average IQ at "big 3" schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100.

X a million

No way. I don't think it is super high, but it isn't going to be 100 in a self-selected population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hard to find a common metric to compare, because the private school kids aren't taking the same assessment tests as the FCPS elementary kids. On the WPPSI/ERB test, FWIW which might not be much, my kids are in the high 140s and low 150s, and my sense is most of the other kids are in that same general area.

Hilarious. I call bullshit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to find a common metric to compare, because the private school kids aren't taking the same assessment tests as the FCPS elementary kids. On the WPPSI/ERB test, FWIW which might not be much, my kids are in the high 140s and low 150s, and my sense is most of the other kids are in that same general area.

Hilarious. I call bullshit!

Believe whatever you want - I have scans of the results in my gmail, so I can back it up with pictures if you really want to get into a pissing match.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to find a common metric to compare, because the private school kids aren't taking the same assessment tests as the FCPS elementary kids. On the WPPSI/ERB test, FWIW which might not be much, my kids are in the high 140s and low 150s, and my sense is most of the other kids are in that same general area.

Hilarious. I call bullshit!

Believe whatever you want - I have scans of the results in my gmail, so I can back it up with pictures if you really want to get into a pissing match.

np - so what does that buy you?

[Anonymous]

We should use some actual numbers in this exercise. A 140 IQ is about 1 in 260, or 99.60 percentile. Applying this same rarity to SAT scores, we arrive at 2,300. Different tests, I know but a helpful illustration. A 150 IQ occurs in only 1 in 2,200 cases. This same methodology applied to the SAT results in a score of 2,380. So if your school is filled with kids in the 140 to 150 IQ range, then it would suggest an average SAT score of 2,340 or so - which is higher than the average SAT score at any of the local privates by almost 200 points. Not possible, sorry.

[Anonymous]

You need an it of 115 to do any job. Once you have that, you need good physical and emotional health, good people skills, and good luck. Any number over that is extraneous and too much over that may get in the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hard to find a common metric to compare, because the private school kids aren't taking the same assessment tests as the FCPS elementary kids. On the WPPSI/ERB test, FWIW which might not be much, my kids are in the high 140s and low 150s, and my sense is most of the other kids are in that same general area.

This is the type of info the parents in the AAP/HGC threads post. It is just not probably that "most" of the kids in a big 3 class have IQs of close to 150. I agree with the posters who are guessing in the 120-135 range, and also with the poster who noted that the range of scores is bound to be more narrow than in a public (although not more so than the AAP and MoCo's gifted programs, which was OP's post). Also, several posters questioned how so many of us know our kids' IQs - if they entered private before 5th grade, they likely took the wppsi/wisc tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Indulge me, pls. if dcum is not for unsupportable, impossible-to-verify wonderings like this, then what is ...

Reading a recent thread on the Fairfax AAP program vs MoCo HGC program got me wondering. It seems most kids in those programs (at least, the ones with parents responding on dcum) have IQs of 135 and above. Those parents were blase about it, but those are really high scores for an ENTIRE class of kids. At my kids' private (a great k-8 school), I'd say there is a mix of abilities - plenty of really smart, a few off the charts smart, and plenty "regular" (whatever that means).

So what do you think is a typical IQ of kids in big 3 schools? I mean true IQs, not what their preK entrance test scores were (because my own kids were tested as having 99% IQs on the wippsi in pre-K, and neither fleshed out at that at the ages of 8 and 11, which are more reliable ages for wisc testing).

666

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to find a common metric to compare, because the private school kids aren't taking the same assessment tests as the FCPS elementary kids. On the WPPSI/ERB test, FWIW which might not be much, my kids are in the high 140s and low 150s, and my sense is most of the other kids are in that same general area.

Hilarious. I call bullshit!

Believe whatever you want - I have scans of the results in my gmail, so I can back it up with pictures if you really want to get into a pissing match.

np - so what does that buy you?

That is hilarious. Please, post scans of your kids IQ. I'll go make some popcorn.

[Anonymous]

IQ has little impact on life time achievements. Beyond IQ and hard work I think people who excel are also willing to take more risks in life.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/07/science/75-years-later-study-still-tracking-geniuses.html?pagewanted=all

http://aplus.com/a/75-year-harvard-grant-study-happiness

Last paragraph sums it up.

Though the Terman kids were handpicked for high IQ, the longitudinal results tell us little about the meaning of IQ, except for one study conducted by Terman's associate, Melita Oden. In 1968, she compared the 100 most successful and 100 least successful men in the group, defining success as holding jobs that required their intellectual gifts. The successes, predictably, included professors, scientists, doctors and lawyers. The non-successes included electronics technicians, police, carpenters and pool cleaners, plus a smattering of failed lawyers, doctors and academics. But here's the catch: the successes and non-successes barely differed in average IQ. The big differences turned out to be in confidence, persistence and early parental encouragement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IQ has little impact on life time achievements. Beyond IQ and hard work I think people who excel are also willing to take more risks in life.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/07/science/75-years-later-study-still-tracking-geniuses.html?pagewanted=all

http://aplus.com/a/75-year-harvard-grant-study-happiness

Last paragraph sums it up.

Though the Terman kids were handpicked for high IQ, the longitudinal results tell us little about the meaning of IQ, except for one study conducted by Terman's associate, Melita Oden. In 1968, she compared the 100 most successful and 100 least successful men in the group, defining success as holding jobs that required their intellectual gifts. The successes, predictably, included professors, scientists, doctors and lawyers. The non-successes included electronics technicians, police, carpenters and pool cleaners, plus a smattering of failed lawyers, doctors and academics. But here's the catch: the successes and non-successes barely differed in average IQ. The big differences turned out to be in confidence, persistence and early parental encouragement.

The confident, risk taker gets the girl, the job, the sale, and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ has little impact on life time achievements. Beyond IQ and hard work I think people who excel are also willing to take more risks in life.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/07/science/75-years-later-study-still-tracking-geniuses.html?pagewanted=all

http://aplus.com/a/75-year-harvard-grant-study-happiness

Last paragraph sums it up.

Though the Terman kids were handpicked for high IQ, the longitudinal results tell us little about the meaning of IQ, except for one study conducted by Terman's associate, Melita Oden. In 1968, she compared the 100 most successful and 100 least successful men in the group, defining success as holding jobs that required their intellectual gifts. The successes, predictably, included professors, scientists, doctors and lawyers. The non-successes included electronics technicians, police, carpenters and pool cleaners, plus a smattering of failed lawyers, doctors and academics. But here's the catch: the successes and non-successes barely differed in average IQ. The big differences turned out to be in confidence, persistence and early parental encouragement.

The confident, risk taker gets the girl, the job, the sale, and so on...

...as long as he has enough IQ. If not, he ends in jail, or in the military (look it up)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to find a common metric to compare, because the private school kids aren't taking the same assessment tests as the FCPS elementary kids. On the WPPSI/ERB test, FWIW which might not be much, my kids are in the high 140s and low 150s, and my sense is most of the other kids are in that same general area.

This is the type of info the parents in the AAP/HGC threads post. It is just not probably that "most" of the kids in a big 3 class have IQs of close to 150. I agree with the posters who are guessing in the 120-135 range, and also with the poster who noted that the range of scores is bound to be more narrow than in a public (although not more so than the AAP and MoCo's gifted programs, which was OP's post). Also, several posters questioned how so many of us know our kids' IQs - if they entered private before 5th grade, they likely took the wppsi/wisc tests.

The earlier kids takes these tests, the less reliable they tend to be in measuring innate intellect & the more likely they are to be greatly skewed by the child's environment . I know several kids who scored above the 99th percentile on the wppsi when applying for K, for instance. Most of these kids -- mine included-- did not turn out to be geniuses, just bright kids from high SES homes.

[Anonymous]

Not sure 100% of the average. I went to a big 3 some years back and had 110. Today I make well over $550,000. Go figure. Wonder what I'd make if I had the 130 reference above. Who cares about the IQ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two daughters at Holton and they are bright, capable, engaged and happy - why would I care about an IQ score? Years ago when I tested for G&T in the 70's I recall my IQ was 137, which the public school needed to know in order to decide who got into the program. I'm glad my girls don't know their IQ because I think it's largely useless at a certain level. Poise and academic engagement are more important IMO.

+1. My daughters don't know their IQ scores either and I have no desire to ever get them tested. At a certain level (and pretty much all the students at a Big 3 meet this level), it becomes more about the student's intangibles - willingness to work hard, take risks, poise, etc.

Ugh. "At a certain level" .... "we know it's pretty high without testing and didn't need to compete for a spot in a free magnet school, so we don't need an actual number."

This is why I don't tell people where my kids go to school--they assume I think like this.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but I don't understand your complaint. It sounded to me like PP was just saying she knows her daughters are smart, but doesn't want to get hung up on the exact scores, so she hasn't had them tested. Are you saying it's offensive that she thinks her daughters are smart without having a test score in her back pocket? I must be missing your point.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant! Some people are always looking for a fight. Thanks for seeing what I meant PP.