WPPSI - Caught Cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Response:

You speculated about why I thought WPPSI is a multi-million dollar private school scam. You believe it is because my children failed and did not get into a Big 3 (?). I answered your query.

WPPSI exam process remains a scam (a la Madoff).

Is this simple enough and the words short enough for you to comprehend?

What is Big 3 ... please clarify?

14:49 here. No, not simple enough for me. And I think you're confusing me with someone else. My 14:49 post was the first thing I've added to this thread since about page 3, so I have not been speculating about your thinking, your motivations, or what school your children attend. I am just hoping you will explain the two apparent inconsistencies I asked about:
(1) You and your children participate in organizations for the "gifted & talented" that base admission on WPPSI and other similar tests. So do you agree those tests have some validity? Or not? If not, then why not?
(2) If you think it's OK to prep extensively for those tests (a/k/a "cheat"), then aren't those G&T organizations complete shams as well, since any asshole can get admitted by cheating? Or are you against buying copies of the test off eBay to prep? I really don't know what your views are, so I'm asking.

I'm just trying to follow your thinking, so a direct answer with a short summary of your logic will be most useful.

[Anonymous]

1 WPPSI is meaningless tool in present day context...low bar. Some claim it is used in your area to decide private school admission. If this is so, I believe this is a scam (financial).

2 I support children who play, read, and enjoy numbers, games and challenges. Some call this prepping. Some call this fun and games. Some call this studying. Some call this cheating. You may call whatever you wish as it really doesn't matter what you call it. What matters is what the kids call it.

3 I have no experience with ordering standardized tests/exams in advance of an exam for preparation. I cannot comment here.

4 I do not consider Talent searches as a measure of anything in elementary school pupils. To my knowledge, they are not used as admission critieria to D.C. private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1 WPPSI is meaningless tool in present day context...low bar. Some claim it is used in your area to decide private school admission. If this is so, I believe this is a scam (financial) ....
4 I do not consider Talent searches as a measure of anything in elementary school pupils. To my knowledge, they are not used as admission critieria to D.C. private schools.

14:49/15:28 posting again. I think I'm slowly starting to understand you now. But I'm not quite all the way there yet. Please help me with the last few steps.

I gather you consider WPPSI and other similar tests to be inaccurate (i.e., "meaningless"). If that's correct, then aren't G&T outfits like Davidson Young and CTY similarly shams, since participation in them is based on performance on those "meaningless" tests? Perhaps those outfits offer participating kids some enjoyment, through academic challenges or whatever those entities do. But according to your own views, the fact that your kids (or any kids) participate in them is absolutely no indication the kids are smart, since it just means the kids happened to score well on some meaningless entrance test. In other words, if the entrance tests are meaningless, then all the kids in CTY are likely no smarter than the average kid at the playground. Is that correct?

Also, I gather from your last post that you were not commenting earlier about the ethics of purchasing/prepping with actual test materials. Is that correct? Apparently the discussion has evolved away from those issues. If that's correct, no need to beat that dead horse further.

[Anonymous]

My only comment about ethics is in reference to individuals who accuse others of stealing the exam off eBay meanwhile they expose their children to similar exam content by the activities their kids engage in and then "shop" for the "right tester" through the grapevine network before bragging to us on this board about their child's 99.9 % score.

I regard talent searches in no different vein than my children's participation in their summer swim club, math club or neighborhood group. They enjoy the group activities and comraderie with children and families with similar interests. Nothing more and nothing less. Validation is not the objective or primary endpoint for their participation in any of these activities.

[Anonymous]

OK, thanks for the clarifications. So when you posted earlier about your kids' participation in Davidson Young and CTY, you were not citing them as evidence of the kids' smarts, but as just an example of activities and comraderie the kids enjoy?

On your ethics point, I agree with you that shopping for an "easy grader" tester is functionally no different from buying a copy of the exam off eBay, and that both are unethical. I also agree that it's silly when parents brag on DCUM or elsewhere about their kids' 99.9% score, although it's hard to fault them too much, since I assume everyone has a weakness for bragging about their kids' successes. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "expos[ing] their children to similar exam content by the activities their kids engage in." Do you mean I'm somehow prepping my son for a test if I let him play with the 30-year old Lego's from grandma's basement? Do you think that if I give my kids a jigsaw puzzle for xmas, I'm no different than the parents who buy the WPPSI off eBay? Or are you thinking of something different? I'm not sure I understand you on that last point.

[Anonymous]

I think the idea of 'secret' material is the problem. Tell me that they are going to make my kid recite as many numbers or letters in a row and let them practice to their heart's content. The fact is, it will be easier for the smarter kid to master. Being exposed to digit span doesn't invalidate its use in measuring intelligence.

I just have never gotten the whole secrecy thing. Why not let the kids/parents see previous tests where they can see what matrices are, or coding or symbol search or comprehension? Level the playing field. As long as the test changes every year (which is one of the biggest problems), you will be at least measuring apples against apples.

[Anonymous]

NP here

WPPSI can't differentiate among gifted kids in any reliable way -- basically, the ceiling is too low. CTY (and, I think, Davidson) test differently. They use age-inappropriate instruments (that are achievement tests -- e.g. SATs for 13 year olds) and see where kids max out.

So you could think WPPSI was useless and still believe that the talent searches provide more reliable measures of giftedness.

That said, CTY does seem like a cash cow. I don't know if you can cheat your way in, but I also don't think that getting in entitles you to anything other than the opportunity to enroll in expensive nerdy summer camps and online courses. Which won't be much fun for a kid who isn't very bright and academically oriented to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just have never gotten the whole secrecy thing. Why not let the kids/parents see previous tests where they can see what matrices are, or coding or symbol search or comprehension? Level the playing field. As long as the test changes every year (which is one of the biggest problems), you will be at least measuring apples against apples.

I'm no expert, but I think IQ tests for young children are very difficult to create and validate. Therefore, there are only a handful of those tests that are used extensively by professionals, and they change very minimally over time. It's not really like the SAT where they can keep the same base test and switch the substantive questions each year. It's more like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality test, or other similar personality tests, that professionals try to keep closely secret so they don't lose validity. Of course people can cheat and get the tests to fool their therapist or educational consultant or whatever, but the professionals trust that most people won't do that.

Given the number of people in this discussion who think it's common practice to buy the test and game the system, I'm frankly surprised that more testers don't routinely quiz parents and kids directly about whether they prepped. Some parents will still lie about that, but having to answer the questions directly might deter some cheating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WPPSI can't differentiate among gifted kids in any reliable way -- basically, the ceiling is too low. CTY (and, I think, Davidson) test differently. They use age-inappropriate instruments (that are achievement tests -- e.g. SATs for 13 year olds) and see where kids max out. So you could think WPPSI was useless and still believe that the talent searches provide more reliable measures of giftedness.

I think CTY and Davidson Young use WPPSI and other similar tests for eligibility. According to CTY's website, admission is based on "Achievement at the 95th percentile or higher on one or more areas of a nationally normed standardized test" (http://cty.jhu.edu/ts/tests.html). Davidson uses the same tests for eligibility, for example requiring a WPPSI score of 150+ in any one subject area: http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/Article/Davidson_Young_Scholars___Qualification_Criteria_384.aspx. That said, I've also read that while those nationally-normed tests arguably are effective at identifying the top 5% initially, most of those same tests are not very good at differentiating among those upper-5% kids. So I suspect that once they're enrolled in CTY and other organizations, those businesses evaluate the kids further with more specialized tests.

[Anonymous]

This dissection of IQ is starting to sound like Nazi eugenics.

[Anonymous]

Seems a preoccupation of status conscious and seeking DCUMMIE simpletons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems a preoccupation of status conscious and seeking DCUMMIE simpletons.

Could you please find a new joke? "DCUMMIE" stopped being clever a few months ago.

[Anonymous]

...yet another trolling, snarky trollop in love with Big 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WPPSI can't differentiate among gifted kids in any reliable way -- basically, the ceiling is too low. CTY (and, I think, Davidson) test differently. They use age-inappropriate instruments (that are achievement tests -- e.g. SATs for 13 year olds) and see where kids max out. So you could think WPPSI was useless and still believe that the talent searches provide more reliable measures of giftedness.

I think CTY and Davidson Young use WPPSI and other similar tests for eligibility. According to CTY's website, admission is based on "Achievement at the 95th percentile or higher on one or more areas of a nationally normed standardized test" (http://cty.jhu.edu/ts/tests.html). Davidson uses the same tests for eligibility, for example requiring a WPPSI score of 150+ in any one subject area: http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/Article/Davidson_Young_Scholars___Qualification_Criteria_384.aspx. That said, I've also read that while those nationally-normed tests arguably are effective at identifying the top 5% initially, most of those same tests are not very good at differentiating among those upper-5% kids. So I suspect that once they're enrolled in CTY and other organizations, those businesses evaluate the kids further with more specialized tests.

Both programs require achievement test scores. Davidson has minimum IQ and minimum achievement test score requirements. CTY doesn't require IQ testing -- the nationally-normed standardized tests referred to in your citation are tests like ERBs and state testing for NCLB. Those scores, which parents generally already have because most kids take one version of this test at school, are used to select kids who then take the age-inappropriate achievement tests whose scores may then qualify them for CTY.

The fact that a test is nationally-normed (rather than scaled to reflect the population of a particular school or jurisdiction) doesn't make it ineffective as a tool for assessing giftedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nonsense! We are "wealthy DC parents" with a child that scored closed to 99.9 and we didn't buy the test or have any knowledge of what would be on the test prior.

Being "wealthy," as you refer to yourselves, is an advantage in itself.

With money comes privileges. Do you travel? visit museums? involve your child in extracurricular activities? Is your environment language-rich?

Please don't think it's all in the genes, PP.

Furthermore, while norming has its benefits, it's also flawed. A gifted child from a poor urban environment has very different life experiences which can affect his/her results on any standardized test.

So if you think norming is the answer you don't quite "get it."