Care to share your child's CES raw scores?

[Anonymous]

Last year MCPS sent out only the SAS. Reading all these posts, I am wondering if there is a way to find out what the raw scores are, at least approximately, from the SAS? (Last year they used the CogAT screener, and I understand they used the same this year too.)

[Anonymous]

62/64, just got the raw score this week. Cold Spring CES accepted.

[Anonymous]

Why would raw scores be more valuable? Aren't the age-normed score a better indicator of potential especially with all the redshirts prepped up the wazoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last year MCPS sent out only the SAS. Reading all these posts, I am wondering if there is a way to find out what the raw scores are, at least approximately, from the SAS? (Last year they used the CogAT screener, and I understand they used the same this year too.)

I am the PP: A clarification - last year they sent out only the composite SAS. No percentiles or raw scores, etc. Did not know it at that time, but it seems one can learn more about the ability (ability profile) from raw scores ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would raw scores be more valuable? Aren't the age-normed score a better indicator of potential especially with all the redshirts prepped up the wazoo.

A lot of kids prepped up the wazoo - at least, in our school. And a lot of them scored 99%, that can be anything, from mid-50s to 64. At least in theory, the score of 64 has more merit than the score of 53.

[Anonymous]

Fortunately, success in life is figuring out a bunch of math analogies, and not having things like social skills/awareness, judgement, resilience, curiosity, kindness, independence, maturity, determination and, yes, ambition. I speak as someone whose DC is attending a regional CES program next year, but didn't prep for it the the test, and consider ourselves very fortunate. I completely understand why the sacrifice and achievement is important for some, but to "prep up the wazoo" for this particular test at this point in a child's life seems largely misguided to me. There are so many other crucial life skills that have to be learned at that age. We weren't going to sacrifice that to prepare for this test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fortunately, success in life is figuring out a bunch of math analogies, and not having things like social skills/awareness, judgement, resilience, curiosity, kindness, independence, maturity, determination and, yes, ambition. I speak as someone whose DC is attending a regional CES program next year, but didn't prep for it the the test, and consider ourselves very fortunate. I completely understand why the sacrifice and achievement is important for some, but to "prep up the wazoo" for this particular test at this point in a child's life seems largely misguided to me. There are so many other crucial life skills that have to be learned at that age. We weren't going to sacrifice that to prepare for this test.

Would agree with this post but add that it is not necessary to prep to do well on these tests. I know kids who prepped and got in and many, many more kids who did not prep and got into HGCs, MS magnets and HS magnets. Also many of the kids who prep do so not because they need to but because their parents think they need to. Does not mean they actually need to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fortunately, success in life is figuring out a bunch of math analogies, and not having things like social skills/awareness, judgement, resilience, curiosity, kindness, independence, maturity, determination and, yes, ambition. I speak as someone whose DC is attending a regional CES program next year, but didn't prep for it the the test, and consider ourselves very fortunate. I completely understand why the sacrifice and achievement is important for some, but to "prep up the wazoo" for this particular test at this point in a child's life seems largely misguided to me. There are so many other crucial life skills that have to be learned at that age. We weren't going to sacrifice that to prepare for this test.

I infer from your post that you think the parents who prepped have not been trying to teach their children these other skills as well. But I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would raw scores be more valuable? Aren't the age-normed score a better indicator of potential especially with all the redshirts prepped up the wazoo.

A lot of kids prepped up the wazoo - at least, in our school. And a lot of them scored 99%, that can be anything, from mid-50s to 64. At least in theory, the score of 64 has more merit than the score of 53.

So, you folks think scoring 99% in a *cognitive abilities test* is a matter of prepping ?!

That tells me something about you ....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would raw scores be more valuable? Aren't the age-normed score a better indicator of potential especially with all the redshirts prepped up the wazoo.

A lot of kids prepped up the wazoo - at least, in our school. And a lot of them scored 99%, that can be anything, from mid-50s to 64. At least in theory, the score of 64 has more merit than the score of 53.

So, you folks think scoring 99% in a *cognitive abilities test* is a matter of prepping ?!

That tells me something about you ....

Does the name "A plus" tell you anything? It's a semester-long cram school attended by a number of children accepted to CES. My child didn't attend, scored 99% and was waitlisted. So, yeah, there's absolutely prepping for a 'cognitive abilities test'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fortunately, success in life is figuring out a bunch of math analogies, and not having things like social skills/awareness, judgement, resilience, curiosity, kindness, independence, maturity, determination and, yes, ambition. I speak as someone whose DC is attending a regional CES program next year, but didn't prep for it the the test, and consider ourselves very fortunate. I completely understand why the sacrifice and achievement is important for some, but to "prep up the wazoo" for this particular test at this point in a child's life seems largely misguided to me. There are so many other crucial life skills that have to be learned at that age. We weren't going to sacrifice that to prepare for this test.

I infer from your post that you think the parents who prepped have not been trying to teach their children these other skills as well. But I could be wrong.

No, I think parents who prepped their children at the exclusion of other life experiences are sacrificing important things, hence the "up the wazoo" quotation. Being unprepared for the challenges in life is not the way either. Prepping is fine, if that's what you value, but prepping to an extreme, which is what some parents apparently do (and I have not observed that myself, but others on this board seem convinced that some group of parents do) strikes me as unbalanced and potentially counter-productive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would raw scores be more valuable? Aren't the age-normed score a better indicator of potential especially with all the redshirts prepped up the wazoo.

A lot of kids prepped up the wazoo - at least, in our school. And a lot of them scored 99%, that can be anything, from mid-50s to 64. At least in theory, the score of 64 has more merit than the score of 53.

So, you folks think scoring 99% in a *cognitive abilities test* is a matter of prepping ?!

That tells me something about you ....

Does the name "A plus" tell you anything? It's a semester-long cram school attended by a number of children accepted to CES. My child didn't attend, scored 99% and was waitlisted. So, yeah, there's absolutely prepping for a 'cognitive abilities test'.

The question was not if there is prepping for a cognitive abilities test - sure, anybody can prep for anything. The question was if you think scoring 99% in a cognitive abilities test, (one that MCPS does not release) is a matter of prepping.

Also, some more useful things to think about: How many of those kids who "prep" do not get in? How many of the kids in the CES program did not "prep"?

I know enough kids in both categories to know that these companies do not have any secret sauce.

It is sad to see people getting taken in by claims from A plus/testingmom.com/mathnasium/whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fortunately, success in life is figuring out a bunch of math analogies, and not having things like social skills/awareness, judgement, resilience, curiosity, kindness, independence, maturity, determination and, yes, ambition. I speak as someone whose DC is attending a regional CES program next year, but didn't prep for it the the test, and consider ourselves very fortunate. I completely understand why the sacrifice and achievement is important for some, but to "prep up the wazoo" for this particular test at this point in a child's life seems largely misguided to me. There are so many other crucial life skills that have to be learned at that age. We weren't going to sacrifice that to prepare for this test.

I infer from your post that you think the parents who prepped have not been trying to teach their children these other skills as well. But I could be wrong.

No, I think parents who prepped their children at the exclusion of other life experiences are sacrificing important things, hence the "up the wazoo" quotation. Being unprepared for the challenges in life is not the way either. Prepping is fine, if that's what you value, but prepping to an extreme, which is what some parents apparently do (and I have not observed that myself, but others on this board seem convinced that some group of parents do) strikes me as unbalanced and potentially counter-productive.

I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment - to create balanced, successful kids. But some folks on here wish to diminish the prepped-kids' accomplishments simply because they are prepped. That smacks of middle school juvenile-ism. Rightly or wrongly the parents of these kids feel that their kids will benefit from the CES. These parents want to give their kids every advantage possible. Much like many 9.9%ers - who will pull any string they can find to get their DC that first internship or job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would raw scores be more valuable? Aren't the age-normed score a better indicator of potential especially with all the redshirts prepped up the wazoo.

A lot of kids prepped up the wazoo - at least, in our school. And a lot of them scored 99%, that can be anything, from mid-50s to 64. At least in theory, the score of 64 has more merit than the score of 53.

So, you folks think scoring 99% in a *cognitive abilities test* is a matter of prepping ?!

That tells me something about you ....

Does the name "A plus" tell you anything? It's a semester-long cram school attended by a number of children accepted to CES. My child didn't attend, scored 99% and was waitlisted. So, yeah, there's absolutely prepping for a 'cognitive abilities test'.

The question was not if there is prepping for a cognitive abilities test - sure, anybody can prep for anything. The question was if you think scoring 99% in a cognitive abilities test, (one that MCPS does not release) is a matter of prepping.

Also, some more useful things to think about: How many of those kids who "prep" do not get in? How many of the kids in the CES program did not "prep"?

I know enough kids in both categories to know that these companies do not have any secret sauce.

It is sad to see people getting taken in by claims from A plus/testingmom.com/mathnasium/whatever.

They don't. I am surprised by how many people think they do. They freely admit that they don't know what is on the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our DC had exactly the same scores on the CogAt as the OP: 24, 17, 15 or 56/64 total. DC was accepted.

To the OP: I wouldn't think of that score on the figure matrices on sinking your child in any way, seriously. Only the percentiles were reported so how could it? (From the discussion on another thread and info gained elsewhere, it looks like this section of the test is the most unfamiliar to the kids and on top of that the least indicative of how a child will do in school (or specifically advanced/accelerated programs). It is a nonverbal test that is attempting to get at pattern recognition and intelligence that can be "hidden" in students that are testing in a second language they are not yet fully fluent in.

Everything that the MCPS has said is that the percentiles for the total screener only. It seems like the 99th percentile range is very large based on what has been listed here. At least 53-64

Really points to the the other measures being (necessarily) just as important as CogAt. The CogAT screener is not enough to narrow the pool sufficiently for this program with it's limited seats.

MAP scores, Report Cards, and Reading Level (as indicated on report cards) seem to have had a larger weight than they did when the full CogAt was used in years past.


This doesn't necessarily entail a dumbing down, as I keep hearing brought up on this site. How are the other indicators not valid?

I don't know what motivated the decision not to do the full CogAt anymore. I can imagine expense and trying to not freak out kids who wouldn't be up to talking a LONG test could both be factors. But once they made the decision to not do the full CogAt, I can't imagine MCPS not needing to give other indicators more weight. Simply too many kids would perform at 99th percentile (or near it) on the screener.

Also remember that the scores are age normed. So a 9 year old’s score would carry different weight than an 8 year old’s score. Exact same score, different kids, different results.