malix

I've never been on this board before, but I'm surprised by the acidity of replies. Why, Minnesotan, do you sound so angry with thecauldon's difference in opinion? Then rising_star calls thecauldron a jerk? Name calling seems, at the very least, an unsatisfactory and immature way of dealing with legitimately debatable questions. (It is a pet peeve of mine that anonymity permits people to behave in ways they'd consider unacceptable in person.) It sounded, to me, like thecauldron was citing scores and experience in order to demonstrate that test scores are not a reflection per se of an indvidual's work ethic, talent, and intelligence. (To that point, there is no way that thecauldron could have scored so high on the GRE Lit Test without a lot of study and prep- that doesn't sound like a bad work ethic whatsoever to me). The argument over the efficacy of test scores in determining success seems valid to me; it might be true, regardless, that schools use scores in deciding on applicants, but I don't think thecauldron is wrong in voicing frustration. Many people have a similar issue with intelligence tests- that they are used as benchmarks when, in actuality, there are many different kinds of intelligence; not to mention that a 140 IQ and a 150 IQ, for example, can reflect mere seconds difference in the time required to answer a question; likewise, one or two questions can be the difference in a GRE test score, thus making or breaking a cut-off. Obviously the ETS itself is constantly evaluating and reevaluating- hence the alteration from the analytical logic section to the analytic writing section of the exam. That standarized tests are used and to what extent is a practical reality for an applicant; to what extent they should be used, I think, is a valid topic for debate.