site banner
bolido_sentimental  1yr ago (text post)   4133 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 25, 2022

Merry Christmas, everyone!

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is there such a thing as taking tests fast or slow, separate from actual score? Throughout my academic career I finished every test I ever took freakishly fast, like everyone else is working and I'm sitting there for half an hour. This did not correlate with how in or others did on the test, if I tried to go back and change answers or edit I was as likely to score lower as higher. Friends who scored the same as me, consistently, took more time to finish.

Normally test taking speed correlates with intelligence, but it always felt like something else there.

I had a few of those. Answers well-memorized, methods well-drilled, and most importantly the test was actually on the topics of the course - something that was frequently not the case at my university. Take one look at the test, write down all the answers in half an hour, then sit there for an hour or ask to be permitted to leave while all my peers are still working away at their desks. Not something that happened to me with math tests, but frequently with CS tests.

Now, I am not a clever man. See https://www.buttersafe.com/2008/10/23/the-detour/. And I think it is in fact a small but significant degree of dumbness that allows me to just blow off the prospects of re-visiting my answers. Or maybe high time preference? Maybe I really don't want to waste an hour even if it might cost me some infinitesimal career advantage? In any case, I don't think it's necessarily intelligence.

I'm fairly certain it's not intelligence, through high school and law school friends who got the same scores consistently took longer.

I've sped through tests where I knew all the answers and I've sped through tests I was woefully unprepared for. For me it was just a matter about being confident about what I knew and what I didn't know. Aside from a quick double check at the end, no amount of head wracking was going to help me recall papers I hadn't read.

I think - It's just a combination of intelligence, smarter -> can do smart things faster, and the way specific people are randomly better at some tasks than other people. It isn't a separate thing from intelligence - consider how JvN was famously quick - but it's a thing you're better at in the same way someone can be better at math and another better at music composition even though both come from the same mechanisms and genes as 'intelligence' generally.

I would be very interested in this as well. The one thing I’ve heard is that you should be careful about changing MCQ answers of questions you’re not entirely sure about (and that isn’t down to simply working it out with the information given, like in a mathematics test), because there’s often some association below the level of conscious thought that’s pushing you to the initial answer.

It tended to be the MCQs that I finished in half the time most other people did; my pen grip is poor, so essay-questions tended to be agony as my hand starts to cramp half an hour to one hour in. I also tend to find more things to write when I get more time, is that not the same for you?

Edit:a word

because there’s often some association below the level of conscious thought that’s pushing you to the initial answer.

I don't like the conscious/subconscious distinction, but aside from that, you almost always can do extra work to either check an answer or rederive it in a different way, and changing answers based on that will improve your score. I always caught a few mistakes going back over problems.

I don’t really disagree, especially if you’re able to get more information. I think it’s more for knowledge questions that you have no solid clue on, go “I feel it’s C somehow”, then start doubting yourself afterwards for no solid reason.

The one thing I’ve heard is that you should be careful about changing MCQ answers of questions you’re not entirely sure about (and that isn’t down to simply working it out with the information given, like in a knowledge test), because there’s often some association below the level of conscious thought that’s pushing you to the initial answer.

I've argued this so many times with my wife about aesthetic choices. When we pick paint colors for the house, I stare at the rack at home depot until I pick a color, then we stick with it. I also forbid changing outfits after one has gotten dressed, they always get worse not better. There's something below the surface that will make the perfect choice obvious! You make one decision and then stick with it and never think about it again. Given, that's also how I got married to start with.

But it seems like that wouldn't apply as much to the LSAT.

I had an extremely similar experience, but it’s worth noting that my mother insisted- over my own objections- that I be in the extended-time-accommodations group for major tests.

No, I don’t have any learning disorders(although I do have poor penmanship, it does not reach the threshold for dysgraphia), nor are their any reasons that I should need or be entitled to accommodations. My mother was a school administrator and knew how to work the system, and wanted me to get extra time despite the lack of evidence it did anything, ever, other than causing boredom.

Often overlooked: test taking speed correlates with writing speed, like actual physical putting letters to paper. I think in my school days I probably spent 90% of the time writing and 10% of the time thinking of the answer. My penmanship was just that poor.

My penmanship was just that poor.

Same here. Surprisingly I did well in English despite writing slowly compared to most (I wrote 6 pages per paper in my final exams while others wrote 12).

There's no good reason you should do worse after going back and reviewing answers. More time to think should always be better, ceteris paribus. The only explanation I can think of would be if you're biased toward assuming your initial answer was wrong (e.g. because you doubt your own intelligence or doubt your test taking abilities) and so you consistently talk yourself into changing answers you shouldn't change.

What I found when studying for LSAT was that frequently I changed an answer from correct to incorrect when I went back. Typically after a section there were 2-3 I was unsure of.

I developed a rule that I would only change the answer if I could construct basically a logical statement that proves another answer was correct. When that happened changes were generally from incorrect to correct.

It's not that I always did worse, it's that it was as likely I'd do worse as I'd do better. At a certain point more time isn't helpful, in a closed book exam room setting time is only helpful up to some point where you've done all the work and extracted all the knowledge from your brain. I seem to hit that point much faster.

Can you be more specific about the type of test you're talking about? I initially envisioned a g-loaded multiple-choice test like the SAT, but what you're describing sounds more like a long-form written answer test based on subject matter knowledge. As another commenter pointed out, maybe you're just a fast writer/typist?

As someone who has always been an extremely fast test taker (and a consistently high-scoring test taker), I still struggle to think of situations where more time would not be beneficial for me. Unless the test is pure regurgitation of memorized lists, or unless the test is so easy that you're scoring close to 100% on the initial pass, having more time to review and refine your answers should tend to result in a higher score.

I still struggle to think of situations where more time would not be beneficial for me.

"Solve this math question" where you don't actually know how to do all of it. More time won't help when you lack some of the fundamental knowledge required.

If you literally have no clue how to do it, then I can see how more time would not be helpful. But I wouldn't consider that being a "fast test taker" I would consider that simply being unprepared for the test.

In my experience as someone who majored in physics and minored in math, there is almost always some way to use additional time productively on math tests, even if you're stumped by a problem. Re-write the problem in a different form and see if it looks more familiar. Change the coordinate system and see if it makes things easier. Try out various mathematical tools/techniques and see if they work.

I mean just set the time period to thousands of years, and eventually your descendants will develop new maths?

Everything. SAT, LSAT, ASVAB, Grade school math, high school calc, undergrad econ, law school fed courts. Been perpetually true. Essay, multiple choice, hard, soft. Selective college, gen pop at a public school.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats