How good is your reading?

[Halcyon]

Are you a good reader? How do you know how ‘good’ you are? Well, for me, there are two tests that measure that. I bombed the first one (46th percentile). I take the second one this August. Read the following descriptions and tell me, experienced reader, how well do you think you, based on all your pervious reading, would do. And, how do you think a person could get better?


THE GRE – Graduate School Record Exam – Verbal Section:

“The verbal section measures your ability to analyze and evaluate written material and synthesize information obtained from it, to analyze relationships among component parts of sentences, to recognize relationships between words and concepts, and to reason with words in solving problems. There is a balance of passages across different subject matter areas: humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.”
​

THE MCAT – Medical College Admissions Test – Verbal Section:

“The Verbal Reasoning section of the MCAT is designed to assess your ability to understand, evaluate, and apply information and arguments presented in prose texts. The test consists of several passages, each 500 to 600 words long, taken from the humanities and social sciences and from areas of the natural sciences not tested on the MCAT Physical and Biological Sciences sections. Each passage is accompanied by 5 to 10 multiple-choice questions based on the information presented in the passage. …”​

I have several friends who took either the MCAT or GRE (one took them both) after we graduated. We all had darn good grades, but our performances in the verbal section varied greatly. I believe skillful reading is much on the side of rigor than fun. Am I wrong?

So two points here:
1. Read the descriptions and tell me, experienced reader, how well do you think you would do(and how you came to your conclusion), and how do you think a person could get better.


2. I believe skillful reading is much on the side of rigor than fun. That is, it's just like any other sport that takes a lot of hard work to get good at. Am I wrong?

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I'd ay if you gave me a book boring enough that I'd want to analyze word relationships, I'd do pretty good! ^^

 

[marlasinger]

^ I agree. I don't really care too much whether I'm a "good reader" or not, as long as I enjoy what I'm reading.

But to answer your question, I don't think I'd too well on either of those tests. I don't seem to be that good at absorbing lots of information, especially detailed information. Once I'm done reading something, after a while, I generally forget all the details, and just remember the gist of it. (Sometimes, I even forget the gist of it! )

But having said that, I think your approach would be alot different when you are taking these tests, as opposed to just reading a novel on the weekend. After all, it's a test, not something designed for fun/enjoyment, so I can see why someone who reads alot, mightn't necessarily do well on the tests.

 

[direstraits]

Halcyon... I get the feeling that you're approaching reading, the hobby, with the sort of discipline you'd need for the analysis of chess literature.

Your statement about being a better reader with time is something I may not agree with. Whatever your reading 'level', if you're reading something you like, you'll learn more than if you're reading something you don't like. This has got nothing at all to do with reading or comprehension skills.

I'd screw up both tests. I'm good at screwing up tests.

ds

 

[Ell]

First of all, as Marla mentioned, I think you read differently when taking a test versus reading recreationally (at least, I did when I was in university). You also read differently if it's for the purpose of attaining information.

To answer your questions:
I've always scored well on reading/verbal/comprehension tests - but don't recall ever doing anything 'special' to acquire this ability. I have always been an avid reader.

I believe you get better at comprehension and analysis - or what you call skillful reading - by challenging yourself with different authors, styles and genres; both fiction and non-fiction. There is room for both enjoyable, easy reads that don't require much thought, and deeper, more meaningful writing that requires active thinking on the part of the reader. Both types of reading make you a better overall reader.

I'm not sure your analogy to sport is quite accurate. Like sport, it does require practice and repetition, but it doesn't necessarily take a lot of hard work. Although, I guess it depends on your definition of hard work.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I agree somewhat with DireStraits. if you try and absorb information and word relationships from a book it's going to seep out og your head when you get caught up in the ploy anyway lol, but I think that it would actually be a pretty good idea to study the words and things from a book you've already read and enjoyed. That way, while you study you know whats going on in the plot and you enjoy it. Also, i suppose the Suspenceful Force weakens the more you read the book.

 

[Halcyon]

Halcyon...Whatever your reading 'level', if you're reading something you like, you'll learn more than if you're reading something you don't like. This has got nothing at all to do with reading or comprehension skills.

Dire, thanks for your response. I must disagree with you though. I think learning more from passages has everything to do with your comprehension skills. I think a huge reason why a lot of people don't enjoy certain books is because they do not have the necessary reading skills. Conversely, I believe you enjoy the material because you have complete understanding. Granted, you probably like what you're understanding, but comprehension is a necessary requisite. And you cannot argue that having increased comprehension augments enjoyment. And it is also clear, that certain books are much more difficult to comprehend than others, thus making those books unavailable to weaker readers – like myself at the present time.

I believe you get better at comprehension and analysis - or what you call skillful reading - by challenging yourself with different authors, styles and genres; both fiction and non-fiction.

Ell, you're once again very helpful. When I realized I needed to boost my verbal scores to have a better shot at obtaining entrance to medical school, I set a series of goals. The most direct route is reading periodicals with intensity. The wall street journal and time magazine are examples. But I choose 100 novels in 2005 because, for me, it would be a lot more fun. Personally Ell, I think you’re right about ‘challenging yourself with different authors, styles and genres; both fiction and non-fiction’ as the best way to improve. But I think just reading everyday will do immense good for my skills. Do you agree?

...so I can see why someone who reads alot, mightn't necessarily do well on the tests.

Marlasinger, thanks for your response. A different approach for reading for pleasure and for exams is certainly true. But I refuse to believe that reading everyday will not improve your ability to perform well on verbal exams. I bet, in fact, anyone who has read over 1000 novels in the last 10 years would blow that test away. I don’t mean just pass it, I mean crush it – 99% percentile.

 

[Cathy C]

Halycon said: 1. Read the descriptions and tell me, experienced reader, how well do you think you would do(and how you came to your conclusion), and how do you think a person could get better.

Do you mean how we think we would do on the test based ON the description? In that case, in both instances, I'd do just fine. Are you having a difficult time understanding the description and, therefore, believe you would have a hard time with the exam?

Halycon said: 2. I believe skillful reading is much on the side of rigor than fun. That is, it's just like any other sport that takes a lot of hard work to get good at. Am I wrong?

Define "skillful reading" as you understand it.

Halycon said: When I realized I needed to boost my verbal scores to have a better shot at obtaining entrance to medical school,

Why then, would you not be interested in reading with technical jargon? The reading skills necessary for medical school aren't at the layman level that you would find in Reader's Digest. Reader's Digest, while entertaining, is written to the "low average" public, who has limited time and attention span. As a physician, you would be expected to perform at a minimum level of "low exceptional." I would think you would be VERY interested in technical jargon, especially involving the sciences. Take a glance at Archaeology, Discover, Omni or Popular Science for a little higher reading level that still has a variety of information.

 

[Halcyon]

Are you having a difficult time understanding the description and, therefore, believe you would have a hard time with the exam?

No, I understand the descriptions fine.

Define "skillful reading" as you understand it.

I classify a skillful reader as one who can perform under those constraints (the description of what the verbal exam covers) and be in the… say… 80th percentile nation wide.

Why then, would you not be interested in reading with technical jargon?... I would think you would be VERY interested in technical jargon, especially involving the sciences.

The MCAT tests about 2 years of college. From those two years you learn all the technical jargon you need. I need to improve my <<insert what the verbal section tests>> skills.

 

[direstraits]

Dire, thanks for your response. I must disagree with you though. I think learning more from passages has everything to do with your comprehension skills. I think a huge reason why a lot of people don't enjoy certain books is because they do not have the necessary reading skills. Conversely, I believe you enjoy the material because you have complete understanding. Granted, you probably like what you're understanding, but comprehension is a necessary requisite. And you cannot argue that having increased comprehension augments enjoyment. And it is also clear, that certain books are much more difficult to comprehend than others, thus making those books unavailable to weaker readers – like myself at the present time.

Halcyon... no problems with disagreeing. You're right about needing comprehension to understand what you're reading. I also agree that comprehension augments enjoyment.

However, what I wanted to convey was one tries harder to comprehend difficult material, maybe through external help (i.e. dictionary, reference works), regardless of reading skills.

I'll give you an example. I consider myself an avid reader with above average comprehension skills. I'm currently trying to study banking and finance (business of banking, foreign exchange, etc) on my own, as a supplement to my working skills. I try to get beginner material as well as in-depth stuff. I've found the going bloody hard.

I love computer stuff. I read anything, from industry news to technical details of motherboard construction. I won't say I know everything, but since I love the material, I automatically try harder at understanding the more difficult stuff, and I learn more in the same time I learn about banking.

That's what I meant when I said comprehension may not have a bearing on your reading skills. It's relative. I understand that my examples are skewed towards materials generally read for information/test and not novel enjoyment, but I just thought I'd explain myself.

Cheers.

ds

 

[Halcyon]

However, what I wanted to convey was one tries harder to comprehend difficult material, maybe through external help (i.e. dictionary, reference works), regardless of reading skills.

Thanks for the input – that makes sense. One thing I really take out of what you say, and a few others who said similar things, is that if you’re reading something you love, you won’t view the skill development as a chore. I didn’t really think about that before, and I appreciate that point of view from this forum.

I’m curious though – only answer if you’re comfortable – why do you think you wouldn’t do well on these tests? I mean, I’m trying to get to a level of reading comprehension probably around your current level in hopes that I will do well on the test.

 

[direstraits]

Well, I'm not sure if I'll do badly, but I'd expect I probably will simply because I have no idea what to expect from such a test. I did a comprehension test when I was twelve, and although I understood the spoken story perfectly, and I thought I answered correctly, the results came out as a 'B'. This merely suggests that I think I understand, but others know better.

Plus, when I say I'm above average, my bar for averageness is probably much lower than you're expecting, so believe me, you'll want to go much higher than me.

ds

 

[hatter]

I always did quite well at written and spoken tests, but my strengths are the humanities, don't ask me to talk about physics. I think 99% of those skills come down to bullshit (hope I'm allowed to say that, will it get blocked out?). By that I mean you have to know how to bluff your way through those sorts of things. When in doubt rave on about something that sounds good. If you sound like you know what you're talking about people often believe you.

Yes, I think reading builds up your vocab. and your comprehension. You also start to take on board the different styles of whatever you're reading without realising it. I studied history at Uni and it really is a different language sometimes, but you don't realise it because you're gradually building up an understanding of the way historians construct their arguments and you start to think and write like that yourself.

If it is a verbal test I'd say you have to translate those skills. Maybe joining a bookclub or some other forum (offline) where you sit around and talk to people about what you've read would help. Having to explain to someone else what a book says or means is very different to just reading it and thinking about it yourself. It often helps clarify your thoughts on something, and it can make you aware of arguments you need to develop further in order to make your point.

 

[funes]

Halcyon,
While I wish you much success in your efforts, I would caution you not to assume too causal a link between reading some particular set or number of books and improving your comprehension skills. Do not lose sight of the forest for the trees.
My advice would be to concentrate on whatever it is that you are reading - read slowly, read each sentence, etc. - rather than on finishing some arbitrary number of books. Also, as has been said already, find someone with whom you can discuss books. It seems to me that reading comprehension is much more the product of a way of thinking about books, and about stories and words, than it is building one's vocabulary, etc.
In answer to your question, I did quite well on both the GREs and the SATs. But, that doesn't really mean anything other than that I have a sort of innate feeling for words, and a facility for taking tests.

 

[Cathy C]

Y'know, Halycon,

After reading your posts, I think I know what goal you're trying to reach. Your written word (i.e., your posts) are thought-provoking and well stated. Therefore, the trouble must be with translating the written word into a spoken argument. I don't think it's so much that you need to read more as to find someone to discuss books with. Even though you can comprehend what is in print, you are correct that to thereafter describe or argue in favor or against out loud is a different group of skill sets. What I think would be more valuable to you than simply reading and improving your vocabulary and comprehension would be to either take a public speaking class or join an in-person book discussion group. If you stated outright that your goal was to increase your verbal speaking ability, people would most likely engage you in discussions that will challenge you, but in an informal setting where you won't be "under the testing administrator's eye".

Do you think that would help?

 

[Ell]

Cathy, the GRE verbal skills section is not actually 'verbal' - i.e. it's not oral. It's a test of comprehension, vocabulary, word relationships and the ability to analyze what you've read to draw conclusions, etc. as stated in H's first post.

ell

 

[hatter]

Cathy, the GRE verbal skills section is not actually 'verbal' - i.e. it's not oral. It's a test of comprehension, vocabulary, word relationships and the ability to analyze what you've read to draw conclusions, etc. as stated in H's first post.

ell

That was my fault, I saw verbal and ran with it. We don't have GRE's (that I'm aware of) in Australia. And I know Med. students here (it is related to medicine at least isn't it? I haven't completely missed the point?) have to do an interview section in their applications at least, not sure about later testing.

I still think discussing books with other people is a good way to hone your comprehension skills. You have to explain yourself when they don't get it.

 

[Ell]

I still think discussing books with other people is a good way to hone your comprehension skills. You have to explain yourself when they don't get it.

I agree. It's also a good way to hear other opinions and interpretations of something that you might have thought was clear cut.

 

[Cathy C]

Cathy, the GRE verbal skills section is not actually 'verbal' - i.e. it's not oral. It's a test of comprehension, vocabulary, word relationships and the ability to analyze what you've read to draw conclusions, etc. as stated in H's first post.

ell

Ah! I originally thought that, but I haven't heard of the GRE's either, I thought perhaps I hadn't properly comprehended ... Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Halcyon]

Cathy – You’re the second or third person who recommended the group discussion (book club) and I really appreciate that. I would never have sought after that – thanks. You know, I think it’s probably good for just it’s purpose, but the real benefit of belonging to a group like that is the accountability they would hold you to.

The verbal test on the GRE was crazy for me. They would give you this series of paragraphs. On my test I remember one of them being about some global warming scientist who said the earth was overheating. Then the questions that followed was something like: if A, B, C happen, the authors opinion would likely be: then 5 wordy choices. I felt hopeless!!!! The verbal section is not related to the sciences – the rest of the test (expect the writing section) tests that.