Care to share your child's CES raw scores?

[Anonymous]

and what is screened by those survey questions like " do you like homework?" during cogat test?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, someone needs to get in given that they want every school represented in the centers. Raw scores in this are arguably more meaningful than a few points higher on MAPS.

That's it. Someone does need to get in, from each school, and it is all nice and dandy, I just refuse to buy their slogan about 'peerless outliers'. We've known these children since K, they all are in the same ballpark, achievement- and ability-wise. No one of them has solved Fermat's last theorem.

What enrages me the most in all of this is total lack of transparency, covered by in-your-face BS. If they'd just said they were taking top 3 highest achievers from each class, with raw scores given the highest weight in the decision-making, followed by MAPs, followed by Inview results, followed by each child's involvement in school activities (or should this one be moved up?), followed by yesterday's star alignment, that would give parents a realistic prognosis on where their child stands. Instead, they feed you this 'peerless outlier' crap and expect you to eat it up. Don't insult my intelligence, ladies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS claims that the selection committee only has the percentile and not the raw score. Then all of these kids are the same in terms of CoGat. Isn’t this what they said?

I don't quite remember them saying it, what I do remember is their ridiculous 'peerless' concept. As in, a child should be 'without peers' at their home school to get into a center. Well, I know at least 4 'peers' at my child's school who all scored 99% on the test with very close MAP scores. (That's just from the kids in their class talking, I'm sure there's more equally high scoring children in that grade). Why were some students accepted and others rejected? What's the logic here?

I don't think they were only accepting kids "without peers". Just that that is one thing they considered.

[Anonymous]

I feel like there's one poster who may or may not have heard "peerless outlier" in a presentation and ran with it.

I was at the CES presentation, as well as a separate presentation from MCPS admin that our PTA organized at our (Focus, high needs) school and never heard the phrase "peerless outlier."

[Anonymous]

Right. Enraged PP, please consider that at your school they may have simply skimmed a few top scoring kids, but at some schools, the outlier factor was present and had an effect on decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there's one poster who may or may not have heard "peerless outlier" in a presentation and ran with it.

I was at the CES presentation, as well as a separate presentation from MCPS admin that our PTA organized at our (Focus, high needs) school and never heard the phrase "peerless outlier."

agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there's one poster who may or may not have heard "peerless outlier" in a presentation and ran with it.

I was at the CES presentation, as well as a separate presentation from MCPS admin that our PTA organized at our (Focus, high needs) school and never heard the phrase "peerless outlier."

agree.

9:44 again - I'll note that the presentation at our school made it VERY clear that no one should bet on CES admissions and that there would be bright kids who didn't go. I feel like they did a pretty good job of setting expectations and following up with an explanation of what enrichment kids would get at the home school (compacted math, the new enriched literacy curriculum). There was definitely no talk of how some kids were peerless.

[Anonymous]

I have a friend who does admissions for a highly competitive program (not CES). She said that they really don’t have enough funds for all the candidates who could benefit from the program and who would meet the criteria, and once you’ve narrowed it down to the best of the best, it’s basically a little random because it’s impossible to differentiate between the most qualified. I think it’s the same thing here. Everyone needs to accept that, among the students with the super high scores, it’s basically a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, someone needs to get in given that they want every school represented in the centers. Raw scores in this are arguably more meaningful than a few points higher on MAPS.

That's it. Someone does need to get in, from each school, and it is all nice and dandy, I just refuse to buy their slogan about 'peerless outliers'. We've known these children since K, they all are in the same ballpark, achievement- and ability-wise. No one of them has solved Fermat's last theorem.

What enrages me the most in all of this is total lack of transparency, covered by in-your-face BS. If they'd just said they were taking top 3 highest achievers from each class, with raw scores given the highest weight in the decision-making, followed by MAPs, followed by Inview results, followed by each child's involvement in school activities (or should this one be moved up?), followed by yesterday's star alignment, that would give parents a realistic prognosis on where their child stands. Instead, they feed you this 'peerless outlier' crap and expect you to eat it up. Don't insult my intelligence, ladies.

Are you the OP of this thread? Did you DD got 56 and not get in?

[Anonymous]

we haven't received any raw score so far. do you mind sharing the school names?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, someone needs to get in given that they want every school represented in the centers. Raw scores in this are arguably more meaningful than a few points higher on MAPS.

That's it. Someone does need to get in, from each school, and it is all nice and dandy, I just refuse to buy their slogan about 'peerless outliers'. We've known these children since K, they all are in the same ballpark, achievement- and ability-wise. No one of them has solved Fermat's last theorem.

What enrages me the most in all of this is total lack of transparency, covered by in-your-face BS. If they'd just said they were taking top 3 highest achievers from each class, with raw scores given the highest weight in the decision-making, followed by MAPs, followed by Inview results, followed by each child's involvement in school activities (or should this one be moved up?), followed by yesterday's star alignment, that would give parents a realistic prognosis on where their child stands. Instead, they feed you this 'peerless outlier' crap and expect you to eat it up. Don't insult my intelligence, ladies.

Are you the OP of this thread? Did you DD got 56 and not get in?

Not sure if that poster is OP -- but it does sound like their kid didn't get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who does admissions for a highly competitive program (not CES). She said that they really don’t have enough funds for all the candidates who could benefit from the program and who would meet the criteria, and once you’ve narrowed it down to the best of the best, it’s basically a little random because it’s impossible to differentiate between the most qualified. I think it’s the same thing here. Everyone needs to accept that, among the students with the super high scores, it’s basically a lottery.

This, AND people need to remember that it has always been a little bit of a sliding scale between different CES locations. This has always been the case, and does not represent a change in protocol this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Two kids in DC's grades who did get accepted also had 99% percentile on the test; otherwise, similar stats. So, either their raw scores were higher, or their MAPs were, but it doesn't really matter at this point.

I'm just a bit surprised the county didn't provide parents with the acceptance score per each CES, like they did a couple of years ago.

It's not a surprise knowing what their goals were. They are hiding it because it would be too obvious then that students with lower scores were admitted over higher ones because of "cohort". It would be obvious that the bar was lowered, which they keep saying it hasn't been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who does admissions for a highly competitive program (not CES). She said that they really don’t have enough funds for all the candidates who could benefit from the program and who would meet the criteria, and once you’ve narrowed it down to the best of the best, it’s basically a little random because it’s impossible to differentiate between the most qualified. I think it’s the same thing here. Everyone needs to accept that, among the students with the super high scores, it’s basically a lottery.

A lottery OR other factors they look at. The COGAT score is not everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who does admissions for a highly competitive program (not CES). She said that they really don’t have enough funds for all the candidates who could benefit from the program and who would meet the criteria, and once you’ve narrowed it down to the best of the best, it’s basically a little random because it’s impossible to differentiate between the most qualified. I think it’s the same thing here. Everyone needs to accept that, among the students with the super high scores, it’s basically a lottery.

This, AND people need to remember that it has always been a little bit of a sliding scale between different CES locations. This has always been the case, and does not represent a change in protocol this year.

Not this. MCPS stated that they look at peer cohort. Do the other competitive programs do the same?