Read life tests reviews, rating & opinions:Check all life tests reviews below or publish your opinion.
100 Reviews Found
The Myth of Achievement Tests: The GED and the Role of Hero in American Life edited by James J. Heckman, John Eric Humphries, and Tim Kautz. 452 pages hardcover, © 2014, University of Chicago Press. Although this is an edited compilation, the editors package this book with ten chapters, the latest nine that flow like a one-author book. It makes a profoundly powerful case versus the GED. This book will not be favored by the Education School establishment because it is built on solid history without regard for the every-three-year fads that churn paradigm-less educationism. The main editor is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and the other two editors are likewise economists. Each chapter is followed by an extensive list of references. Some folks think of the GED as a “graduate equivalency test” while the actual name is General Education Development testing program. Today, the American Council on Education (ACE) is an advocate of the try as is Pearson Education, Inc. The general public photo of the GED is that it gives high school dropouts a “second chance” to complete their high school education. This book assembles the ample negative data to present that the GED has a lot of negative consequences and is not anywhere near the equivalent of the high school experience. However, with America stuck in the third iteration of “No Kid Left Behind” (the Every Student Succeeds Act”) that continues the try prep pressures on public schools under state laws, the clear distinction between genuine high school and the teach-to-the-GED may be narrowed due to the erosion of public schoolwork by the very strategies used to prepare students for the GED. Chapter 1 begins to explain how this book “evaluates the predictive power of achievement tests for life outcomes by examining one widely used achievement test...the GED.” At the time this book was released, much criticism of the GED had led to its revision to more closely match up with the “common core” tests that were spreading in usage across the United States under the U.S.D.E. This chapter lays out an overview of the issues they will analyze and document in detail in later chapters: • As a group, GED recipients are not equivalent to high school graduates. • Genuine “high school graduates outperform GED recipients in earnings, employment, wages, labor shop participation, self-reported health, and college completion.” • GED recipients are more “...likely to use alcohol, commit crime, or go on welfare.” • “GED recipients earn the same wages before and after they certify.” • “As a group, GED recipients lack hero skills compared to high school graduates.” One exception to the above group is girls who dropped out due to pregnancy; when they completed GEDs, their performance was more related to regular high school completers. However, these authors discuss and separate their studies from those in “The Bell Curve” insofar as that Herrnstein and Murray book concluded heredity was the main factor while this book pursues measurable features of hero and “the malleability of IQ.” Ultimately, this book asserts that “the GED distorts social statistics and masks inequality” and they back this with evidence. This chapter also probes the origins of achievement testing: Mann, Spearman, Jensen, Taylor, Tyler, et al. One graph demonstrates the dramatic increase in standardized tests per student. Other graphs list other tests used to “validate” the GED, the changes created to the GED since WWII, the hours spent in preparation for the GED in 1980 and 1989, the distribution of students by cognitive ability for GEDs versus dropouts vs regular students, labor shop differences, and weekly rage ratios. Chapter 2 addresses the “Institutional history of the GED” and traces the rise of achievement testing theory and practice. However, theory gave method to urgency when Globe Battle II reduced the draft age of students and led to massive debate between military, university and education parties over how to provide “wartime diplomas” for students pulled out of high school or returning after service” “...nearly 10 million Globe Battle II veterans had not complete high school, although half had some high school education... Since neither the military nor the federal government could grant high school credentials, ACE staff worked to convince the different state departments of education of the value of using their GED try as the basis for awarding high school degrees.” Despite serious issues norming the GED, the financial help from the Rockefeller General Education Board and the Carnegie Corporation encouraged the ACE to expand GED use for soldiers coming back who had not graduated high school. States adopted the GED to “give veterans the benefit of the doubt” and the experience base and maturity of those returning veterans could be considered to be the hero and work ethic factors that created that generation’s use of the GED various from the non-veteran cohort of GED recipients today. “In spite of the availability of the GED test, over three million Globe Battle II veterans used the GI Bill...to return to high school after their discharge from the service.” Chapter 3 explains how the “GED testing program grew from 37,000 takers in 1950 to over one million in numbers went up, the percent of veterans taking the GED went down. This chapter also provides an analysis of latest high school dropouts vs older non-trads and also incarcerated prisoners. Chapter 4 describes who the fresh GED recipients are. In an era of an all-volunteer troops that only takes high school graduates, although GED recipients can apply, the GED is not serving the same role as it did post-WWII. Chapter 5 analyzes “the economic and social benefits of GED certification” and the data are mostly negative. A lot of graphs illustrate the difference in skills and backgrounds between GED recipients and other students, including the National Longitudinal Survey of youth 1979. One graph info the number of 2004 cohort GEDs who enrolled in postsecondary education with only 2 percent attaining an AA degree, 1.3 percent gaining a bachelors degree and 0.1 percent a masters or above. Here is the data showing essentially no difference in wages and other indicators between GEDs and dropouts. If anyone keeps detailed data on recruits, it is the military. Chapter 6 looks at “the military performance of GED holders” and the cost to taxpayers is high. GED holders (along with those who attend virtual high schools, data not in this book) have higher rates of attrition and the armed forces attempted to establish quotas until the Congress prevented them. Table 6.1 lays out the 36-month attrition rates for each service broken down into the different education credentials. Chapter 7 then leads to the true issue of how “the GED testing program induces students to drop out.” Different state threshold scores and option programs are described. Three studies are used to help this assertion. “Increasing the passing requirements of the GED try reduces dropout rates.” A nationally-mandated increase in passing scores also decreased dropout rate. Introducing the GED in Oregon decreased regular high school graduation rates, as it later did in California. Bottomline, the GED induces students to drop out of school. Chapter 8 traces the latest “high-stakes testing and the rise of the GED” by noting that nearly 25 million GEDs were issued between 1980 and 2009, or about “one-sixth of all high school-leaving credentials awarded during that time period.” By this time, an smart reader is fairly jaundiced about the value of the GED and this large number of questionable high school graduates will be shocking. The authors rightly acknowledge the pressures on teachers and school administrators to raise graduation rates by any means. This is a short, technical and disturbing chapter. Chapter 9 now moves to the more positive effort of “fostering and measuring skills: interventions that improve hero and cognition. They pursue the “big five personality factors: conscientiousness, openness to experience, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism/emotional stability. Unlike the prior chapters, this chapter ranges far wider and is much more speculative. It asks more questions than it answers, including what skills are “needed for success in the labor market?” A lot of programs and populations are summarized. The authors insist that “character is a skill—not a trait” and that hero can be shaped, especially in earlier childhood. Three pages describe the authors and a 10-page index concludes the book.
So I've just started to skim this book, and read previews published by U. of Chicago. There is a lot to criticize in the GED test, in the companies that [email protected]#$%! currently, and about high stakes testing. A few things, though, for readers to consider:-Authors are economists, so far as I know. Which is great, economists are important. However, they write with disdain for adult education "classrooms" where "students" "learn". Those are their air quotes. I obtain their point -- a lot of classrooms serve as extended study sessions. But many, many, a lot of are adult literacy classrooms, with things like "pedagogies", "curriculum", "evidenced-based best practices" all aimed at helping low-literate adults and youth improve their literacy & numeracy skills. Or in non-educational lingo -- they are helping students learn to read, write, analyze, evaluate, and do math (among other skills).-Authors seem to have a lot of prejudice versus GED students and their abilities to succeed after obtaining a degree. As I said, there is a lot to critique about how well the GED try (and thus classes) helped students achieve work & college outcomes, much as the same could be said for HS. But it's also very real that many, a lot of GED students go on to succeed as well.-The GED is not a national standard anymore. Pearson Inc. bought the try from ACE. A lot of states adopted fresh High School Equivalency (HSE) tests and pathways; a lot of states kept the GED; a lot of states did all of the above.I'm looking fwd to reading the book in more detail. But the authors' tone leaves me somewhat skeptical that they aren't walking into their research with their views already formed.
Yay! I don't really need this but I wanted to see the layout. Since you can design this, can you create a spelling try for my kid? He isn't English as a second language - but my coding sucks (yah I know I know I need to work on it). He's currently in 3rd grade. There's some list I think it's called "Fry's" list - you could pull words from there. If you have time, if not I still appreciate the application (and sale)!
I knew I was about to read something most definitely not run-of-the-mill when I read the cover that showed the book was endorsed by an organization known as the Live Cowards Club. Since this is a club for which I will handily pass any and all entrance tests, it tickled the old laugh ke no assumptions though, this is a very serious book, just written in a humorous manner: that of showing oneself capable of being a amazing and safe pilot to an examiner. It is mainly written from a South African point of view (so expect to stumble into words spelled weird like ‘manoeuvre’ ;) ) although the laws of physics holds no matter where you fly. As Davis says, this small book “takes you through each flying exercise and tells you what [the examiner] expects of you.”Each part of the checkride is examined, from pre-flight inspection to steep turns, tp cross-country flying. Each section is filled with hints and the powerful voice of a very experienced pilot. In essence, this book will support you obtain mentally prepared for the test. Here's one from near the front of the book:“Try to do everything smoothly. Imagine that you have your 90-year-old granny in the back, and its[sic] her first flight ever. Do everything smoothly, even little things like applying carb-heat, changing power settings or selecting flap. Passengers should not be able to message changes of power and speed and attitude.”With equal parts mindset framing, expounding on the philosophy of amazing airmanship and practical flying technique information, this is a book that punches above its weight class. Five highly recommended stars.
Добрый. Давьте плиз больше примеров в тестах со всеми вариантами использования конкретного времени. 20 предложений мало))) Также прошу добавить те заковыристые предложения, где глагол to be ставится в конце вопроса, до сих пор не понимаю, как они формируются. С Уважением.
Though this is a real iq test, and not a "pseudo" test, as a lot of have pointed out, it is HEAVILY biased on verbal, with verbal scores being counted three times, and Cognitive and Mathematics only one with most iq tests of this nature, the results are less reliable the further you obtain from the ere are fifty stuff for each test, and two tests for each attribute supposedly being measured. If you were to miss five questions on each group of fifty questions, your score would be 137. Scoring PERFECT on the try makes you only 144 in intelligence. Is either accurate? To an extent, yes. However, i noticed that several of the questions could easily have been interpreted incorrectly or have more than one answer. This leads to a drop of several points on the test, and in some cases that would be is also deficient for measuring lower scores, in that simply understanding the try instructions requires some degree of summary, it is a amazing try for giving one a GENERAL idea of where your iq is, but should not be taken too seriously at the extremes.If you score excellent on this test, GO ELSEWHERE TO GET TESTED. A excellent score could mean you had an Iq of144 or 200, and THAT is a lot of difference. On the other hand, if you normally score average up to high average, the try is fairly reliable.
I kinda bought this just because i search these kinds of tests fun. It emphasizes verbal (the score is calculated by mathematical score + spatial score + (verbal score x 3). I kinda suck at verbal (which is a nice method of saying i suck beautiful poor at verbal), and this particular try is beautiful vocabulary reliant for the verbal section, which i think is a bit hacky, but i could just be being salty over it. Also, i got 126 and i think that's an overestimation of my capabilities. So.I guess i got lucky, flattery is at play, i just doubt myself, or some mix of those 3 things. The mathematical and spatial tests were a lot more fun (or i could just be saying that because i did much better on those).
The product is exactly as described. However, I would not recommend these tests for anyone of particularly high or low intelligence, as 144 and 81 are the top and bottom ceilings of the tests. The content of the tests is related to what you would see on a true I.Q. test, and they seem beautiful reliable (I received the same score on both tests).
The try gave me a consistent score in comparison to other tests I have taken. Regarding the criticism that the try is verbally weighted, all of the major intelligence tests weight the verbal portion higher, as this section is more "g-loaded", for those of you familiar with the concept of general intelligence. In high school, I took the Florida 12th grade test. It had an aptitude score (same as IQ) and I scored at the 86th percentile. I am a practicing school psychologist and I self-administered the Multi-Dimensional Aptitude Battery, a group administered IQ test. This is a paper and pencil ver of the WAIS and consists of 10 multiple choice tests with each try having a 7 min time limit. I scored 117 (86th percentile). On Victor Serebriakoff's try I scored 117 (87th percentile). I would have scored one point higher, since I had planned to change two answers on the comprehension item, but got side-tracked and forgot. My weak zone has always been spatial ability. I scored higher on the ASVAB, but your score on this does not contain a spatial component. However, amazing measures of intelligence have a broad array of stuff (i.e., verbal, numerical, spatial), so my lower score of 117 is more reflective of my general intelligence.
This book is 33 pages, for as few pages as there is, I was surprise to search several mistakes in the sample questions and the actual IQ questions ! Mistakes in IQ questions will not support with your try results !!Other than that, it is a little and very affordable small book for practicing or preparing for an IQ test.
Feel this is something you can do in your spare time and well worth while just to hold your mind active. Lot it depends on how much math you took in school and how long ago you actually were in school; however, would recommend it just for the brain exercises if nothing else.
The try for California is very short, and doesn't cover the more difficult questions. There are also a lot of distracting grammar and spelling errors. There is also a very irritating issue where it gives you the correct respond twice, and you have to guess which one is right.
The first three math tests have over 18 questions that are typos, not good use of symbols, or are ambiguous. This severely limits the usefulness of this book as a amazing preperation for math for the Praxis exam. I would recomend a more carefully proofread study guide.
I feel the need to rewrite my previous review. I would say that the sign question section is relatively accurate. When you obtain to the written or law portion of the app, then things go sideways in a hurry. I think the author was and is genuinely trying to deliver a amazing product, but it's just lacking in several areas. I would advise that, unless your state DMV/DOT made the app, don't trust anything else for your actual driving. Use your state handbook and you'll be much better for it.
I struggle with Math and excel in Reading and Writing. This book has 3 practice tests for each section, but I chose to utilize the Math practice tests only. The practice helped me to recall and internalize Mat devices, formulas, etc. That I'd long forgotten. Not only will I praise the practice tests, this book so much more. Such as specific information on the Praxis I try that separates it from other standardized tests, hints on reducing try anxiety, and much more. Utilizing this book will no doubt support you earn points on the Praxis I exam.
Fairly confident that this application is not calibrated for people who actually have these conditions, but rather is a surface assessment for entertainment purposes. While it compensates with recommended actions, in no method should it be assumed accurate.