How do you test for "STEM talent"? At what age? What happens after you've determined who is or is not a strong STEM candidate?

One of first places I would look for testing examples to get a idea of aptitude is the military. At least until recently there were actually interested in ability not gender quotas. I attended one of the first magnet high-schools in America where the sponsors and evaluators for STEM were actual engineers from Texas Instruments. I was selected not because I had the best math scores, I was selected because my brain functioned like theirs did from a young age and it was easy to detect with the like minded.
https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/asvab

 

One of first places I would look for testing examples to get a idea of aptitude is the military. At least until recently there were actually interested in ability not gender quotas. I attended one of the first magnet high-schools in America where the sponsors and evaluators for STEM were actual engineers from Texas Instruments. I was selected not because I had the best math scores, I was selected because my brain functioned like theirs did from a young age and it was easy to detect with the like minded.
https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/asvab

There's an enormous difference between taking a general vocational test and being personally evaluated by highly-qualified engineers. The latter is not scalable, and the former is not an accurate indicator (when I took the ASVAB, I only qualified for grunt MOSes). But supposing you're able to find some scalable, accurate assessment of "STEM talent" -- then what? What do you do with this information?

 

There's an enormous difference between taking a general vocational test and being personally evaluated by highly-qualified engineers. The latter is not scalable, and the former is not an accurate indicator (when I took the ASVAB, I only qualified for grunt MOSes). But supposing you're able to find some scalable, accurate assessment of "STEM talent" -- then what? What do you do with this information?

Yes, there is a big difference but you have to start somewhere.

You have advanced classes for those people (if they also choose that path) to push them to the limits of their ability.
https://www.oatag.org/
https://precollege.oregonstate.edu/tag

If they fail then it's like any other profession (pilots , medicine, etc ...), you don't get to do that in life.

 

How do you test for "STEM talent"? At what age? What happens after you've determined who is or is not a strong STEM candidate?

STEM talent or (vocational talent) can be easily tested by presenting the person with various questions about science or engineering topics and noting their responses. From my childhood experience, some questions might be as follows.
Are you interested in:
How an elevator works?
How an electric motor works?
How a car engine works?
How a washing machine works?
How a TV or radio works?
How a cash register in a supermarket works?
Watching earth moving machines move rocks an dirt?
Looking at plants, animals, fish, and birds?
Watching clouds or looking at stars?
Watching news stories about earthquakes and volcanoes?
The work of a doctor or nurse?

Do you like:
Reading books and magazines?
Working with numbers?
Drawing pictures?
Solving cross word puzzles?
Working with tools and making things from wood?
Would you rather go to college or work in a shop or factory?
Would you rather play basketball or go to a museum?
What type of music do you like?

From these types of questions, it is possible to obtain a profile of the person's interests (and talent) and direct them to the path of most probable success. Of course, the process would be a lot more elaborate and abstract and require a lot of refinement.

The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is the best metric of a person's talent for college level study, however, there should also be tests for vocational aptitude.

 

STEM talent or (vocational talent) can be easily tested by presenting the person with various questions about science or engineering topics and noting their responses.

Let's see how easily you can gauge my aptitude. I'll answer as I would have at 17.

Are you interested in:
How an elevator works?
Nope.

How an electric motor works?
No.

How a car engine works?
A bit.

How a washing machine works?
Not in the slightest.

How a TV or radio works?
A bit.

How a cash register in a supermarket works?
Nope.

Watching earth moving machines move rocks an dirt?
Not at all.

Looking at plants, animals, fish, and birds?
A bit.

Watching clouds or looking at stars?
Yes.

Watching news stories about earthquakes and volcanoes?
Not in the slightest.

The work of a doctor or nurse?
Nope.


Do you like:
Reading books and magazines?
Yes.

Working with numbers?
Nope.

Drawing pictures?
Nope.

Solving cross word puzzles?
Nope.

Working with tools and making things from wood?
Nope.

Would you rather go to college or work in a shop or factory?
Neither.

Would you rather play basketball or go to a museum?
Basketball.

What type of music do you like?
Classic rock.

So, what's the prognosis? Do I have what it takes to succeed in STEM fields?

The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is the best metric of a person's talent for college level study, however, there should also be tests for vocational aptitude.

Actually, though there is some correlation between high SAT scores and likelihood of graduation, the SAT is not a reliable indicator of college success. There are very good reasons why schools use a multitude of weighted factors to determine appropriate candidates.

Any test that purports to reduce a multidimensional space -- such as aptitude, intelligence, or career suitability -- into a single number or vocation is inherently flawed. In linear algebraic terms, such tests are like singular matrices: they represent transformations that necessarily lose information. There's no metric for What we'll be good at in life.

 

You fail, here's your dunce cap...now go to your room...

 

Any test that purports to reduce a multidimensional space -- such as aptitude, intelligence, or career suitability -- into a single number or vocation is inherently flawed. In linear algebraic terms, such tests are like singular matrices: they represent transformations that necessarily lose information. There's no metric for What we'll be good at in life.

You're correct, there is no simple mathematical model but there are character tells and characteristics that I believe are important.
I sometimes ask a possible future STEM employee to tell me about what they see in this picture.

 

A child that is about to learn a valuable lesson…or get killed.

Do I get the job?

I’m sorry…carry on…

 

A child that is about to learn a valuable lesson…or get killed.

Do I get the job?

I’m sorry…carry on…

You might but that depends on exactly what job is open.

 

The SAT gives you an idea on whether the taker has the potential to succeed in college. The ASVAB gives you an idea if the person can succeed in the basic training courses for some MOS or ratings. You can look at what makes up each area that they use to gauge your chance of success.

Neither are 100 percent accurate, but they damn sure are more accurate than what we have today.

The monkey in the room, IQ, is the best measurement of success potential, according to psychometricians.

 

You're correct, there is no simple mathematical model but there are character tells and characteristics that I believe are important.
I sometimes ask a possible future STEM employee to tell me about what they see in this picture.

When I was 10, I was working on a sewing project for school. The electrical plug was stuck somehow in the outlet. I took a knife to pry it out. You can figure out the rest... That was my intro to electricity...

My sewing machine was a little crazy also and once I managed to stitch through my index finger almost getting through my nail...

My test results were always lower than my actual potential simply because I cannot take tests
There are people who are greatat taking tests but it does not translate into critical thinking ability...

 

My test results were always lower than my actual potential simply because I cannot take tests
There are people who are greatat taking tests but it does not translate into critical thinking ability...

I can tell you that I read the questions too fast when taking tests. I have to force myself to decrease my reading speed. I took a certifying test a few years ago, and I didn't "prepare" as well as I thought I should have. So on my drive to the test center, I was thinking about how I was going to implement my failure as prima facia evidence for test preparation.

All the popular theories started racing in my mind, do the whole test then go back and review. Hell, this was made easier when you could mark the question for further review before submitting the test. This also was my first CAT test, Computer Assisted Testing, and there was no hard value passing grade as the questions you were asked was based on your previous questions response. It typically went like this, you were asked a middle difficulty question, if you got it correct, you would get a harder question. If you got it wrong, you would get an easier question. From this back and forth, they can determine your mastery of the subject, and from what I've read, it could be as little as a dozen or so questions.

Anyway, I marked way too many for review. I did review a couple then decided, why am I doing this, causing me unnecessary stress. So I just submitted the test and went out to get my results. I passed. I attribute my slowing down on reading the question, to accurately define the stem, I was able to get through. That test was full of double negatives, to throw you off.

So, knowing your weakness in test taking is like troubleshooting anything else. You can overcome whatever you find out for your "I can not take tests" statement.

 

I can tell you that I read the questions too fast when taking tests. I have to force myself to decrease my reading speed. I took a certifying test a few years ago, and I didn't "prepare" as well as I thought I should have. So on my drive to the test center, I was thinking about how I was going to implement my failure as prima facia evidence for test preparation.

All the popular theories started racing in my mind, do the whole test then go back and review. Hell, this was made easier when you could mark the question for further review before submitting the test. This also was my first CAT test, Computer Assisted Testing, and there was no hard value passing grade as the questions you were asked was based on your previous questions response. It typically went like this, you were asked a middle difficulty question, if you got it correct, you would get a harder question. If you got it wrong, you would get an easier question. From this back and forth, they can determine your mastery of the subject, and from what I've read, it could be as little as a dozen or so questions.

Anyway, I marked way too many for review. I did review a couple then decided, why am I doing this, causing me unnecessary stress. So I just submitted the test and went out to get my results. I passed. I attribute my slowing down on reading the question, to accurately define the stem, I was able to get through. That test was full of double negatives, to throw you off.

So, knowing your weakness in test taking is like troubleshooting anything else. You can overcome whatever you find out for your "I can not take tests" statement.

Sure, unless you have a tendency to misread, are somewhat dislexic or general issues with performing in a test situation.

I have been burned many times where I copied a problem wrong when working on it. Or flipped signs while solving something. If it is a written test, there are instructors who will give almost full marks for wrong answer as they are looking for understanding of the subject, but this is becoming fewer and fewer as everytthing is moving to multiple choice where if you got the answer wrong, you get nothing and you cannot be assessed on your work. This is lazy testing.

 

When I was 10, I was working on a sewing project for school. The electrical plug was stuck somehow in the outlet. I took a knife to pry it out. You can figure out the rest... That was my intro to electricity...

My sewing machine was a little crazy also and once I managed to stitch through my index finger almost getting through my nail...

My test results were always lower than my actual potential simply because I cannot take tests
There are people who are great at taking tests but it does not translate into critical thinking ability...

You don't need to be great at taking tests but you need to be competent in the manipulation of symbols needed for the task. It's possible to teach mathematics and formal methods to just about anyone if there is a proper incentive. ”Concrete math” aka math for mathematicians is important but having the ability to learn ”conceptual mathematics” as a way to mentally visualize what's on paper into a physical realization is vital.

 

You don't need to be great at taking tests but you need to be competent in the manipulation of symbols needed for the task. It's possible to teach mathematics and formal methods to just about anyone if there is a proper incentive. ”Concrete math” aka math for mathematicians is important but having the ability to learn ”conceptual mathematics” as a way to mentally visualize what's on paper into a physical realization is vital.

There are far too many tests that I have encountered in my life that seem to rely heavily on memorization of the subject, at least in school. It just seems to be how they are structured. Math and physics are definitely better subjects in that respect. But I cringe when I see multiple guess questions being used in those subjects.

 

There are far too many tests that I have encountered in my life that seem to rely heavily on memorization of the subject, at least in school. It just seems to be how they are structured. Math and physics are definitely better subjects in that respect. But I cringe when I see multiple guess questions being used in those subjects.

Rote memorization is a boring but important tool for using your subconscious to solve problems. Most of us older folks remember the chalkboard drills of memorized school lessons even 50 to 60 years later. Many people have no idea how powerful the human pattern matching memory can be until they are forced to repeat training material until you have dreams about it.

 

I have been burned many times where I copied a problem wrong when working on it. Or flipped signs while solving something.

That is a lack of due diligence issue. I don't know how often you hang out in the homework section, but you see that issue a lot.

If an instructor gave almost full credit for a flipped sign issue, that would be wrong. It would be just as wrong as those NASA engineers whose math error lost a $125 million probe to mars. In that case they understood the subject matter, but for a tiny failure in due diligence.

With respect to the two tests I mentions, the SAT and ASVAB, you can take them multiple times. The SAT only maintains your six most recent tests. One thing about the ASVAB, if your close, they can waiver a few points to get you to a school. I'm sure they have records of who was dismissed from the schools and the reason for dismissal. Why would anyone want to pay for you to go to school if you didn't have a good chance of completing it?

I know I would need remedial courses if I went to college after graduating high school 47 years ago. I don't know why someone out of high school would need a remedial course. I have my hypothesis.

 

Rote memorization is a boring but important tool for using your subconscious to solve problems.

I concur. My grand daughter and I started playing a game with a paper plate reducing it in half till we reached the limit ... 1/16th as 1/32nd didn't fold flat. She was four at that time. Over the years we done that multiple times, especially on days we ordered pizza. She now is 7. Recently she asked me if I wanted a piece of cheese. I said yes. When I opened the rectangular piece of cheese, I folded it in half, and we went through the drill down to 1/32. I then folded it in half one more time and asked her what did that new piece represent. She said, "I don't know." I told her to think about it because I think you do. When she said 1/64th, I asked how she figure that out. She told me and there was a congratulatory fist bump. Then I asked if I folded it once again what would be? She figured out it was 1/128th.

She use to write a few of her numbers in odd fashion, not resembling their normal form. She ended up erasing the errors and correcting them, every time she had done that.

 

I sometimes ask a possible future STEM employee to tell me about what they see in this picture.

I see a curious kid, and curiosity is probably the most important character trait in STEM.

If the kid were a bit older, I'd ask him about the difference between using a knife for his experiment and, say, a fork with the middle prongs removed.

 

That is a lack of due diligence issue. I don't know how often you hang out in the homework section, but you see that issue a lot.

If an instructor gave almost full credit for a flipped sign issue, that would be wrong. It would be just as wrong as those NASA engineers whose math error lost a $125 million probe to mars. In that case they understood the subject matter, but for a tiny failure in due diligence.

With respect to the two tests I mentions, the SAT and ASVAB, you can take them multiple times. The SAT only maintains your six most recent tests. One thing about the ASVAB, if your close, they can waiver a few points to get you to a school. I'm sure they have records of who was dismissed from the schools and the reason for dismissal. Why would anyone want to pay for you to go to school if you didn't have a good chance of completing it?

I know I would need remedial courses if I went to college after graduating high school 47 years ago. I don't know why someone out of high school would need a remedial course. I have my hypothesis.

Thank you for pointing out my shortcomings. I am afraid you dont know the underlying issues I faced going through school and what shortcomings I had to overcome. It is comments like this that would drive people away from STEM fields unfortunately.

Yes training memory is important. But just because someone remembers material well, does not mean they can apply it to novel problems. That was my comment. Testing that I have seen is biased in a specific way, mostly to make grading easier.