Is there a different attitude towards prepping for sports versus intellect and why?

[Anonymous]

When it comes to sports or arts, the performance itself is valued and so practice makes sense. When it comes to IQ testing, we're looking for insight into how and/or how well someone's mind works.

Stacking blocks in particular patterns or repeating long strings of numbers backwards aren't in and of themselves activities we value. They are proxies or indicators for getting at something else. If you sever that relationship -- and create a situation where how good a kid is at stacking blocks in specific ways is just a function of how many times his parents have made him stack blocks in those ways (rather than a function of how well he analyzes and can reproduce spatial relationships), then the test is worthless.

Just like a sight-reading exercise for a musician would be useless if the musician was familiar with the piece. The exercise wouldn't provide any useful indication of how well the musician could sight-read. (Another analogy might be to a drug that lowers some indicator of disease (CRP, cholesterol, blood sugar) without actually reducing the incidence or impact of the disease itself.)

I agree that where prepping logically leads is to an abandonment of the WPPSI. What it's replaced with (a newer test with more arcane challenges? more emphasis on the playdate? school-specific readiness testing?) and who that will benefit is an open question.

[Anonymous]

Stacking blocks in particular patterns or repeating long strings of numbers backwards aren't in and of themselves activities we value. They are proxies or indicators for getting at something else. If you sever that relationship -- and create a situation where how good a kid is at stacking blocks in specific ways is just a function of how many times his parents have made him stack blocks in those ways (rather than a function of how well he analyzes and can reproduce spatial relationships), then the test is worthless.

Given the known physical patterns of nature all around us ( biologic and man made architectural monuments for example) I would be skeptical of any theory suggesting that our minds (and bodies) are not stacking and repeating events in log strings of bits and bytes (even as we sleep or day dream) and that certain routine daily mental activities (games, puzzles, drawing, painting building things with hands and eyes for example) in our lives simply practise these skills to varying degrees of intensity whether we are conscious of or understand this or not. How do you clearly separate these tasks and sub tasks from those measured by WPSSI or any other instrument? I think this is very difficult to do. I guess only when you are given the exact same WPPSI instrument in the precise sequence and order and duration of each activity. Otherwise, I suspect many children are able to relate each task to other types of activities they engage in school, the playgrounds, with legos, in camp and at home. Unfortunately, many chiildren around the world and in America are deprived of appropriate and adequate stimulation of their 5 senses during early childhood and are clearly disadvantaged with the WPSSI stimulation test with each passing year.

When it comes to sports or arts, the performance itself is valued and so practice makes sense. When it comes to IQ testing, we're looking for insight into how and/or how well someone's mind works.

I seriously doubt private schools are using IQ testing to provide insight into how and/or how well someone's mind works. I doubt any official or teacher in these schools care or even study how the mind works. To my limited knowledge, albeit limited, this instrument is used with other criteria to weed out or invite kids to the private school dance.

Like sports, in some circles -- albeit few-- academic performance and mental skills are valued and so practice makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Just like a sight-reading exercise for a musician would be useless if the musician was familiar with the piece. The exercise wouldn't provide any useful indication of how well the musician could sight-read.

But, if the musician intensely practised musical exercises (not the "actual" piece) 4 hours per day vs someone 2 hours per week who would you put your hard earned money on (all other things being equal) as the better sight reader?

[Anonymous]

It seems farsical to dream up a sight reading test for musicians who play music and expert a virgin musical slate ... when they sight read. Their performance will be influenced by their past musical experiences. Therefore, the playing field is never equal. But, this doesn't necessarily predict future musical stardom in a 3 to 7 year-old...particularly if the test serves as the prime basis for exclusion.

As farsical to dream upon an IQ test for children that use their minds everyday and expert a virgin mental or intellectual slate sitting in front of the WPSSI tester. Their performance will be influenced by their past intellectual and mental skills experiences and exercises (rich for some households and poor in others). Therefore, the playing field is never equal. But, this doesn't necessarily predict future intellectual stardom in a 3 to 7 year-old...particularly if the test serves as the prime driver for exclusion. In the latter circumstance, there is a problem with the misuse of the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Just like a sight-reading exercise for a musician would be useless if the musician was familiar with the piece. The exercise wouldn't provide any useful indication of how well the musician could sight-read.

But, if the musician intensely practised musical exercises (not the "actual" piece) 4 hours per day vs someone 2 hours per week who would you put your hard earned money on (all other things being equal) as the better sight reader?

I'm not at all sure. Depends on what makes a good sight reader. If it's an understanding of what makes a piece musical or how music typically works, arguably the musician could be better served by knowing a number of pieces very well and having some sight-reading experience rather than by having played fragments of thousands of different pieces one time each.

To approach it from another angle, if kids who read a lot typically have a large vocabulary, it doesn't follow that acquiring a large vocabulary through other means (e.g. flashcards and incessant drill) gives a kid the other skills that come with extensive reading experience. DCUM has a number of posters whose vocabulary exceeds their grasp of diction. The end result is that they come across as ignorant and pretentious rather than well-educated or intelligent.

So, sure, go ahead and have your DC repeat long numbers of digits backwards. At the end of the day, you'll probably have a DC who is pretty good at repeating long strings of numbers backwards. Not sure what that'll get you. If your DC is smart enough to get into the school of your choice, then prep is a waste of time. If not, be careful what you wish for. The narrow focus on WPPSI and PreK/K admissions just strikes me as silly. OTOH, if the question is do kids end up smarter if they spend a lot of time using their brains, sure they do. At which point the question becomes how do you encourage them to use their brains and what is it you're trying to foster. Answers will vary, depending on the kid and on the parent. I tend to look at what DC is trying to do or interested in and then offer her ways to explore further.

[Anonymous]

To approach it from another angle, if kids who read a lot typically have a large vocabulary, it doesn't follow that acquiring a large vocabulary through other means (e.g. flashcards and incessant drill) gives a kid the other skills that come with extensive reading experience. DCUM has a number of posters whose vocabulary exceeds their grasp of diction. The end result is that they come across as ignorant and pretentious rather than well-educated or intelligent.

So, sure, go ahead and have your DC repeat long numbers of digits backwards. At the end of the day, you'll probably have a DC who is pretty good at repeating long strings of numbers backwards. Not sure what that'll get you. If your DC is smart enough to get into the school of your choice, then prep is a waste of time. If not, be careful what you wish for. The narrow focus on WPPSI and PreK/K admissions just strikes me as silly. OTOH, if the question is do kids end up smarter if they spend a lot of time using their brains, sure they do. At which point the question becomes how do you encourage them to use their brains and what is it you're trying to foster. Answers will vary, depending on the kid and on the parent. I tend to look at what DC is trying to do or interested in and then offer her ways to explore further.

I would hesitate to call you, or I or most readers of DCUM models of perfect vocabulary or diction. I am quite sure the interests of DC, their parents and children at private schools are all quite similar ... shaped by socio-economic status and the common experiences shared. If reading threads on this board is any indication, and not further proof, simply observe the eternal quest for the recipe/holy grail and the right path/approach to private school (hint enjoy music, get into sports, travel, do volunteer work and some experience abroad and do well in your school work and standardised tests). I'm sure I'd be bored to death going through the typical application portfolio ... at any level. Only perhaps awoken by a very few gems that stand out! Try interviewing these kids. They all sound alike and parrot the same refried beans spoon fed them by parents, counselors and educational consultants!

[Anonymous]

If your DC is smart enough to get into the school of your choice, then prep is a waste of time. If not, be careful what you wish for.

I think this point may be an under-appreciated one. If a parent goes to extreme lengths to boost artificially her child's performance on WPPSI, playdate, recommendations, etc, then the child may end up miserable and unsuccessful at a school that is totally beyond the child's capabilities. I'm sure most of us (me included) like to think our child would rise to the challenge and do fine in even the most challenging environment, but that hope might be unrealistic.

[Anonymous]

I think this point may be an under-appreciated one. If a parent goes to extreme lengths to boost artificially her child's performance on WPPSI, playdate, recommendations, etc, then the child may end up miserable and unsuccessful at a school that is totally beyond the child's capabilities. I'm sure most of us (me included) like to think our child would rise to the challenge and do fine in even the most challenging environment, but that hope might be unrealistic.

Extreme may depend on which side of the track you live? Sounds relative and variable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think this point may be an under-appreciated one. If a parent goes to extreme lengths to boost artificially her child's performance on WPPSI, playdate, recommendations, etc, then the child may end up miserable and unsuccessful at a school that is totally beyond the child's capabilities. I'm sure most of us (me included) like to think our child would rise to the challenge and do fine in even the most challenging environment, but that hope might be unrealistic.

Extreme may depend on which side of the track you live? Sounds relative and variable.

14:11 here. I'm not sure I understand your point, PP. The focus of my comment was less on how "extreme" a parent's efforts are, and more on how artificially boosted the child's performance is. Perhaps some small number of parents are so accomplished that it takes them only minimal effort to artificially boost their child's performance -- but even in that situation, the harm of having a child's capabilities poorly matched with the school's demands would remain.

[Anonymous]

Explain what you mean by artificially boasting a child's performance? Presumably you are not referring to steroids or other exogenous chemicals.

And if one can artificially boost a child's performance there is a natural way (another way presumably) to do this too? If so, contrast natural versus artificially boasting a child's performance on a WPPSI test? Does environment play any role in the line or distinction between an artificial versus natural boast of a child's performance on a WPPSI test of a variety of mental skills and tasks?

[Anonymous]

14:11 here. I'm not sure I understand your point, PP. The focus of my comment was less on how "extreme" a parent's efforts are, and more on how artificially boosted the child's performance is. Perhaps some small number of parents are so accomplished that it takes them only minimal effort to artificially boost their child's performance -- but even in that situation, the harm of having a child's capabilities poorly matched with the school's demands would remain.

Explain what you mean by artificially boasting a child's performance? Presumably you are not referring to steroids or other exogenous chemicals.

And if one can artificially boost a child's performance there is a natural way (another way presumably) to do this too? If so, contrast natural versus artificially boasting a child's performance on a WPPSI test? Does environment play any role in the line or distinction between an artificial versus natural boast of a child's performance on a WPPSI test of a variety of mental skills and tasks?

If the results of a WPSSI test in a 3 to 6 year-old is a poor predictor of anything in future does artificial or natural boosting (however you define this) of a child's performance for this test mean or predict anything in future?