TOEFL TEST USEFUL INFORMATION
Hi! Everybody, excuse me do not have published in the last months because I was preparing me to TOEFL test; not to test my English level that consider better than great majority of the Brazilian professors that studied or studies outside Brazil.
Considering that my academic basic formation has relation with tests and comparison of results, I interested me in evaluating the methodology of application used at my first TOEFL test, realized approximately 10 years later (2001), comparing it with the methodology of evaluation of the actual IBT – Toefl test (Internet Based Test - my second test), because was trained to identify and to exclude any extern factors that may interfere at the results (of tests) and to verify, at the case of the TOEFL Test, if might be manipulate at the BRAZILIANS TOEFL TEST CENTERS with intention of facilitating or prejudicing determinate person.
As I manifested in other pages at my site, I believe that the great majority of the Brazilian Public Concourses - including test of foreign languages (English, German, etc…) - are fraudulent with the objective of approving the indicates of the Brazilian “MAMATA” academic indicate for the opposite sides actuating during the Brazilian military dictatorship.
For the indicates of the Brazilian “MAMATA” academic is only required the fraudulent certificate of proficiency languages applied for Language Departments of the Brazilian Universities. For whom is not indicate of this “MAMATA” is required TOEFL test when not also GRE Test.
And I will illustrate my discordance with one example
of question that is not of a Brazilians concourses public but whose model the
Brazilians professors that elaborate the question copy and use in these
concourses: Vain and prone to violence, Caravaggio
could not handle success: the more his (i)__________
as an artist increased, the more (ii)__________
his life became.
|
Sample Question 3 Answers. |
|
|
Blank (i) |
Blank (ii) |
|
(A) temperance |
(D) tumultuous |
|
(B) notoriety |
(E) providential |
|
(C) eminence |
(F) dispassionate |
1.
Explanation
In this sentence, what follows the colon
must explain or spell out what precedes it. So, roughly, what the second part
must say is that as Caravaggio became more successful, his life got more out of
control. When one looks for words to fill the blanks, it becomes clear that
"tumultuous" is the best fit for blank (ii), since neither of the
other choices suggests being out of control. And for blank (i), the best choice
is "eminence," since to increase in eminence is a consequence of
becoming more successful. It is true that Caravaggio might also increase in
notoriety, but an increase in notoriety as an artist is not as clear a sign of
success as an increase in eminence.
Thus the correct answer is choice C (eminence) and choice D
(tumultuous).
Commentary of author
One of the more interesting discussions is about the STUPID reasonability to solve complex problems presented for the machines at comparison to the humans. According to some experts, the machines (software) could not solve complex problems such as some human because when there is a conflict of rules its STUPID analytical reasoning logic opts for the most simple, which nor always is the most correct. As I am not an expert nor at machines nor at the English test but has some experience at the realization of other types of tests, one of my greater preoccupation is to known if the results that I obtained are or not representative of the variable at study. In this sense, my knowledge aims that is necessary by more than one time revised their interpretation with objective of publishing accurate conclusions about the variable at study.
In the question above, the explication given for the professor to complete the first “blank” is:“the best choice is "eminence," since to increase in eminence is a consequence of becoming more successful. It is true that Caravaggio might also increase in notoriety, but an increase in notoriety as an artist is not as clear a sign of success as an increase in eminence." I think that this is a personal exclusive inference of the professor that elaborated the test about his concept of sucess. In addition, believe that professor's inference confuse the signification of success with to be successful; in spite of similar signification also present narrow difference of signification considering different parameters (wealth, position, like, performance or achievement); in addition to the fact that such as the word "notoriety" may also be used with double signification (to be well or bad successful). Thefore, the gist at this question is to consider the context of the sentence in which "notoriety" and "eminence" were used; at this context - in my opinion - "notoriety" and "eminent " are synonyms such as at the following example: " Fianally, his/her recognized notoriety or eminence as Lawyer was decisive for his/her acceptation at the company."Certainly, the professor who elaborated will also identify some difference.
Of course, the professor has reason in his inference: one of the other signification of “eminent” is “high station, repute or rank”; other inferences in this same direction is that “eminence” refers itself to reputation of the person whereas “notoriety” to his/her public knowledge (that might aim to signification or not of “eminent”). On other words, “eminent” would be associated to signification of ”worthy” such as “noteworthy” while “notoriety” to signification of “widely"(widely read; widely considered; widely appreciated etc…).
However, such as made the professor at his/her inference with relation to the artistic success of Caravagio, I make the following inferences: the signification of “eminence” connected with “high reputation or position at the rank” would have relation with the form of treatment for who the term refer itself (exclusive of Cardinals) or for who realizes important services, which also is not the case of the artistic expression of Caravagio. In this sense, look me that the most correct signification to “eminent” according to the signification of the sentence would be “celebrity;” turning possible also to infer that the term more adequate to artistic expression of Caravagio would be “notoriety” and not “eminent” with the signification inferred for the professor who elaborated the question.
Indeed, I think that the term “eminent” better would qualify the manifestation religious of a cardinal than the manifestation artistic of a person. But this is a personal inference that does not have any relationship with the signification of the sentence. For the latter, think that “notoriety” would be the most adequate term considering that the "tumultuous" life of Caravaggio such as of many artists would have more relationship with his notoriety than "eminence."
In spite of partially agreeing with the explication given for the professor for one of the various signification of “notoriety” and “eminence,” and to admit that such precision could be useful to test the verbal reasoning of a native of English Language, particularly, disagree of the same level of knowledge to be required of a student who has English as his/her second or third language; considering the primordial (essential) reason that he/she same having responded correctly the question “errs” because of its abstruse construction insight for both words other signification such as “FAMOUS or WELL-KNOWN;”which under this optic, would be synonyms terms. Therefore, both would be correct. Of course, an augment in "notoriety" turns the person "famous" or "celebrity," "eminent" or "well-known."
Do you understand? The difficulty is not at understanding the question (to understand the sentence) but to solve the ambiguity of the responses that are offered.
In the case of the English languages tests this procedure takes part of the rule of the game; the student makes the test knowing that there is more than one correct response in addition what considered for the professor that elaborated the test as “the most” correct or the "best"response. However, in the Brazilian Public concourses is required to identify the unique correct response when there is more than one correct, turning possible the manipulation of results and/or recourse; or so, the official response to be according to the interest to approve or reprove who to desire or the indicates of the Brazilian "MAMATA" academic and politic.
Certainly, the professor that elaborated the question of the English test will disagree of me with the justification that “FAMOUS” may also be utilized with positive or negative signification, with who again would agree, because, of fact, is one of the signification as “eminent” as “notoriety,” whose signification according to the American Dictionary: “Notoriety" is 1)- state or quality of being notorious or widely known: a crazy by notoriety; 2)- a widely or well-know person,” such as “eminent.” Therefore, both might be considered synonyms terms suggesting that there are two correct responses.
In front of this conflict of rules such as the STUPID analytical logic of the machines I would opt for the WELL-KNOWN signification. However, the accurate human reasoning logic identified that there is difference of signification between "eminent" and "notoriety," whereas the machine in its STUPIDITY not.
For the machine, the reasoning is simple: "if notoriety and eminence may be used with signification of "FAMOUS or WELL-KOWN," then they are....If "eminence" is synonym of "famous" and "famous" may be used as indicative of success or not (bad sucessful), then "eminence" and "notoriety" may be used as... If "eminent " is synonym of "celebrity" and "celebrity" is a synonym of "famous" or "well-known" and "notority" signify a "well-known person", then "eminence" and "notoriety" are...
However, some humans in their complex reasoning logic identify what the machines and the big majority of the human not: "an increase in notoriety as an artist is not as clear a sign of success as an increase in eminence." Did you understand the factors that interfere at the STUPID AND COMPLEX level of reasoning logic that differentiate human from machines?
But as I am not professor of English and do not understand the psychology of the test requiring this kind of response, which, apparently, contrasts with the reasoning logic of the question as well as with STUPID, however, efficient analytic logic of the machines that would entrance at conflict of rules for solving this type of problem and to attend to the complex level of reasoning logic of the human, I would suggest to revise the software attributing for this kind of questions equal height to the two responses correct; and for what in which only one is, of course, the more correct, according to view of the professor who elaborated the test, similar height. However, as this same type of disagree was partially responsible by my academic boycott at the Brazilian universities, I end the discussion with this STUPID suggestion at the attempt of improvement of the tests and Brazilian public concourses.
Finally, I would like of expressing my view of what that would be the "best" response: "is what that would attend the fundamental objective of the question (to identify if an international student would have or not verbal reasoning logic to understand the sentence)."
So, I ask you, what would be the best reasoning logic to solve this question: the STUPÍD analytic reasoning logic of the machine aiming that the students that responsed "notoriety" or "eminent" possess similar level of reasonig logic or the complex human reasoning logic utilized for the professor who elaborated the test according his personal opinion or inference requiring similar response, considering that who responsed "eminent" possessess best level?
Well, well, well... I think that in this question was the....
In summary, "notoriety" presents two significations: one positive and one negative. However, at the context of the sentence discussed it only might have been utilized with a positive signification of well-known. So, as "notoriety " - used with this signification - is synonym of terms that also are synonym of "eminent;" it might also be considered synonym because was used with similar signification. In this sense, I believe that if an expert at logic program to construct a database with the different signification of "eminent" and "notoriety"- at the context of the sentence - and to ask the machine if they are or not synonym terms, it will response, "Yes." Therefore, the professor required a response considering his/her personal opinion or inference, and not about the real signification of the words - which at the context of the sentence - has equal signification (WELL-KNOWN).
Finally, my advice to the team that intends to construct a "software" for testing English level of knowledge:"to review all questions that were responded with a low percentage of correction, particularly, related with the use of ambiguity at their formulation and responses offered;" because when the machines disagree and mean of correction is similar to casual correction is an indicative that there is something erroneous with their formulation and/or offered response.
And I will exemplify my disagree with two examples of questions of the same test, with similar grade of difficulty that I consider one well elaborate and other bad elaborated.
Question: It can be inferred from the passage that, of the following, the most probable reason why a historian of slavery might be interested in studying the type of plantations mentioned in lines 42-32 is that this type would
Text: …Although Gutman admits that forced separation by sale was frequent , he shows that the slaves’ preference, revealed most clearly on plantations where sale was infrequent, was very much for stable monogamy…
(c) provide the historian with evidence concerning the preference of free slaves for stable monogamy. Considered not correct for the professor. Explication of the professor: the information in the passage about plantations where sale of slaves was infrequent has to do with those still in slavery, rather than with freed slaves.
(e) allow the historian to examine the influence of slaves’ preferences on the action of plantation owners. Considered correct for the professor. Explication of the professor: It can be inferred that, because sale was infrequent on the plantations mentioned in the cines 31-32, families were not separated against their wishes, and so the marital commitments they themselves chose were more likely to be evident.
This question is an example of a well elaborated question; initially I considered correct the option (c); however, was obligate to agree with the explication of the professor. If would disagree have certain that the big majority of the students and professor would disagree of me. Do you understand? The well elaborated question with reasonable response does not admit dubious about the explication of the professor. You read the explication and agree with it.
However, in this other question, my initial disagree stayed same after reading the explication of the professor:
Question: With which of the following statements regarding the resources that historian ought to use would the author of the passage be most likely to agree?
Text: …Gutman recreates the family and extended kinship structure mainly through an ingenuous use of what any historian should draw upon, quantifiable data, derived in this case mostly from plantation birth registers…
(b) Historians should rely primarily on birth register. Considered not correct for the professor. Explication of the professor: though Gutman has used birth registers, a source of quantifiable data, the author does not suggest that birth registers should be primary source of quantifiable data for all historians.
(d) Historian ought to make use of data that can be quantified. Explication of the professor: lines 18-20 indicate the author’s belief that historians should make use of quantifiable data.
This is a typical question whose ambiguity difficult the response. In spite of partially agree with the explication given for the professor because is one of the interpretations to the question; however, in the context of the text -- in my opinion – the best response would be the option (b) because in addition to consider the birth registers as quantifiable data that should make use, the author was incisive at its contextual delimitation (…derived in this case mostly from plantation birth register…).
As is advisable for the elaborators of the text to consider the context, I think that the (b) option would be the best response because, In my opinion, the professor extra poled what is mentioned at the text with his/her personal interpretation considering as the best response the (d) option. On the other hand, the student who responded that the (b) option is the best, not only demonstrate to have understood the signification of quantified data as also presented one example according with the context. I think that for this specific case (study) Gutman suggested to use of quantifiable data as birth registers for recreating the family and extended kinship structure for all historian interested in this type of study. Outside text is extrapolation of the professor. Unfortunatelly, in this question the explication or extrapolation of the professor was not convincing. And the primordial reason for the ambiguity of the question is the fact that the professor does not determinate at the question signification of the word "historinan" such as was determinated at the text . In addition, observe the use of commas; if you to ommit the frase "quantifiable data" there is not alteration of signification of the sentence, suggesting that at the context, if quantifiable data = birth registers then...
Test of understanding: What was principal theme of this text? 1 To comment with relation ambiguity at the elaboration of some questions; 2 To discuss the difference between the level of reasoning logic of machines and humans; 3 To establish differences and similarities between the words "eminent" and "notoriety." Response: Do you undarstand your difficulty at responsing some types of asks; because when I that wrote the text also do not known; but the professor that will elaborate the question certain knowns.
As my TOEFL score was not so good and I am preparing me to another test, I there was compromised me that would not more comment about the argumentation used for the test makers’ professors of English tests (for not incite them to test me with another difficult test). However, in this question whose text that believe has been elaborated by a professor of astronomy, also disagreed of the response considered correct for the professor inciting me to contest the possible logical flaws on his/her response of this interesting and profitable, however, controversial subject: "the collapse of a star."
Text:
The discoveries of the white dwarf, the neutron star, and the black hole, coming well after the discovery of the red giant are among eh most exciting developments in decades because they may be well present physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics. In the life cycle of the star, after all of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear radiation pressure and the stable gravitational force becomes disturbed and slow contraction begins. As compression increases, a very dense plasma forms. If the initial star had mass of less than 1.4 solar masses (1.4 times the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, and the star becomes the white dwarf. However, if the star was originally more massive, the white dwarf plasma can’t resist the gravitations pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a gas of free neutrons. Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached; at this point the strong nuclear force resists further contraction. If the mass of the star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if the original star was more massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces cannot resist the gravitational crunch. The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier hadrons and these in turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing. At this point, a complete collapse of the stellar mass occurs; existing theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small dimensions. Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that no signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction – and the star would become black hole in space. This gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to physics. When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight. This last happened in physics in the 1930’s, when we faced the fundamental paradox concerning atomic structure. At that time, it was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognized that if charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centered around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics. It may well be that an equivalent advance awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational collapse.
Remember: you dispose of 30s to read the text and 1 min to read the responses and to decide.
Question: According to the passage, an imbalance arises nuclear radiation pressure and gravitational force in stars because
B) – radiation pressure increase as the stars increase in mass (considered for the professor as incorrect or not the best response).
Comment of the author
In spite of do not be an astronomer I disagree that this response is incorrect according to the text because when occur disturb between the outer nuclear radiation pressure and the stable gravitational force, there is contraction and increase of compression. In addition, there is a relationship between gravitational pressure and mass of the stars.
If “ the original star was more massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces cannot resist the gravitational crunch. The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier hadrons and these in turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing. At this point, a complete collapse of the stellar mass occurs.”
So, likes me that when there is an imbalance between nuclear radiation pressure and gravitational force in stars because there is augment of radiation pressure resulting at the formation of heavier hadrons that coalesce forming heavier entities (as I am not astronomer, believe that increasing the mass of the star) particularly before to collapse.
Of course, possibly (I am not astronomer) does not increase quantitatively at mass though the mass enlarge during the collapse. So, is possible that that is the paradox of the professor; or better, the lost link that turn
s us similar at some reasoning to animal and machines.For example, for questions that require identification of more than one correct response, to attribute zero (for the questions partially correct) and 1 (for question responded correctly) is reasoning as machine; when the human logical reasoning aims that there is a differentiated grade (0, 1, 2 and 3) of understanding of the question. Because of this type of reasoning that I strongly believe that at a not distant future with improvement of the capacity of memorization and processing speed, the machines - if well programmed - will supersede the humans at the ability of reasoning. They always will opt for the most logical solution; whereas, the humans at their autonomy, nor always.
C)- radiation pressure decreases when a star fuel’s has been consumed (considered correct for the professor)
Comment of the author
Believe that because I am not astronomer as the test maker professor I had difficulty to localize at the text the information considered correct: “star’s fuel has been consumed. Imagine: if for me that have a relative knowledge of chemistry was complicate to localize the information given for the professor, how much would be for a student that has his/her major at music. In addition, believe that until same for a student of English language would difficult to understand the ambiguity of the responses offered for the professor.
So, I think that fuel’s star has relationship with energy, considering the analogy that was established between the collapse of a star with the destruction of an atom by an electron.
In the case of the atom, the energy that is necessary to electron to arrive to the nucleus and destroys it is liberated and not consumed (according to vernacular correction elaborated for the test makers).
In chemistry, would be necessary the liberation of energy to electron to achieve the nucleus, but not consume of energy to retrocede to an orbital with decreased level of energy into the nucleus. However, in relation to the collapse of stars can be that occurs energy consume, according to the information given by the professor, but as I did not localize at the text this consume and the question did not required an inference, I disagree of the response considered correct for the professor.
As I like of explicating reasons of my disagree particularly with relation to this type of question that I consider bad elaborated, follow my explication that not necessary is correct: possibly who elaborated this question possess a good knowledge of English language, but as the texts have relationship with several areas of knowledge lack to some test makers, similarly to some students, more training at the technical vocabulary from these texts.
Is much difficult you do not agree with the explication of a professor about questions restrict to English language. However, students who have more knowledge of the technical vocabulary will disagree of the explications of a number significant of the questions of text interpretation.
And the reason for that is simple. The test maker confuses ambiguity with to increase of the grade of difficulty of the question, whose corrects responses, more than one, are according to the text, resulting at a decreased percentage of correction as well as inducing to fail interpretation of what the question presents increased grade of difficult. In the reality what it presents is an increased grade of ambiguity. One question that presents percentage of correction around of 30% or less (similar to casual correction) would have around 50% if was not ambiguous.
This question, I also consider interesting:
Text:
...The interstellar material, rather like terrestrial clouds, comes in all shapes and sizes. The average density of interstellar material in the vicinity of our Sun is 1,000 to 10,000 times less than the best terrestrial vacuum…
Question:
It can be inferred from the passage that the density of interstellar material is
not homogeneous throughout interstellar spare (
Response considered correct for the professor).Commentary of the author:
I agree with the professor, this response must be considered correct
Unusually low in the vicinity of our Sun (
Response considered incorrect by the professor) Explication of the professor to consider it incorrect: According to the passage, the density of interstellar material is less in the vicinity of the Sun than the density of material anywhere on Earth, but there is no indication in the passage that the density near the Sun is less than the density elsewhere in the universe.Comment of the author:
In spite of agree
ing with the professor that this response is, of course, incorrect; lets go peruses it with greater attention without intention of being defiant. So, I do not agree with his/her explication for its error because, despite not to be astronomer, I believe that would be much difficult for somebody to identify in this text or at others any indication that the density near our Sun is less than the density elsewhere in the universe. I think that the density near our Sun and near to stair similar to Sun is similar at any place of the universe; however, the logical reasoning for this response to be incorrect is that the density in the vicinity of our Sun, according to the passage, is usually low and not unusually as mentioned at the response. Likes me that this would be the logical explication for its error.
In this question I also did not agree with the explanation of the professor for the response "A" considered incorrect.
Think that there are two corrects responses that differ only with relation the personal interpretation of the professor who elaborated the test of what would be the best response to question because the two responses are supported for the passage.
Text: ...It is only because of the enormous interstellar distances that so little material per unit of volume becomes so significant....
Question: It can be inferred from the passage that is because space space is so vast that
(a) little of the intersptellar material in tit seems substantial (considered incorrect by the professor).
Explanation of the professor: Although the passage emphasizes the very low density of interstellar materials, these material are substantial to obscure portions of the nigh sky. Therefore, there is some evidence that , despite the vastness of space, the interstellar materials do not seem substantial.
Commentary of the author:
If I understood the text, likes me that, it is only because of the enormous interstellar that the little materia per unit of volume becomes so significant or substantial.
(C) Stars can be far enough from Earth to be obscured even by sparsely distributed matter. (Response considered correct by the professor).
Commentary of the author: Agree with the professor, this response also is correct. So, in this question two responses are correct (a and C alternatives) according to the passage.
Therefore, the option for the response "C" as the best response was only a personal preference of the professor who elaborated the test because the response "A," in my opinion, according to the text, also is correct. If we use a perfectionist evaluation that characterize this type of test – in my opinion – the response would not be an explication because "C" is not an explanation but a description. So, the best response would be "A" and not "C."
However, at the majority, both, I and professor agree, at least with relation English responses. Of what in which disagree, some the professor has reason; an others, believe that I am correct. .”
But such as the inferences that made about these questions, also, in relation to Brazilian “Mamata” academic, whose fraudulent public concourses of ingress as professor at Brazilians universities, particularly at Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, RS, Brazil, which I denounced in my site resulting at the discovery of a band constituted by employees, ex-professor, professors, ex and directors of Centers and Department as well as ex-rector accused of robbing public Brazilian money at more of 44 milliard, initially, part of the body of professors, rejected my ideas though with time the scientist confirm or place them at practice big part of them.
Such as with relation to explication to the responses that disagree, I will explicate because the public concourses to ingress as Brazilian professor are fraudulent. Big majority of the actual heads of Brazilian academic administration had entrance by mean of fraudulent public concourses manipulate for the opposite sites actuating during the Brazilian military dictatorship (during this regime at greater number manipulated for the militaries) because next of the end of the Brazilian military dictatorship with intention of preserving the Brazilian academic power among their adepts (parents and friends) was elaborated rules of ingress as Brazilian professor that allowed to any departmental “ghetto” (militaries and their families, religious credos Brazilian "MAÇONARIA," Rotary, politic parties, members of the Judaic community etc..) considering that these rules valorize at excess administrative activities (restrict to the members of the Brazilian academic “MAMATA BRAZILIAN ” and friends).
For example, in the dependence of the time dedicated to administrative activities a candidate at the title proof may obtain more score than one that possessing Ph.D. at the best Brazilian university. Other example; is possible to one professor only with graduation to be rector at the Brazilian universities. In Brazilian universities, there is not hierarchy. Is not infrequent one soldier (professor without master or Ph. D.) to exercise the function of general (to rector or chef of Department or Center. Did you yet imagine a general without frequenting academy?
The opposite site actuating during military dictatorship (actual Brazilian government) has not interest in changing these rules because with them is possible for it also to manipulate this type of concourse such as during Brazilian military dictatorship. In addition, it (actual Brazilian government) manipulate the public administration and the administrative machine of the same manner pork of the military dictatorship, particularly, with relation political persecution against adversaries, which is a characteristic of the modern left. For not to be accused of political persecution, it uses the syndicates and part of the judiciary for it manipulate, of a manner apparently “legal.”
With relation to actual Brazilian government more one inference that made personally to mother of the actual major of the RS, Brazil (who was friend of my grandmother yet passed – one of the leaders of the actual Brazilian government - was confirmed: “ I do not see a big difference between the “SAFADOS ORDINARIOS OF THE MILITARY DICTADORSHIP ” and the “COMPANHEIROS SANGUE-SUGAS.” All are integrants of the same “MAMATA” The former, used a dictatorship for the force whereas the latter, an administrative dictatorship.” And the explication is simple: as the Brazilian military dictatorship used illegal procedures against them (actual government) it thinks that has the same right of practicing the same against adversaries. The actual governor of the RS state is an expert at using the administrative machine against adversaries to obtain political advantage. Such as at the “MAMATA” academic at the Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), the case of the fellow “COMPANHEIRO” Paloci confirmed more one accurate inference.
In addition, other font of fraud at the Brazilian public concourses is the board of examiners that in the great majority are constituted to approve parents of colleagues of Brazilians academic departments. When the candidate has not the indication of the department, the board of examiners is constituted by parents of the professors who have not congeniality with the candidate dismissing her/him previously of the Brazilian public concourse."
Is extremely difficult for you to escape of the persecution of the Brazilian “MAMATA” academic because big part of the professors of the Brazilian private universities is constituted by retired ex-professors of the Brazilians public universities that infest these universities at a symbiotic relationship (the retired professors have an additional font of money and the universities pay little (few hours/class) only to attend the requisites of title academic), exacerbating the problems yet caused by a defficient academic infra-structure. For example, big part of the vicious of the Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM) was incorporated for the Brazilian privates universities of the city.
But, the brother-in-law ( my ex-professor, yet passed) of the actual governor of the RS, Brazil yet there was been informed me during his class that, in addition to the “SAFADOS ORDINÁRIOS OF THE BRAZILIAN MILITARY DICTATORSHIP,” the “COMPANHEIROS SANGUE-SUGAS” also would blockage my academic ingress at the Brazilian universities.
So, in spite of not to agree with some aspects of the methodology of application of the actual IBT – Toefl Test, I think that is more accurate than the test that realized in 2001 (Paper Test) in which the quality (control of the sound) was intentionally altered for the man that adjusted it at the Brazil-USA Cultural Center, Londrina, Pr with intention of prejudicing me.
At this time, in spite of not to have agreed with some aspects of applicability of the actual IBT – TOEFL Test at the Brazilian Test Center, except for the utilization of a Brazilian keyboard configured to English (that I did not preview) did not identify any greater factor that might have prejudice me.
As I have not certain if they (aspects that disagree) take part of the methodology of application indicates for ETS or is a creative characteristic introduced by Brazilians Tests Centers I will not mention the name of the Brazilian TOEFL Test Center, because, of course, I did not identify any greater factor (such as 2001) that might have prejudiced me; however, I will report the dialogue that had with a classmate that was broken by an employee of the Brazilian Toefl Center and that exemplify why disagree with relation to applicability of TOEFL test in Brazil:
Considering that the noise (talk of other students realizing oral test, sound of the headphones and keyboards, noisy of street, et cetera…) during realization of the test, particularly at the reading test, might have interfered at the results, I asked a classmate about that, who responded me:
- “The noisy is prejudicial to the test,”
and for whom I responded:
-“To known English is one thing, to response what TOEFL test requires is other well different. I also consider inaccurate the reading test with only one time and without reading before the questions requiring details of the lecture ; at the academic ambient, if you do not understand what your classmate talks, he/she talks at different speed or with different vocabulary, and you finish understanding.”
Moment at that an employee of the Brazilian Toefl Tester Center interrupted me:
-“The objective of the test is not to proof that you is competent in English, but if you have or not condition of frequenting the academic ambient where there is noisy.”
For whom I responded:
-“I agree with you, however, if you consider the noisy appropriated during the test, you must also standardize the academic reality of other variables such as the reality of reading and listening tests.”
However, afterwards thought:
-"What that this Sir talk me has not sense."
At some universities outside Brazil, if you to talk or to read the screen of your classmate during the test this may be considered an illegal act. In addition, I do not know at the erudite academic ambient some professor that writes without the software word; at some libraries likes me that the noisy also is not allowed. Well, well , well ... but these are details apparently of little importance. In many cases, they are responsable for you to obtain or not the required score. Like stupid to talk that you must adjust your biologic clock to conditions of the test. For example, the time of going to bad; the minimal time that you will lost (1 minute) is sufficient for you to response one difficult or two easy questions.
As I have not any interest at teaching English Languages or any commercial interest connected with TOEFL test, but have interest that you who is not Brazilian Professor and do not take part of the Brazilian “MAMATA” academic passes at the TOEFL Test, I will attempt to give you some advices that may be useful at the Brazilians TOEFL Centers particularly if you do not intend to spend much money in your preparation.
The first advice is to inform yourself all possible about the test; to read about its legal rules thinking; as use them to solve the difficulties that you will have during the test at the Brazilians Toefl test Centers.
Remember that the fact of you to be required by an academic department to test TOEFL does not signify that you will be welcome. Sometimes is only a reason to denied your application (the famous does not want you at the department transfering this responsability to TOEFL Test). DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME? So, if you to test and do not obtain the desirable score required for the department, attempt another before to test again. For example, in the dependence of his/her indication, if you is Brazilian Professor, a simple indication letter of the “Brazlian Ghetto Departmental” will be sufficient.
So, is possible for you to be accept with a score a little lower than what required.
Not stress her/hisself with the requirement of an increased TOEFL score. Generally the examiners decrease the difficult of the test when is required an increased score (to balance the requirement of the FAMOUS with of the English Knowledge). Remember that your GOAL is to acquire technical competence to stay at the work market at a country top at his/her major. In addition, many firms, industries and companies present a better infra-structure than many universities.
Thus, if your desire is to study at HARVARD with a score 8 or more at a scale from 1 to 10, but you obtained 6 or 7. Without stress, some universities that possess a good academic infra-structure accept this score because the reality of many industries is different of the academic infra-structure; many industries do not like of the standardized academic behavior ( minorities are also welcome). Besides, Harvard accept also only with the indication letter.
May be until advantageous for you that want to work at the industry to have the orientation of a GOOD professor than the orientation of a FAMOUS professor at HARVARD. If he/she to talk bad of you can be advantageous for your contratation at the industry.
To be the best of the team, and to obtain score greater than 8 in TOEFL is thing to genius that to want to be professor and to teach at a FAMOUS university. For you that want a good job, a good salary and to work at a good Department outside of the university, a TOEFL Score between 5.5-7 will be profitable. In addition, you will not be seen for a FAMOUS professor as a font of stress. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME?
At the dependence of the hours that you will dedicate, if you have an intermediary level of English, at approximately 8 months of preparation you can test for the first time. If not, only if you is a genius; to have been informed of the responses before the test or to have much luck.
English regular courses help but are not sufficient. Is necessary a meticulous individual preparation.
Different types of question must be studied and prepared individually.
Is necessary to prepare different strategies because if one fails you wll have the option of another. For example, to train listening section with and without making notes. Nor always is possible to take notes; sometimes if you take notes during the test may lost important information. Is needed at the same time to make notes and to listen the lecture. So, your success at the test will depend of the number of words whose sound your brain will recognize. The principal advantage of the notes is that they maintain you concentrated during the lecture.
The time factor must be accurately controlled and used.
The type of keyboard used (Brazilian keyboard configured to English), type of letter, texture and luminosity of the screen, luminosity of the room, all must be considered during the preparation. If you use notebook will have difficultity with Brazilian keyboard that require greater pressure to tipwrite.
The type of graphite of the pencil; to train the notes with different types of texture of paper and on different superficies. The questions of the reading section at general are not difficult; the problem is to administer time at the search of the response that is at the text. It (the test) likes of approving you or not with simple questions. One good strategy is to search the most fast possible one word at the dictionary, BUT WITHOUT TO READ ITS SIGNIFICATION; ONLY TO LOCALIZE IT QUICKLY (WHEM GREATER THE DICTIONARY BETTER); ATTEMPT DISCOVER ITS SIGNIFICATION AT THE CONTEXT WITHOUT READING ITS SIGNIFICATION AT THE DICTIONARY. This train will also be useful for you to localize information needed to response questions included at paragraph. Other advice that I think that may be useful is "If you have not train at dynamic lecture is not advisable to read all the text before of responding; probably you will have not time to response the questions in spite of you to response some of them with greater certain; you increase the understand of the context but lost time. With this procedure almost all questions that require identification of the principal theme you will response correctly." In my opinion is better you first to read the question and then to search at the text what is asked. However, with this procedure his/her grade of certain at the responses decrease particularly at relation to questions that require identification of the principal theme.
To preview the possibility of somebody (your government or of some other country that has not interest in your success); to have interest at your fail, and then to be obligate for some noise produced by these persons to get up very early or do not sleep during at the night before the test decreasing at much your possibility of success. And for this is not necessary to have political connotation. One elegant lady using heavy shoes walking near of your room will be sufficient to make you do not sleep sufficient time to the test (evidently that I am referring me to normal persons; the genius makes the test until without sleeping).
In conclusion, at the theory IBT-Toefl Test is a good parameter to evaluate the English level. However - In my opinion – it is only accurate at the speaking section. At others, it promotes an evaluation for less because there is not an accurate standardization of the academic ambient (noisy). For that would be advisable realization of the test at individual cabins; if not, all student should begin at the same time. In addition, the actual procedure (noisy) during the reading section should be transfered to the speaking section turning it similar to the academic ambient which may be manipulate at the Brazilians TOEFL Test Centers. Another advisable procedure would be to standartize the listening test with three types of questions:one (identification of the principal theme) at the actual model; two (requiring detais) responded at the first time of listening but with previous knowledge (read) of the questions and two responded at the second time without anterior knowledge of the questions (actual model).Therefore, with only two adjust (to transfer the noisy to the speaking section and previous read of the two questions (identification of details) of the listening test) the test would turn itself accurate.
But as would say the genius at the FOB/USP, Professor ConsoLARA, "advices must be given only when required"; who contradict: "Advices must always be given; follow them who wants." I might pass you more specific advices of as prepare his/herself to TOEFL test and to have greater chance of obtaining success. However, I will also be helping the integrants of Brazilian academic “MAMATA” who yet are well helped for the opposite sides acting during Brazilian military dictatorship. My final advice for you who is not integrant of this “MAMATA” is that you always consider the possibility of integrants of this “MAMATA,” particularly if you manifested disagree, of blocking you. They will attempt block you at all, until same in test as TOEFL. Special attention must be dispensed to elegant ladies with heavy shoes near your room. Maybe this iis the most useful advice in addition to a good preparation. Special attention with heavy shoes.
Other problem that you may have that to confront is with the noise caused by meteorological phenomenon. For example, in the anterior night to the Toefl test the noise of a thunder obligated me get up at 0:30 am; moment at that thought: “I am outside of the test.” However, afterwards reminded me that for my luck, casually contrary my habits, there was sleep more early; when awaked me yet there was sleep two or three hours. Then, made the calculation: if again to sleep between 30-60 min will be possible to make the test. Was what occurred. Somebody would response me that get up early is not a problem; would be possible to you to sleep again using medication. Of course, it induces; however, if you do not use it regularly or not to sleep sufficient time, in the following morning, you will be very lent until midle of the test. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME THE DANGER THAT REPRESENTS THE ELEGANT LADIES FOR YOUR TEST (YOUR PREPARATION)?