Well?

Not really

There is a truth under all of this kind of talk, standardized tests don't measure capability.

No test that you can learn to take and work is a good measure of a person.

If we wanted to be fair we'd hand out something that tests pure brain hp, if such a test truly existed.

Things like the MCAT and LSAT are about gaming the system, not how capable you are.

(12-17-2014 08:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not really

There is a truth under all of this kind of talk, standardized tests don't measure capability.

No test that you can learn to take and work is a good measure of a person.

If we wanted to be fair we'd hand out something that tests pure brain hp, if such a test truly existed.

Things like the MCAT and LSAT are about gaming the system, not how capable you are.

But isn't the point to take the best available talent based on the testing we do have?

The problem is what we have isn't measuring talent. It's measuring conformity.

(12-17-2014 10:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The problem is what we have isn't measuring talent. It's measuring conformity.

No matter what we test, shouldn't we choose the people who score best? Otherwise, why test at all?

(12-17-2014 11:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 10:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The problem is what we have isn't measuring talent. It's measuring conformity.

No matter what we test, shouldn't we choose the people who score best? Otherwise, why test at all?

The point is we need a new yardstick. So, should we be worried about standards today? No. The absolute morons that can game the system to get into elite institutions for medical school, or whatever, would blow your mind.

We need a new measuring stick. The ones we have now measure conformity, and you really don't want the biggest conformist on the block as your doctor, lawyer, or whatever else.

(12-17-2014 11:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 11:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 10:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The problem is what we have isn't measuring talent. It's measuring conformity.

No matter what we test, shouldn't we choose the people who score best? Otherwise, why test at all?

The point is we need a new yardstick. So, should we be worried about standards today? No. The absolute morons that can game the system to get into elite institutions for medical school, or whatever, would blow your mind.

We need a new measuring stick. The ones we have now measure conformity, and you really don't want the biggest conformist on the block as your doctor, lawyer, or whatever else.

The measuring stick exists, it's called medical school. The reason there are so many wickets between pre-med and MD is to try and weed out those who are incapable of being a doctor. The tests are necessary because it demonstrates ones memory recall, which is essentially when in a crisis situation.

Yes, in my opinion we should be concerned.

I'd rather expel the discrimination and go with the best qualified because at this point, it's the best we have.

(12-17-2014 08:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not really

There is a truth under all of this kind of talk, standardized tests don't measure capability.

I'd disagree. While not perfect, standardized tests do measure capability. Lots of studies confirm that, although they're not popular to reference.

Now for my own experience, having taught MCAT prep courses, my answer is HELL YES. There are some very stupid and lazy people who want to be physicians. They believe that they can just discuss things to arrive at an answer; one that "feels" right to them as opposed to one supported by rigorous science.

They have been passed along, even cheered along, via AA, resulting in a student w/ both exaggerated grade credentials and an overinflated sense of ability. More than once the MCAT has been the obstacle that has kept them from taking one of the scarce med school seats, likely filled by someone of significantly greater ability.

Now in the end, most of these unqualified posers would be weeded out of med school if they get in. But we still lose those seats for qualified students and there is a shortage of physicians. However, AA will (and probably has) usher some of them through med school, and they will do significant harm to their patients.

(12-17-2014 10:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The problem is what we have isn't measuring talent. It's measuring conformity.

HoD, isn't that what a diploma does? Like Torch said, the limited number of available seats should go to the folks with the best possible chance of succeeding. Agree?

(12-17-2014 11:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 10:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The problem is what we have isn't measuring talent. It's measuring conformity.

No matter what we test, shouldn't we choose the people who score best? Otherwise, why test at all?

Not necessarily. Testing really only measures what a person has learned up to beginning Medical School. It really doesn't measure how hard someone is willing to work to achieve a goal, etc.

The world is full of intelligent and educated idiots. I'm not saying we ignore test scores, just that those scores shouldn't be the sole determinant.

With that said, I'm not in favor of accepting someone with lower scores based solely in skin color or ethnicity.

It isn't an easy call - for example, when we walk into a doctor's office, we don't demand their test scores that got them into med school OR what they ranked in their class.

(12-18-2014 12:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 10:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The problem is what we have isn't measuring talent. It's measuring conformity.

HoD, isn't that what a diploma does? Like Torch said, the limited number of available seats should go to the folks with the best possible chance of succeeding. Agree?

Might not the best answer be to have more seats, but weed out those incapable rather than continue to purposely limit seats at the table?

Generally, I fall more in favor of giving someone their shot to fail or succeed within minimum qualification standards.

(12-18-2014 11:46 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  They have been passed along, even cheered along, via AA, resulting in a student w/ both exaggerated grade credentials and an overinflated sense of ability.

http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-c...eorge-leef

(12-18-2014 12:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 10:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The problem is what we have isn't measuring talent. It's measuring conformity.

HoD, isn't that what a diploma does? Like Torch said, the limited number of available seats should go to the folks with the best possible chance of succeeding. Agree?

I do agree. Where I disagree is on what is measuring those with the "best possible chance." Standardized tests and GPAs aren't speaking to who has the best chance. They are measuring something else.

The end result is we say that a kid is set to do X because they are great at Y.

That's a problem across the spectrum.

yes.

We have to jump into this conversation from a few angles. I'm on the fence about the system.