I. triumphant
Not that many people care (however, this being my blog, I exercise the right to write about things that only I and two or three other people might actually care about), but I am happy to report that my first hurdle towards despotic regime-dom has been cleared. I got my target score for the math section of the GREs. Phew.I am so. damn. relieved.
Almost triumphant, in fact. Well, except that I got 100 points lower than I was targeting on the verbal section, but I guess we can't have it all. At some point, I need to figure out whether departments of despotic regime study care about the verbal enough that I should consider retaking this exam again, but right now, I'm so glad I passed the bar on the math section that I'm not going to worry about it for just one night. (Or until I get my scores for the written sections back.)
And I am proud to say that I did not even need to recruit the help of a certain Bulgarian male. Actually, truth be told, it wouldn't have been possible to have him take my math section, because can you believe—they actually make you write and sign a statement certifying that you are yourself, then take your picture, video tape you and pretty much watch you like hawks for the entire four hours behind glass windows. (More on this later.) It's one thing for me to lie for myself, but it's another thing to make someone else lie for you, and had I actually had third person take my exam, he would've had to lie on my behalf, which kindof kills that option of having someone else sit in on your exam for you.
Mind you, this isn't so much an "accomplishment" as a bare minimum bar I needed to pass in order to have my application be considered by some programs, so it's probably a bit premature to be patting myself on the back, but this is no small feat for moi. First, I have never done well (enough) on standardized exams. They have been the bane of my existence and probably the limiting reagent whenever I have applied to programs. Granted, two of these lousy scores may have been partly due to incompetent proctors, but the schools don't really care about these things when they look at your sub-par score, and you can't really complain about how a chronologically challenged proctor may have adversely affected your performance, because it just makes you look whiney. Second, I did so poorly on the first math section, that I was resigned to getting a lousy score and having to retake the exam again. However, in retrospect, this must've been the experimental section, because it was wicked hard and there was no way that I could've gotten anything higher than a 700 on that section since I had to blindly guess on at least 3 problems, was extremely iffy for another handful, and didn't even get to the last 3 or 4 problems in the end. (I've taken enough practice exams to know that this would've put my score well below 700.) In fact, this section put me in such a state of jittery nerves for the rest of the exam, that it was kindof hard to concentrate on the other sections. Until I got to the unexpected third section and regained some hope over the possibility that the first section might not count.
I had completely forgotten about the experimental section—until math section number two popped up after I thought I was done with the exam and was expecting a score report. Math section number two was a lot more reasonable, but I still expected to get a few wrong.
Thus I literally (very briefly) squealed in glee when I saw my score and realized that they must've not counted the first math section. In fact, I was dumbfounded, to tell you the truth.
This isn't me, but this (Sage Broccoli: I hope you don't mind me linking to your photo. I think only your friends can see it anyway.) is how I felt after the exam.
II. Standardized testing in 2008.
In case you've been out of the standardized testing loop, let me tell you that it is not what it used to be ten or even five years ago. The administrators have become completely paranoid to the point of it being absurd and ridiculous and extremely annoying.First, they do not allow any backpacks into the room. Even five years ago, I was allowed to bring my backpack into the room, so long as I didn't dig into it during the exam, but really, what idiot would do that in the middle of an exam where people are watching you like hawks? Why do something to cast suspicion on you and risk having to throw out your scores?
In fact, much to my grave annoyance, they do not even let you bring your own pencils. Or bottled water. Or even tissues, to blow your nose with, which is really annoying, when one has allergies to contend with. I suppose they think that I might write some intricate code on tissue paper or stuff my lead pencil with crib notes? Well, ok, fine. I can deal with no water for a few hours and use writing implements that I haven't used since like fourth grade.
But then they also make you take off your watch. Now this, I resisted, because for two out of three standardized exams I've taken in the past, the room monitors royally botched up the time calls (I know this, because I always bring my own watch to keep time for myself), and both times in a way that wasn't in our favor, so I now have very little faith in their ability to accurately tell me when 30 minutes are up and mostly rely on myself to keep track of time. Thus, I was really not willing to part with my watch. I was extremely uneasy at entrusting the timekeeping to someone else, but I didn't really have much of an option.
They also don't like you keeping around extra layers of clothing in case you get cold. I had a hooded cardigan on at the start of the test, but at some point, got warm and took it off and hung it on my chair. I wanted to keep it nearby in case I got cold again. Mind you, they just inspected my pockets prior to entering the exam room, so they know it didn't have any cheat sheets hidden on or in it. Moreover, there were several people watching us like hawks on video monitors, etc., so it's not like I would've been able to clandestinely communicate with an external person with a hidden sleeve mic or anything like that. But as soon as I took my extra layer off, a room monitor came in and took it away and told me I can't have anything hanging on my seat because it violates protocol. Protocol shmotocol.
I have no idea what has happened in the past five to ten years to warrant this level of vigilance that bordered on paranoid absurdity, because in 2002, you just walked in, showed your ID, and simply took the exam. No fingerprinting, no taking of pictures, no signing 20 different waivers and no restrictions on bringing tissues to blow one's nose. I mean why the hell do they make us go through the trouble of writing out and signing a statement swearing that we won't cheat, use unauthorized aids, disclose the contents of the exam, etc. etc. if they are not going to take us seriously?
Anyway, I am so glad that it is over. Tomorrow, a new day, a new obstacle to surmount.
6 comments:
The folks who run these exams are like the TSA in that they're completely reactive. They don't invent rules until somebody has successfully cheated (or more often, stolen test questions). So yeah, somebody used tissues to cheat, and somebody hid a camera phone in their sweatshirt on their chair, etc. Anyway, it isn't the proctors, who are just doing their job (themselves under video surveillance). It's the people who actually write the tests that are super-paranoid.
And oddly enough, I did a practice GRE yesterday, and found myself happy with my quantitative and disappointed with the verbal. Believe it or not, the better you feel after a section, the worse sign it is, because of adaptive testing. If you thought it was hard, it's because you probably put yourself on a harder track and thus had a more forgiving scoring.
I had to take the damn GREs TWICE because apparently they "expire" after 5 years. Ick.
But really" you had to remove your watch? WTF?
(To Danny) Oops. I hope I didn't imply that it was the proctor's fault. (However, the calling of time up to 10 minutes before time was up was the proctor's fault.)
I realize it's reactionary, but it's really aggravating for those of us who have much much better things to do than try to outsmart ETS or steal test questions.
(Are you taking the practice tests for idle curiosity or to get into a grad program?)
(To Opera) This was my second time taking them, too, but I took them back in 96, before they had computerized exams.
I'm surprised that they make a big deal out of it for music programs, though.
And yes, they would not let you in the room with anything except your photo ID, which means I had to remove my watch and everything from my pockets. I didn't mean to give the proctor a hard time, but like I said, I've had very bad experiences with proctors who can't do their job, so I really resisted over them trying to confiscate my watch.
Yeah, I'da been pissed as well.
What, like you wrote the quadratic formula on the back of your watch?
Heh. That is one tidbit of information I actually do remember and do not need a crib sheet tucked away in a watch! :) However, the test doesn't really test beyond early high school math, so no quadratics needed.
Oddly, they did not inspect my arm for scrawled on formulas. B/c that is more likely for me than trying to hack a watch and install formulas.
Post a Comment