hi,
so this thread is probably getting off-topic at this point, but it's interesting (at least to me).
bpolley00 wrote:based on my prior experiences, my background etc. I tend to think if I can't figure something out that something is either A) disingenuously being presented (For example, if you take a test and a question is asking whether Johnny is confident or presumptuous I would say that is a disingenuous question as those two words are synonyms;
ok, i get what you're saying here, although that's not the best example (those words differ substantially, especially in their connotations -- which are exactly opposite -- but also in the nuances of their meaning).
thus, the test isn't checking for a vast understanding of the material but rather tricking the test taker. I would probably assume the professor threw it in there because he has been teaching for 20+ years and he has figured out how to make the ole bell curve of the class look a certain way so he doesn't have to do anything and can just focus on research)
right. but, on standardized tests, it's different.
on all major standardized tests, every scored item has to pass an "experimental" stage, in which it's tried out (without counting toward the score) on thousands of actual test takers.
if an item were indeed "disingenuous" or "tricky" -- as opposed to just requiring an extra degree of careful thinking or due diligence -- then it would be thrown out. a genuine "trick question", after all, would nail both high and low scorers, and thus would be out of step with the progression of test takers' performance.
the flipside here is, of course, that a "trick" that lines up perfectly with test takers' scores -- i.e., a "trick" that the highest scorers somehow always catch (or at least catch far more often), but that the lower scorers don't -- is, well, not a trick at all. that's a tough pill to swallow for people who don't get those particular items correct, but it is what it is.
or B) I do not have enough information to correctly figure it out. I mean, in college I would slam entire Finance books the night before the test because I thought it was funny and get an A if I wanted.
well, it's good that you could do this and make it work; that means you have a rather deep well of talent, at least in the kind of material tested in those finance classes.
but, those (and just about all other college classes) are fundamentally different from the gmat.
college exams are meant to test material that's based heavily on
knowledge -- you have to
know stuff. sometimes there are applications, but, in most cases, they're still applications of
stuff that you have to learn.
the gmat is something altogether different. from top to bottom, it's designed to (a) minimize the amount of
knowledge required to do well on it, and (b) make sure that, if any knowledge
is required, it's stuff that everyone has reasonably seen. (this is why the exam doesn't require knowledge beyond high-school math and the fundaments of the written english language -- because every applicant has definitely been exposed to those.)
instead, it's a reasoning test. as such, yes, it will expose you to tests of due diligence / "being careful".
However, I didn't really care about my GPA because it isn't as if it really means anything. I can go into more detail here if you'd like, but I am pretty sure you already know why GPA is an odd measure of a person's mental ability.
as you and i are surely both aware, GPA is not completely meaningless.
its interpretation is going to change depending on a student's major, of course -- a high GPA in mathematics, for instance, doesn't mean the same thing as a high GPA in communications or humanities -- but it certainly means
something.
in some majors, a high GPA may indicate little more than that a student is good at getting things done on time, or even that he/she is good at understanding what her professors want to see on exams and the like. but, even if so, why aren't
those, too, valuable qualities? if someone is going into marketing, for example, then the complaint that GPA just measures "appeal to professors" becomes, well, no longer a complaint. instead, it means someone is awfully good at "marketing", at least in that particular sense.
2) A Thin line indeed. When I see the above problem I tend to think that it is almost intended to fool someone rather than to test ability. But, I guess that is just my opinion.
this is why "experimental" questions exist: precisely so that these things are NOT just matters of opinion.
4) Well Ron, that is why you got into Stanford and are in the top 1% of people who take the GMAT I guess. :) That strikes me as quite an odd way of looking at the crayons, but I guess that goes back to another GMAT expert's advice in a previous thread who told me good luck bending the spoon.
it's not, really. or at least it depends on context.
i can give you another example: i wear a size 15-16 shoe. i called an allen edmonds store the other day to inquire about a particular model, and was told that sizes 15+ only come in widths D and E.
would i then assume anything about the smaller sizes? of course i wouldn't -- they might only come in those widths, or they might come in lots of other widths (which they in fact do). anything at all could be true about the smaller sizes.
same for the crayons.
