132 Composite-- CogAT
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Why would the pool be based on a 132 composite score compared to needing a 132 in any one section? I already have an AAP kid so this has zero to do with my own family, but I am wondering why the change. |
Anonymous
| Only few students can make it. |
Anonymous
| It is a way to eliminate some of the students who have SN- brilliant in one area and need remediation in another. |
Anonymous
|
So you mean if it was NNAT or any section of the CogAT a 132, the pool would just be way too wide?
Hard to believe that many kids got a 132 in any one section than in most prior years. |
Anonymous
| The ultimate goal is to control how many students can get in. So the criteria are different year over year because student population and test performance are different. |
Anonymous
While that makes the most sense, it conflicts with the stated rule that there is no limit to admitted kids. |
Anonymous
Exactly. |
Anonymous
| I agree. 132 composite is harder for kids than 132 NNAT |
Anonymous
|
Also, I believe the test changes slightly from year to year, so more kids may score higher if the test questions are slightly easier. I know this is how the scoring for the SATs works.
|
Anonymous
| Sounds like they're aiming for kids who are more well-rounded, not just strong in one particular area. |
Anonymous
| It is supposed to be for well-rounded; Level III is for subject strengths. |
Anonymous
This^^^ |
Anonymous
I don't think that's what they're thinking. This is only the second time they're using the composite. |
Anonymous
|
The biggest losers are the younger kids. 129 (the step below 132) is the 97th percentile when adjusted by age but 89th percentile when adjusted by location. It's the 93d percentile when adjusted for neither (grade score).
|
Anonymous
| It's at least the 3 rd time. |