Hacker News Reader

Comment by grandmczeb | Hacker News Reader

I’ve always had a similar feeling.

In classes where I knew the subject well, I generally did well on the tests. In classes where I had gaps in my understanding, I usually did poorly. In classes where the grades were posted publicly, my general subjective judgment of how well people knew the material matched up with their scores. Not perfectly, obviously, but the correlation has been high enough that I’ve never really been convinced that testing in general is “missing” some critical element of learning.

View on HN

There might be a really strong correlation, but the deviations from that correlation might not be totally random. That is, there might be people who consistently test above or below their skill level. This creates some weird imbalances that are far from fair.

It would be a lot more acceptable if deviation of test scores from skill were to be totally random for every test.

I can understand biases in a specific test (e.g. cultural biases), but those can (and should!) be corrected with better design and specific accommodations. Do you think that testing as a general method of evaluation is biased though? Because the objection I typically see isn't "we need better test design" it's "there's a component of student ability that cannot be measured by a test".

It is more about things like stressing over tests, dyslexia, ability to sit still for x hours and ability to express yourself in writing.

These all affect how well you test, but do not determine your skill in the subject. Hence, having a disadvantage in any of the above gives you a system disadvantage in the educational system.

The cure for test stress is preparation, i.e. studying. Nothing works better on a test than knowing the material. The rest is just excuses.

That works for most of us, but not for all. It's basically the same as public speech, some people simply will do badly unless they go through some radical change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com