My understanding is you're equating `failing a test` to `lacking the relevant skills and knowledge to do a certain task competently`.
The reality is sometimes tests in academia are just not very well made and don't really test what they are supposed to be testing, and that's usually due to multiple reasons like misaligned incentives, staffing shortages and maybe lack of resources / funding.
I don't think the comparison to flight school is relevant enough in this context because it's a too different of a world to traditional academia.
I don't buy the notion that tests do not test relevant skills.
In my long career I've noticed a strong correlation between SAT scores and academic performance as well as job performance.
> I don't think the comparison to flight school is relevant enough in this context because it's a too different of a world to traditional academia.
My dad kept his flight school tests for flying all sorts of airplanes. They bear a lot of similarities with the SATs. There's a lot of math in there for things like fuel consumption, wind, maximum landing weight, glide distance, and so on.
For example, one day he was cruising along in his F-86 when the engine failed. he radioed the tower, and they told him to bail out. But he calculated his speed, altitude, distance, wind, sink rate, air templeratur, etc., and figured he could make the field after configuring the airplane for maximum glide. He made a perfect landing, but still got reprimanded for risking his life bringing the airplane back. But he had worked the math and disagreed that it was more risky to bring it in than bail out.
Do you also think LLM leaderboards accurately reflect the capabilities of the models being tested? If you do, then I can easily point you to numerous academic papers pointing out the various flaws in many leaderboards (from poorly designed benchmarks like bABI and the original SQuAD, to data contamination, and more).
In that same way, any test, including the SAT and GRE have flaws. They can be gamed in ways similar to LLM leadeboards: test prep makes you better at them. That's one of the main reasons universities moved away from SAT; they were afraid that it disenfranchised lower socioeconomic status students (and it does to some degree). The issue is that the test is positively correlated with success in an undergraduate program, so they threw out the baby with the bathwster. The real issue is that the SAT is not able to distinguish the capabilities among students to the degree it purports to.
And if you want an anecdote to match all yours, the first time I took a GRE practice test, I got a 3 on the writing. Not because I'm poor at writing, but because I didn't really know what they were looking for. After reading a test prep book, I got a 4.5 on my next practice test and a 5 on my final practice test. When I finally took the actual GRE, I got 6 on the analytical writing. Trust me, nothing changed in my writing ability over that time. In fact, I didn't even practice the skill except through those three practice tests. Clearly the test was not capable of determining my real ability to make an argument; it merely tested my ability to adapt my writing to what was supposedly being tested.
Interestingly, the vast majority of universities that got rid of the GRE requirements for PhD programs are not going back on that. Turns out that the students with the highest GRE scores are the ones most likely to drop out of their STEM PhD. [1]
There are three major parts of the modern GRE: Verbal, Quantitative, and Analytical Writing. You could easily look that up, or ask if you didn't know.
Responding off the cuff without any reflection on the comment you're responding to doesn't move the conversation forward in any meaningful way. It just comes across as disrespectful.
> I don't buy the notion that tests do not test relevant skills. In my long career I've noticed a strong correlation between SAT scores and academic performance as well as job performance.
SAT tests intelligence (aptitude), not skills. Which is why it correlates with job performance, where intelligence can (over some time) matter as much or more than a starting point of relevant skills.
Not really comparable... the overwhelming majority of flight tests involve flying an aircraft. There is no meaningful way someone can be excellent at flying an aircraft but can't pass a test which involves flying an aircraft.
The same can't be said for many other tests. If the test involves the practical application of the very skill being tested, then that test has direct relevance to he competency of said skill.
But many other tests are not like that. A teacher can be brilliant in the classroom yet stumble on a standardized certification exam full of pedagogical jargon. A chef can cook a variety of excellent dishes but fail a written culinary theory exam testing the French names of techniques they perform by instinct. And perhaps more relevant to this audience, a coding interview that relies on whiteboarding algorithms from memory can easily fail an excellent engineer who builds great software every day but doesn't recall the optimal solution to some puzzle on the spot.
They are never going to let you into a cockpit until you pass ground school, which involves a lot of math.
> A teacher can be brilliant in the classroom yet stumble on a standardized certification exam full of pedagogical jargon.
A teacher that cannot explain how calculus works cannot teach it to anybody.
> a coding interview that relies on whiteboarding algorithms from memory can easily fail an excellent engineer who builds great software every day but doesn't recall the optimal solution to some puzzle on the spot.
I've seen too many coders using bubble sort because they don't know enough to look for a better algorithm.
In any case, the purpose of leet coding tests is to quickly filter out the utter frauds. I have a programmer friend who wanted a job at a major software corp. He knew he'd have to pass the leetcode in an early stage of the interviewing. He figured it would take 6 weeks or so to study that material. I suggested that, since he was applying for a $250K job, that would be the most productive studying he'd ever done. He agreed, did the 6 weeks of studying, aced the leetcode test, and got the $250K.
So ya, there is a point to those tests, in filtering out the frauds and the ones who aren't willing to do what it takes to get those jobs.
Ground school most certainly does not involve a lot of math, it's not like there's any calculus or algebra involved... it's basic arithmetic. Furthermore it's categorically false that you need to pass ground school before you're allowed to fly.
Are you just making things up?
>A teacher that cannot explain how calculus works cannot teach it to anybody.
This is a strawman argument, I never made anything that could even remotely be interpreted as this.
>I've seen too many coders using bubble sort because they don't know enough to look for a better algorithm.
This is committing a very basic logical fallacy. The fact that someone who is incompetent likely can't pass a test is not the same claim as someone who can't pass a test is likely incompetent.
Hopefully you are able to identify this logical mistake that you're committing and revise your position accordingly.
Google sez: "The U.S. Air Force strictly requires you to complete and pass formal academic ground training before you ever touch the controls of an aircraft"
They're not going to risk an aircraft on an incompetent student.
> A teacher can be brilliant in the classroom yet stumble on a standardized certification exam full of pedagogical jargon
I stand by my statement.
> logical fallacy
A implies B meaning B implies A is indeed a logical fallacy. But that does not rule out B implies A. A and B can be strongly related to each other.
So you are making things up... thanks for confirming that. While I appreciate that you reviewed what Google "sez"... you have misunderstood the relevant context which is that the U.S. Air Force also requires that you complete Initial Flight Training (IFT) before you start the Air Force's own formal training program (UPT). In IFT you will not be required to pass ground school before you get to fly.
Furthermore, even if the Air Force did not require IFT before UPT (the Air Force's own training program), you've completely changed the nature of your argument. I have no dispute about whether the Air Force may or may not have stricter requirements for their pilots, but that wasn't your argument.
>I stand by my statement.
You've proudly planted your flag on a point nobody was contesting, which is a strange hill to celebrate on but you do you.
>But that does not rule out B implies A. A and B can be strongly related to each other.
Discussing a topic with someone who not only uses logically fallacies as justification for their argument but brazenly doubles down on said fallacy is a good sign that this is probably not a good discussion to continue spending time on. Like am I supposed to simply accept your logical fallacy and take on the burden of disproving every claim you can dream up simply because you've asserted it isn't logically impossible? The person making the claim carries the burden of supporting it, and "they're strongly related" is something you have to actually show, not something I'm obligated to refute on your behalf.
> it's not like there's any calculus or algebra involved
There certainly is when you're navigating.
Some of the more advanced math is boiled down to specialized slide rules, though these days they'd use a computers.
For example, the fuel consumption rate vs range is not a linear relationship, because burning fuel lightens the airplane and so it can go faster/further.
I would be much more ok with someone who failed the test but knew how to pilot a plane vs someone who aced the test but can’t figure out how to get the engine started.
The reality is sometimes tests in academia are just not very well made and don't really test what they are supposed to be testing, and that's usually due to multiple reasons like misaligned incentives, staffing shortages and maybe lack of resources / funding.
I don't think the comparison to flight school is relevant enough in this context because it's a too different of a world to traditional academia.