Cogat and NNAt 2021 Scores Sharing thread

[Anonymous]

How many of you posters who are confidently talking as if kids have to have sky high CoGAT scores to be in AAP have ever read the actual statistics on kids admitted to level IV?

[Anonymous]

It’s one or two questions difference between composite of 150, 145 and 140. All 3 kids are considered to be deserving of AAP. My DC somehow missed a question in quantitative and hence scored 147. I asked and he is not sure when and how he missed a question in quantitative which he says was easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any ability profile with higher scores is better than A profile with lower scores.

Do you mean Cogat composite is most important?

Yes, the cut off is based on composite. A Kid who barely meets the cutoff in only one subsection is a red flag. At least 2 subsections have to be well above cutoff with the third subsection not too less in the range on 100 or so but anywhere above 125.

So if this year's cut-off is 140, you're saying that only one section above 140 would be a red flag? They need at least two sections in the mid-140's or higher? That seems crazy.

[Anonymous]

More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any ability profile with higher scores is better than A profile with lower scores.

Do you mean Cogat composite is most important?

Yes, the cut off is based on composite. A Kid who barely meets the cutoff in only one subsection is a red flag. At least 2 subsections have to be well above cutoff with the third subsection not too less in the range on 100 or so but anywhere above 125.

So if this year's cut-off is 140, you're saying that only one section above 140 would be a red flag? They need at least two sections in the mid-140's or higher? That seems crazy.

The PP saying the stuff about 2 sections has clearly not seen data on actual kids in actual AAP. And is going to be disappointed that, as a group, they are not smarter than the membership of MENSA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

Tracking (which is what advanced math is) works best when done based on what kids already know (their aptitude) not when done based on their ability (what the NNAT and CoGAT purport to measure). So why not let the high achieving LLII kid with a 120+ composite in if they clearly know their stuff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

Tracking (which is what advanced math is) works best when done based on what kids already know (their aptitude) not when done based on their ability (what the NNAT and CoGAT purport to measure). So why not let the high achieving LLII kid with a 120+ composite in if they clearly know their stuff?

You mean to say LII designation is as important as cogat scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

Tracking (which is what advanced math is) works best when done based on what kids already know (their aptitude) not when done based on their ability (what the NNAT and CoGAT purport to measure). So why not let the high achieving LLII kid with a 120+ composite in if they clearly know their stuff?

Just surprised how much weight the teacher's comments weigh in the whole process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

Tracking (which is what advanced math is) works best when done based on what kids already know (their aptitude) not when done based on their ability (what the NNAT and CoGAT purport to measure). So why not let the high achieving LLII kid with a 120+ composite in if they clearly know their stuff?

Just surprised how much weight the teacher's comments weigh in the whole process.

Not just that, work samples are important too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

Tracking (which is what advanced math is) works best when done based on what kids already know (their aptitude) not when done based on their ability (what the NNAT and CoGAT purport to measure). So why not let the high achieving LLII kid with a 120+ composite in if they clearly know their stuff?

It is "amazing" if 1/3 of the >140 kids may get rejected/replaced from the APP program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

Tracking (which is what advanced math is) works best when done based on what kids already know (their aptitude) not when done based on their ability (what the NNAT and CoGAT purport to measure). So why not let the high achieving LLII kid with a 120+ composite in if they clearly know their stuff?

Just surprised how much weight the teacher's comments weigh in the whole process.

Not just that, work samples are important too.

Isn't that the teacher who prepares most of the work samples?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

Tracking (which is what advanced math is) works best when done based on what kids already know (their aptitude) not when done based on their ability (what the NNAT and CoGAT purport to measure). So why not let the high achieving LLII kid with a 120+ composite in if they clearly know their stuff?

It is "amazing" if 1/3 of the >140 kids may get rejected/replaced from the APP program.

Why increase the cutoff to 140 if you still plan to reject 1/3 of them? It didn’t even make sense when they rejected 1/3 when the cutoff was 132.
Can anyone please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

Tracking (which is what advanced math is) works best when done based on what kids already know (their aptitude) not when done based on their ability (what the NNAT and CoGAT purport to measure). So why not let the high achieving LLII kid with a 120+ composite in if they clearly know their stuff?

Just surprised how much weight the teacher's comments weigh in the whole process.

Not just that, work samples are important too.

Isn't that the teacher who prepares most of the work samples?

Yes, and AART