Tim. Dont pay any attention.

When I was in elem. school the powers that be decided that all
children needed an IQ test.

I scored so low that I was labeled as "severely mentally retarded".

I was put into classes for others like myself.

My parents fought to have me removed. It was later discovered that I
needed glasses!!

I wasnt in those classes long, but long enough for the teachers to tell
me what I could not achieve.
***
On a side note, my Dr. (an MD & PHD--former Microbiology teacher at
George Washington) scored so low that he was told not to attend
college--go to a tech school and learn a trade instead!

From:	Bozza
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:13:54 GMT

On 15 Jan 2005 20:16:32 -0800, Kara wrote:

> I agree with Tim. Dont pay any attention.
>
> When I was in elem. school the powers that be decided that all
> children needed an IQ test.
>
> I scored so low that I was labeled as "severely mentally retarded".
>
> I was put into classes for others like myself.
>
> My parents fought to have me removed. It was later discovered that I
> needed glasses!!

Unbelievable! Astounding. Imagine if they'd worked it out in your final
year. What a disgrace.

> I wasnt in those classes long, but long enough for the teachers to tell
> me what I could not achieve.

Yeah right, they're good at that.

> On a side note, my Dr. (an MD & PHD--former Microbiology teacher at
> George Washington) scored so low that he was told not to attend
> college--go to a tech school and learn a trade instead!

Funny you should say that; the test I took 15 years ago guided me
originally into leaving school for a trade, pretty much convinced me I
wouldn't be able to get through university so I gave up - at the time of
testing I would regularly gain a 'H' (HIGH: which was the schools
equivalent of an 'A') in all subjects on my school report card, I was until
the test a model student. After 8 years in the trade -- (electrician)
incidentally I gained the highest marks out of 44 students for my
electrical theory exams -- I re-found my confidence and decided to put
myself through University, graduating with a First.

That damn test 15 years ago seriously knocked my self-confidence and has
been a scourge on my life. I shudder now when I remember comparing results
with friends; they were in the engineer, manager category and there's me in
the janitor classification - I'd regularly gain better grades than all of
them in math, physics etc...

Thanks for relating your own experiences, I feel better for it - though no
less bitter.

From:	porky_pig_jr at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	16 Jan 2005 15:34:13 -0800

>Now my question is, why am I so hopeless at these tests? Can I improve
my
>scores? Or should I give my career to become a road-sweeper?

Road sweeper? How can you become a read-sweeper if you flunked the
spatial awareness test?

From:	Prai Jei
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:47:42 +0000

porky_pig_jr@my-deja.com (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in
message <1105918453.360730.272190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

>>Now my question is, why am I so hopeless at these tests? Can I improve
> my
>>scores? Or should I give my career to become a road-sweeper?
>
> Road sweeper? How can you become a read-sweeper if you flunked the
> spatial awareness test?

It's better than walking the streets anyway :)
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

From:	JAKJRF
Subject:	re:Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:04:07 GMT

I agree with Guest. Suggest a quick read of the February 2005 issue of
Scientific American; "Insights: Performance without
Anxiety". It shows effective proof of the point and
offers solution. I leave it to you to read the copyrighted article;
however I bet you will be surprised why the affect occurs. Knowing
the effect allows freedom to beat it. More on this
later...

--------------------------------------------
Posted at the Plebius Press
Psychology News - http://www.plebius.org/

From:	Prai Jei
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:22:53 +0000

Bozza (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<1f4ujq8fqx01k.dlg@invalid.come>:

> Hi, I have a job interview in a few days and they want me to take a
> psychometric test which I presume will include maths, spatial awareness
> etc...
>
> Anyway, having only done one beofe around 15 years ago -- which I did
> badly in -- I thought I'd have a practice.
>
> So anyway, I didn't get below average, I managed to get LOW in ALL the
> tests. Which was quite dissapointing to say the least.

Aptitude tests alone mean nothing. Don't put too much credence in the
results.

I seem to be the other way about - I have a particular aptitude for aptitude
tests, which among other things has led to me becoming a member of Mensa
with a reputed IQ of 158.

And what am I really? Just a common computer programmer.
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

From:	Bozza
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:10:32 GMT

[follow-ups unset, we've had contributors from all the groups - nice to let
them follw all comments]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:22:53 +0000, Prai Jei wrote:

> Bozza (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
> <1f4ujq8fqx01k.dlg@invalid.come>:
>
>> Hi, I have a job interview in a few days and they want me to take a
>> psychometric test which I presume will include maths, spatial awareness
>> etc...
>>
>> Anyway, having only done one beofe around 15 years ago -- which I did
>> badly in -- I thought I'd have a practice.
>>
>> So anyway, I didn't get below average, I managed to get LOW in ALL the
>> tests. Which was quite dissapointing to say the least.
>
> Aptitude tests alone mean nothing. Don't put too much credence in the
> results.
>
> I seem to be the other way about - I have a particular aptitude for aptitude
> tests, which among other things has led to me becoming a member of Mensa
> with a reputed IQ of 158.

Wow, that is high!

> And what am I really? Just a common computer programmer.

Mind if I ask a question? Are you a brilliant programmer, very talented
would you say? You don't have to be modest, I'm really interested in
whether the tests apply well to pragramming, specifically because the
aptitude test they want me to take is for a programming role.

From:	Bozza
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:19:47 GMT

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:10:32 GMT, Bozza wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:22:53 +0000, Prai Jei wrote:

>> I seem to be the other way about - I have a particular aptitude for aptitude
>> tests, which among other things has led to me becoming a member of Mensa
>> with a reputed IQ of 158.
>
> Wow, that is high!

Just took an IQ test myself, 128 supposedly.

Havent a clue how accurate that is.

From:	Prai Jei
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:54:26 +0000

Bozza (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
:

>> Bozza (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
>> <1f4ujq8fqx01k.dlg@invalid.come>:
>> I seem to be the other way about - I have a particular aptitude for
>> aptitude tests, which among other things has led to me becoming a member
>> of Mensa with a reputed IQ of 158.
>
> Wow, that is high!

That's why I say reputed. I don't believe it myself, must be way off the end
of most scales, but there it is in black and white on the scoresheet that
came back from Mensa.

No, it's a meaningless number. As I say, all it scores is your aptitude for
aptitude tests.
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

From:	bryant_j_j at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	15 Jan 2005 07:19:55 -0800

Bozza wrote:
> Hi, I have a job interview in a few days and they want me to take a
> psychometric test which I presume will include maths, spatial
awareness
> etc...
>
> Anyway, having only done one beofe around 15 years ago -- which I did
badly
> in -- I thought I'd have a practice.
>
> So anyway, I didn't get below average, I managed to get LOW in ALL
the
> tests. Which was quite dissapointing to say the least.
>
> Anyway, I don't consider myself to be a genius, but I do possess a
BSc
> First Class Honours in Computing. I'm also a reasonable programmer -
not
> brilliant, but not too bad - hell I even get paid to do for a living.
>
> Now my question is, why am I so hopeless at these tests? Can I
improve my
> scores? Or should I give my career to become a road-sweeper?
>
> Am I just a very lucky idiot who fluked a First (75% average) in very
a
> technical degree at a decent university?
>
> What's wrong with me?

maybe u were feeling too anxious during the test so that you could
not do your best. i've had experiences where i failed (almost)
miserably on a test, yet when i changed my attitude and also the way i
prepared for it. then i got a very good score. if you relax a little
perhaps you will be able to concentrate better and show a better side
of you.

From:	Bozza
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:37:55 GMT

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:13:08 GMT, Bozza wrote:

> Am I just a very lucky idiot who fluked a First (75% average) in very a
> technical degree at a decent university?

Just to qualify for Americans, a First Class Honours is the equivalent of
straight A's (GPA 4 in the US I believe).

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:49:33 -0500

Bozza wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:13:08 GMT, Bozza wrote:
>
>
>>Am I just a very lucky idiot who fluked a First (75% average) in very a
>>technical degree at a decent university?
>
>
> Just to qualify for Americans, a First Class Honours is the equivalent of
> straight A's (GPA 4 in the US I believe).

Ah, I see, you weren't exposed to as many "objective tests" as US kids
are, so you never really learned how to do them. It's a skill like any
other. After a while, you can even guess what the _desired_ answer is,
especially if it's a cheap test (likely, since most employere try to
save money), which is not necessarily the same as the "best" answer.

I recall a nice anecdote from the 60s, when SATs were still looked on
with suspicion (correctly, IMO.) Atlantic Magazine ran an article
critical of ETS. One of their staff, a graduate with a 1st class degree
from a UK university, scored well below average on the SAT. One of his
problems was that he didn't catch the incredible number of US-specific
references and assumptions built into the questions, or required to spot
the "correct" answer. His other problem was that for too many questions
he could see two or more "correct" answers, depending on how you read
the question - he was too sensitive to ambiguity, it seems. Sensitivity
to ambiguity is one of the things UK schools try to develop.

All in all, "objective testing" is an oxymoron. People think the munbers
mean something in and of themselves, which is patent nonsense. Even when
you test, say, the hardness of steel, all you get is a number. What the
number means, ie, whether the steel is good stuff or not, depends
entirely on what you want to use the steel for. A good number for one
purpose will be a bad number for another.

Etc.

From:	EKurtz99
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:59:59 -0500

"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote
>
> I recall a nice anecdote from the 60s, when SATs were still looked on with
> suspicion (correctly, IMO.) Atlantic Magazine ran an article critical of
> ETS. One of their staff, a graduate with a 1st class degree from a UK
> university, scored well below average on the SAT. One of his problems was
> that he didn't catch the incredible number of US-specific references and
> assumptions built into the questions

In the math portion of the test?

, or required to spot
> the "correct" answer. His other problem was that for too many questions he
> could see two or more "correct" answers, depending on how you read the
> question - he was too sensitive to ambiguity, it seems. Sensitivity to
> ambiguity is one of the things UK schools try to develop.

You only have his word for it about any of this. Brits like to think they
are superior to Americans; he could merely have been trying to explain away
his failure, and found in you someone credulous enough to buy
rationalizations.

> All in all, "objective testing" is an oxymoron.

Based on a single example?

> People think the munbers mean something in and of themselves, which is
> patent nonsense.

No they don't; in the case of the SAT, colleges believe that the scores
predicts first year performance better than any other method. They may be
wrong in doing so, of course, but that is not the point. Likewise, IQ tests,
it is believed, predict life outcomes better than any other measure. No one
but a fool would think test scores "mean something in and of themselves",
without any empirical justification.

> Even when you test, say, the hardness of steel, all you get is a number.
> What the number means, ie, whether the steel is good stuff or not, depends
> entirely on what you want to use the steel for. A good number for one
> purpose will be a bad number for another.

Tell us something we don't know.

>
> Etc.

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:05:13 -0500

EKurtz99 wrote:
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote
'[...]
>
>>All in all, "objective testing" is an oxymoron.
>
> Based on a single example?

An anecdote illustrates a point, it doesn't prove it. I hope you can in
future tell difference between an anecdote and data.

Also, I used the phrase "all in all", which signals that the conclusion
is based on all data available to the speaker.

>>People think the munbers mean something in and of themselves, which is
>>patent nonsense.
>
>
> No they don't;

Oh yes, they do. My claim is based on the editorials, letters to the
editor, and conversations with my neighbours whenever test scores are
released. No one, ever, asks on what basis the passing score or standard
was established. There are certainly some people who ask these
questions, but people in general don't.

> in the case of the SAT, colleges believe

Oh, I see, you think that a generalisation refers to all members of a
group. Sorry, I'll try to remember that far too many people don't know
the difference between a universal and a general statement. Read my
sentence as referring to _most_ people (ie, more than 50%, just to be
crystal clear about it.)

> that the scores
> predicts first year performance better than any other method. They may be
> wrong in doing so, of course, but that is not the point.

Oh, but is the point - because they use SAT scores to keep people out of
college.

> Likewise, IQ tests,
> it is believed,

By whom?

>predict life outcomes better than any other measure.

Which life outcomes? For what group(s) of people? Compared to what other
group(s) of people? In comparison to what other factors? Etc.

> No one
> but a fool would think test scores "mean something in and of themselves",
> without any empirical justification.

Precisely.

>>Even when you test, say, the hardness of steel, all you get is a number.
>>What the number means, ie, whether the steel is good stuff or not, depends
>>entirely on what you want to use the steel for. A good number for one
>>purpose will be a bad number for another.
>
>
> Tell us something we don't know.

So you know all this. And you _still_ believe that objective tests such
as the SAT have positive value?

Why?

From:	EKurtz99
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:03:53 -0500

"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
news:bvXGd.16750$W33.527288@news20.bellglobal.com...
> EKurtz99 wrote:
>> "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote
> '[...]
>>
>>>All in all, "objective testing" is an oxymoron.
>>
>> Based on a single example?
>
> An anecdote illustrates a point, it doesn't prove it. I hope you can in
> future tell difference between an anecdote and data.

I can tell the difference between someone who can prove his case and someone
who can't.

> Also, I used the phrase "all in all", which signals that the conclusion is
> based on all data available to the speaker.

It's a silly phrase and you should stop using it.

>>>People think the munbers mean something in and of themselves, which is
>>>patent nonsense.
>>
>>
>> No they don't;
>
> Oh yes, they do. My claim is based on the editorials, letters to the
> editor, and conversations with my neighbours whenever test scores are
> released.

Well, that acounts for about 20 people.

> No one, ever, asks on what basis the passing score or standard was
> established. There are certainly some people who ask these questions, but
> people in general don't.
>
>> in the case of the SAT, colleges believe
>
> Oh, I see, you think that a generalisation refers to all members of a
> group. Sorry, I'll try to remember that far too many people don't know the
> difference between a universal and a general statement. Read my sentence
> as referring to _most_ people (ie, more than 50%, just to be crystal clear
> about it.)

You did not say "most" people; you said, in the eternal manner of sloppy
thinkers, "people". So to refute your statement, I found "people" who don't
think that way. Understand? Probably not.

>> that the scores predicts first year performance better than any other
>> method. They may be
>> wrong in doing so, of course, but that is not the point.
>
> Oh, but is the point - because they use SAT scores to keep people out of
> college.
>
>> Likewise, IQ tests, it is believed,
>
> By whom?

You need to read this:
http://tinyurl.com/5k9h6

>>predict life outcomes better than any other measure.
>
> Which life outcomes? For what group(s) of people? Compared to what other
> group(s) of people? In comparison to what other factors? Etc.

Irrelevant to the point that there exist "people" who do not "think the
munbers mean something in and of themselves". You are seriously confused.

>
>> No one but a fool would think test scores "mean something in and of
>> themselves", without any empirical justification.
>
> Precisely.
>
>>>Even when you test, say, the hardness of steel, all you get is a number.
>>>What the number means, ie, whether the steel is good stuff or not,
>>>depends entirely on what you want to use the steel for. A good number for
>>>one purpose will be a bad number for another.
>>
>>
>> Tell us something we don't know.
>
> So you know all this. And you _still_ believe that objective tests such as
> the SAT have positive value?

I think it is pointless to argue with idiots, and you are one serious idiot.

>
> Why?

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:05:16 -0500

EKurtz99 wrote:
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
> news:bvXGd.16750$W33.527288@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>EKurtz99 wrote:
>>
>>>"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote
>>
>>'[...]
>>
>>>>All in all, "objective testing" is an oxymoron.
>>>
>>>Based on a single example?
>>
>>An anecdote illustrates a point, it doesn't prove it. I hope you can in
>>future tell difference between an anecdote and data.
>
>
> I can tell the difference between someone who can prove his case and someone
> who can't.
>
>
>>Also, I used the phrase "all in all", which signals that the conclusion is
>>based on all data available to the speaker.
>
>
> It's a silly phrase and you should stop using it.

Why? Just because you don't like it? I should write a paragraph listing
my experience and reading, I suppose. notice.>

[snip the rest of the silly comments that are supoposed to be an argument]

Correlations between IQ scores and life outcomes are low. Many
correlations between life outcomes and other factors (such as family
income, geography, cohort, infant nutrition, level of mother's
education, which parent reads the bedtime stories, etc) are as high or
higher. So what?

Correlations don't prove a damn thing. They are just correlations. The
fcat that the correlation between two variables is statistically
significant is sueless withotu further investigation. When one of the
variables correlates at a similar level of sognificance with still other
variables, the data are in danger of becoming useless.

To find out whether there is any causal connection between the
correlated variables takes a good deal harder work than running
statistical analyses. Anybody who's done real science, not mere number
games, knows that you start by sifting anecdotal data to look for the
factors that might, perhaps, possibly, maybe, in some cases, on
occasion, once in a while, somewhat anomalously, give a hint or
suggestion or faint implication or indication as to what cause or causes
might be at work. IOW, you look for factors that are hidden in the
correlations.

Besides, most sociological statistical work is designed to prove that
some anecdotal evidence can be translated into "data".

The SAT started with the assumption that performance on some standard
set of questions would predict college achievement. It does, since the
questions relate to the kinds of things college instructors expect
freshmen to know. It would be surprising if there were no correlation
between SAT and 1st year college achievement, in fact. But HS grades are
just as good, especially when a college has enough data on grads from
particular schools and their performance.

From:	Ari
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:39:10 -0600

"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message news:taCGd.3278$K03.148076@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Bozza wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:13:08 GMT, Bozza wrote:
>>
------- SNIP -------
>
> All in all, "objective testing" is an oxymoron. People think the munbers mean something in and of themselves, which is patent
> nonsense.
------- SNIP ------->
> Etc.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Munbers don't mean a thing to me.

Aristotle Polonium

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

From:	Prai Jei
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:01:22 +0000

Ari (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message

:

> Munbers don't mean a thing to me.

They don't mean much to any of us. Did you mean numbers by any chance?
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

From:	Bozza
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:13:12 GMT

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:49:33 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

Hi Wolf.

> His other problem was that for too many questions
> he could see two or more "correct" answers, depending on how you read
> the question - he was too sensitive to ambiguity, it seems. Sensitivity
> to ambiguity is one of the things UK schools try to develop.

I seem to have this problem a lot with practise tests I've done. Much of it
seems to me to be open to interpretation - especially those damn 'similar'
shapes!

> All in all, "objective testing" is an oxymoron. People think the munbers
> mean something in and of themselves, which is patent nonsense. Even when
> you test, say, the hardness of steel, all you get is a number. What the
> number means, ie, whether the steel is good stuff or not, depends
> entirely on what you want to use the steel for. A good number for one
> purpose will be a bad number for another.

Interesting. One would need to extract the optimum score to role mapping.
Obviously this would take no account of whether the employee wanted to do
the job or anything else.

The more I think about these tests the sillier I consider them as a
recruitment tool - but then I would say that :-)

From:	Rob Duncan
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:58:45 -0800

"Bozza" wrote in message
news:1100cty6w4ad0$.dlg@invalid.com...
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:49:33 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf.
>
>> His other problem was that for too many questions
>> he could see two or more "correct" answers, depending on how you read
>> the question - he was too sensitive to ambiguity, it seems. Sensitivity
>> to ambiguity is one of the things UK schools try to develop.
>
> I seem to have this problem a lot with practise tests I've done. Much of
> it
> seems to me to be open to interpretation - especially those damn 'similar'
> shapes!
>
>> All in all, "objective testing" is an oxymoron. People think the munbers
>> mean something in and of themselves, which is patent nonsense. Even when
>> you test, say, the hardness of steel, all you get is a number. What the
>> number means, ie, whether the steel is good stuff or not, depends
>> entirely on what you want to use the steel for. A good number for one
>> purpose will be a bad number for another.
>
> Interesting. One would need to extract the optimum score to role mapping.
> Obviously this would take no account of whether the employee wanted to do
> the job or anything else.
>
> The more I think about these tests the sillier I consider them as a
> recruitment tool - but then I would say that :-)

Bozza, ignore the tests. Ive taken so many, of so many different kinds, its
now obvious to me which answers they want. The scores mean nothing.
Ambition does. Then again if youre dumb as a brick all the ambition in the
world isnt going to do a person a bit of good. But being bright goes a way
towards making ones life easier. Youre bright, just leave it at that.

Rob

From:	Bozza
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:49:26 GMT

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:58:45 -0800, Rob Duncan wrote:

> Bozza, ignore the tests. Ive taken so many, of so many different kinds, its
> now obvious to me which answers they want. The scores mean nothing.
> Ambition does. Then again if youre dumb as a brick all the ambition in the
> world isnt going to do a person a bit of good. But being bright goes a way
> towards making ones life easier. Youre bright, just leave it at that.

Hi Rob, Ive taken a few more and I'm steadily improving my scores. They are
learnable - I have ambition, hence I will learn them.

Gotta play the game I guess.

From:	JWG
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:52:06 +0000 (UTC)

In sci.math Bozza wrote:

: Now my question is, why am I so hopeless at these tests? Can I improve my
: scores? Or should I give my career to become a road-sweeper?

Ignore it. I had a friend who was kicked out of the math club in college,
was told by an undergraduate instructor that he's never get anywhere in
math, and then went on to get a PhD in Logic - specifically model theory,
not the easiest of pursuits.

Cheers,
Justin

From:	Kara
Subject:	Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests
Date:	16 Jan 2005 14:13:26 -0800

As some of us have said. They are useless, irrelevant, dont mean a
thing...

However, we must face the reality that there are people in positions
(employment & education) who make decisions about other individuals
based on these silly bubble worksheets.

I do believe with practice you can score higher. But you see, there is
the rub...it is all just a game.

ACT/ SAT really burns me. A scam to get money out of people to prove
how well you will do (without ever considering motivation) in college.

So much merit is placed on these bubble things that children waste
hours and hours each year learning "how" to take the test.

Which is why there are courses on how to take these tests--which have
been proven to work.

Do NOT give up on anything because of a timer, a little pencil, and a
scap of little bubbles. And that is what it really is.