Do unmotivated kids get into HGC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a big secret, and I wonder why they are so secretive about the stats.

One of the most intelligent comments on this thread. Someone should get this. Journalists are you out there?

As an Asian-American parent, I am very interested in knowing how these acceptance rates are determined. While Asian-American students do have a large representation within HGC and magnet programs, a huge majority of Asian-Americans are not taken in the programs, perhaps for the sake of diversity. The admissions should be based on merit.

Yes, accessibility is an issue and so MCPS must test all students in 3rd grade at school first - as that would be the fairest thing for everyone. But, lets stop penalizing Asian-Americans for working hard.

On the one hand, there are lots more super-bright Asian-American students and white students than spots (according to DCUM).

On the other hand, it is impossible to increase the proportion of black students and Hispanic students without admitting unqualified students based on their race/ethnicity (also according to DCUM).

Is there an explanation for this apparent contradiction that doesn't involve the idea that the fraction of black students and Hispanic students who are super-bright is lower than the fraction of Asian-American and white students who are super-bright?

Yes, the proportion of black and Hispanic kids that are super bright is lower than the proportion of Asian and white students that are super bright. Every single IQ/aptitude/achievement test out there shows this. It's not even open for debate. The cause of this is very contentious, but the fact that the gap exists is really beyond question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a big secret, and I wonder why they are so secretive about the stats.

One of the most intelligent comments on this thread. Someone should get this. Journalists are you out there?

As an Asian-American parent, I am very interested in knowing how these acceptance rates are determined. While Asian-American students do have a large representation within HGC and magnet programs, a huge majority of Asian-Americans are not taken in the programs, perhaps for the sake of diversity. The admissions should be based on merit.

Yes, accessibility is an issue and so MCPS must test all students in 3rd grade at school first - as that would be the fairest thing for everyone. But, lets stop penalizing Asian-Americans for working hard.

On the one hand, there are lots more super-bright Asian-American students and white students than spots (according to DCUM).

On the other hand, it is impossible to increase the proportion of black students and Hispanic students without admitting unqualified students based on their race/ethnicity (also according to DCUM).

Is there an explanation for this apparent contradiction that doesn't involve the idea that the fraction of black students and Hispanic students who are super-bright is lower than the fraction of Asian-American and white students who are super-bright?

Yes, the proportion of black and Hispanic kids that are super bright is lower than the proportion of Asian and white students that are super bright. Every single IQ/aptitude/achievement test out there shows this. It's not even open for debate. The cause of this is very contentious, but the fact that the gap exists is really beyond question.

OK, people who are complaining that MCPS is watering down the application magnet programs and lowering the caliber of the students -- the PP immediately above is who is on your side, here. How do you feel about that?

[Anonymous]

I feel okay. She is speaking the truth in a honest and non hurtful way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel okay. She is speaking the truth in a honest and non hurtful way.

Your definitions of "honest" and "non-hurtful" must be different from mine.

[Anonymous]

Then you must not be able to handle facts.

She did say the cause of this phenomenon is unclear. But the numbers are what they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then you must not be able to handle facts.

She did say the cause of this phenomenon is unclear. But the numbers are what they are.

But she accepts that the numbers indicate that there are less "superbright" kids - when it could be that the tests are flawed and don't really indicate much of anything except that the tests are biased for MC and UMC kids. That is not the "cause of the phenomenon of "less superbright" kids - that means that her underlying premise that there ARE less superbright kids is specious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then you must not be able to handle facts.

She did say the cause of this phenomenon is unclear. But the numbers are what they are.

But she accepts that the numbers indicate that there are less "superbright" kids - when it could be that the tests are flawed and don't really indicate much of anything except that the tests are biased for MC and UMC kids. That is not the "cause of the phenomenon of "less superbright" kids - that means that her underlying premise that there ARE less superbright kids is specious.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then you must not be able to handle facts.

She did say the cause of this phenomenon is unclear. But the numbers are what they are.

But she accepts that the numbers indicate that there are less "superbright" kids - when it could be that the tests are flawed and don't really indicate much of anything except that the tests are biased for MC and UMC kids. That is not the "cause of the phenomenon of "less superbright" kids - that means that her underlying premise that there ARE less superbright kids is specious.

The study of IQ and race are what they are. IF there are better method of measuring ability, nobody has invented them yet. I would prefer the Fairfax county way and let parents submit WISC scores for admission. I better you would say that is even more biased against poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then you must not be able to handle facts.

She did say the cause of this phenomenon is unclear. But the numbers are what they are.

But she accepts that the numbers indicate that there are less "superbright" kids - when it could be that the tests are flawed and don't really indicate much of anything except that the tests are biased for MC and UMC kids. That is not the "cause of the phenomenon of "less superbright" kids - that means that her underlying premise that there ARE less superbright kids is specious.

And this is why this thread bothers me. There may in fact be gifted kids who don't test well for whatever reason or whose parents don't advocate for them. And I think its GOOD that MCPS is trying to reach those students as well.

[Anonymous]

Do unmotivated kids get into HGC?

Sure. Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a big secret, and I wonder why they are so secretive about the stats.

One of the most intelligent comments on this thread. Someone should get this. Journalists are you out there?

As an Asian-American parent, I am very interested in knowing how these acceptance rates are determined. While Asian-American students do have a large representation within HGC and magnet programs, a huge majority of Asian-Americans are not taken in the programs, perhaps for the sake of diversity. The admissions should be based on merit.

Yes, accessibility is an issue and so MCPS must test all students in 3rd grade at school first - as that would be the fairest thing for everyone. But, lets stop penalizing Asian-Americans for working hard.

On the one hand, there are lots more super-bright Asian-American students and white students than spots (according to DCUM).

On the other hand, it is impossible to increase the proportion of black students and Hispanic students without admitting unqualified students based on their race/ethnicity (also according to DCUM).

Is there an explanation for this apparent contradiction that doesn't involve the idea that the fraction of black students and Hispanic students who are super-bright is lower than the fraction of Asian-American and white students who are super-bright?

Yes, the proportion of black and Hispanic kids that are super bright is lower than the proportion of Asian and white students that are super bright. Every single IQ/aptitude/achievement test out there shows this. It's not even open for debate. The cause of this is very contentious, but the fact that the gap exists is really beyond question.

My observation has been that the majority of "super bright" black students are usually children of recent immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean nations. Perhaps, coming from these areas they have not had to face the consequences of slavery and broken families that the descendants of African slaves in this country had to. We cannot discount a mass scale multi-generational PTSD for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a big secret, and I wonder why they are so secretive about the stats.

One of the most intelligent comments on this thread. Someone should get this. Journalists are you out there?

As an Asian-American parent, I am very interested in knowing how these acceptance rates are determined. While Asian-American students do have a large representation within HGC and magnet programs, a huge majority of Asian-Americans are not taken in the programs, perhaps for the sake of diversity. The admissions should be based on merit.

Yes, accessibility is an issue and so MCPS must test all students in 3rd grade at school first - as that would be the fairest thing for everyone. But, lets stop penalizing Asian-Americans for working hard.

On the one hand, there are lots more super-bright Asian-American students and white students than spots (according to DCUM).

On the other hand, it is impossible to increase the proportion of black students and Hispanic students without admitting unqualified students based on their race/ethnicity (also according to DCUM).

Is there an explanation for this apparent contradiction that doesn't involve the idea that the fraction of black students and Hispanic students who are super-bright is lower than the fraction of Asian-American and white students who are super-bright?

Yes, the proportion of black and Hispanic kids that are super bright is lower than the proportion of Asian and white students that are super bright. Every single IQ/aptitude/achievement test out there shows this. It's not even open for debate. The cause of this is very contentious, but the fact that the gap exists is really beyond question.

My observation has been that the majority of "super bright" black students are usually children of recent immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean nations. Perhaps, coming from these areas they have not had to face the consequences of slavery and broken families that the descendants of African slaves in this country had to. We cannot discount a mass scale multi-generational PTSD for this.

I agree with this. That is why I have no problem with pouring more money to the titile 1 schools and have preschools for low income kids or headstart. I just don't know whether chaning gifted program admission criteria is the way to do it.

More outreach effort such as not needing parents to apply for their kids to these programs are great. I wholely support. Reducing testing difficulty and use opaque admission standard to social engineer students demographics is an insult to any intelligent person in the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this. That is why I have no problem with pouring more money to the titile 1 schools and have preschools for low income kids or headstart. I just don't know whether chaning gifted program admission criteria is the way to do it.

More outreach effort such as not needing parents to apply for their kids to these programs are great. I wholely support. Reducing testing difficulty and use opaque admission standard to social engineer students demographics is an insult to any intelligent person in the community.

MCPS has never not used opaque admissions standards, nor should they ever stop using opaque admissions standards. Why? Because the minute they explain the admissions standards, parents with knowledge and resources will start to jigger the process. (Speaking of social engineering.) If you support admission by merit, you should support the opaque admissions standards.

[Anonymous]

Good. Let's just trust MCPS to do the right things. MCPS is resting on a twenty year old reputation on being a great school district anyway. Let's destroy its highly respected gifted programs too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this. That is why I have no problem with pouring more money to the titile 1 schools and have preschools for low income kids or headstart. I just don't know whether chaning gifted program admission criteria is the way to do it.

More outreach effort such as not needing parents to apply for their kids to these programs are great. I wholely support. Reducing testing difficulty and use opaque admission standard to social engineer students demographics is an insult to any intelligent person in the community.

MCPS has never not used opaque admissions standards, nor should they ever stop using opaque admissions standards. Why? Because the minute they explain the admissions standards, parents with knowledge and resources will start to jigger the process. (Speaking of social engineering.) If you support admission by merit, you should support the opaque admissions standards.

Your logic astounds me. Using a comprehensive standardized test (that is not watered down and is rigorous) and publishing the scores does not create any ill-will. Are you going to accommodate for each and every "negative"? What about children of broken homes? children with allergies? children of abusive parents? left-handed children?

All inequalities are not result of negative forces. The amount of shaming on DCUM for the hardwork of high achieving students and devoted parents makes it seem that these students were not slogging their butts off doing Math Worksheets but instead were making porn videos or dealing drugs!!

What is this nonsense with what people can "afford"? People can afford to drink, smoke, shop for luxury goods, gamble, get hair extensions, throw parties, take vacations, buy x-box and smartphones for their children, then they can surely "afford" resources for their children.

Maybe parents should make sure that these kids do not watch inappropriate content on their smartphones and instead download an app for doing homework. Easy peasy.