Care to share your child's CES raw scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child was denied with 56 total. Verbal analogies - all correct, Number analogies - 17 out of 18, and Figure Matrices, well, that's, probably, what did her in.

Anyone care to share your child's scores? Just wondering how mine compares to the rest of the MoCo genius pool.

64/64, 99%, CES accepted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child was denied with 56 total. Verbal analogies - all correct, Number analogies - 17 out of 18, and Figure Matrices, well, that's, probably, what did her in.

Anyone care to share your child's scores? Just wondering how mine compares to the rest of the MoCo genius pool.

64/64, 99%, CES accepted

Wow! That's awesome. Kudos to your kiddo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child was denied with 56 total. Verbal analogies - all correct, Number analogies - 17 out of 18, and Figure Matrices, well, that's, probably, what did her in.

Anyone care to share your child's scores? Just wondering how mine compares to the rest of the MoCo genius pool.

64/64, 99%, CES accepted

OP. Congrats!! Now, that's a real peerless outlier!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child was denied with 56 total. Verbal analogies - all correct, Number analogies - 17 out of 18, and Figure Matrices, well, that's, probably, what did her in.

Anyone care to share your child's scores? Just wondering how mine compares to the rest of the MoCo genius pool.

64/64, 99%, CES accepted

OP. Congrats!! Now, that's a real peerless outlier!

Yes, to all those doubters who say that the CES was dumbed down because they had universal testing, this should put their mind at ease. People with high scores got admitted, depending on their regional pool. If your pool was shallow, you could get in with lower scores. if your pool was deep, only the highest scorers got it. Simple.

[Anonymous]

I have a friend who works in the school system and she explained that the the pool was narrowed a few times during the admissions process. They first looked at a combination of everything like grades, Cogat, MAP and took out those who did not make the cut off. She didn't know if it was a numerical cut off or they took the top 200, 300, 500 kids or whatever.

It would not surprise me if for some centers they looked at only the 99th percentile kids other than the kids who were FARMS or ESOL or otherwise disadvantaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who works in the school system and she explained that the the pool was narrowed a few times during the admissions process. They first looked at a combination of everything like grades, Cogat, MAP and took out those who did not make the cut off. She didn't know if it was a numerical cut off or they took the top 200, 300, 500 kids or whatever.

It would not surprise me if for some centers they looked at only the 99th percentile kids other than the kids who were FARMS or ESOL or otherwise disadvantaged.

And how did they do the next cut off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child was denied with 56 total. Verbal analogies - all correct, Number analogies - 17 out of 18, and Figure Matrices, well, that's, probably, what did her in.

Anyone care to share your child's scores? Just wondering how mine compares to the rest of the MoCo genius pool.

64/64, 99%, CES accepted

OP. Congrats!! Now, that's a real peerless outlier!

Yes, to all those doubters who say that the CES was dumbed down because they had universal testing, this should put their mind at ease. People with high scores got admitted, depending on their regional pool. If your pool was shallow, you could get in with lower scores. if your pool was deep, only the highest scorers got it. Simple.

yea.. this one poster proves that they didn't lower the threshold.

No one said it was dumbed down because of universal testing. No one thinks universal testing is a bad idea. Get that through your thick skull. It's the lowering of the threshold for admittance that people are lamenting. And no, one high score posted on here doesn't prove a thing.

You know what would prove it: if MCPS would publish the median test scores of admitted students, like they used to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, someone needs to get in given that they want every school represented in the centers. Raw scores in this are arguably more meaningful than a few points higher on MAPS.

That's it. Someone does need to get in, from each school, and it is all nice and dandy, I just refuse to buy their slogan about 'peerless outliers'. We've known these children since K, they all are in the same ballpark, achievement- and ability-wise. No one of them has solved Fermat's last theorem.

What enrages me the most in all of this is total lack of transparency, covered by in-your-face BS. If they'd just said they were taking top 3 highest achievers from each class, with raw scores given the highest weight in the decision-making, followed by MAPs, followed by Inview results, followed by each child's involvement in school activities (or should this one be moved up?), followed by yesterday's star alignment, that would give parents a realistic prognosis on where their child stands. Instead, they feed you this 'peerless outlier' crap and expect you to eat it up. Don't insult my intelligence, ladies.

PP, I felt some of your same emotions during the MS magnet admissions, when my extremely high scoring kid was rejected and other UMC kids going to the same middle school were accepted. What helped a little was when someone pointed out that MCPS is not saying that everyone accepted is an outlier. They are simply saying that your kid is not an outlier. That's very different. There are very few outliers, if you think about it. MCPS doesn't have enough information about UMC kids with no special needs to determine whether a certain 99% kid is an outlier compared to another 99% kid - especially for the CES process, with only the COGAT screening test given. You might know your kid is an outlier compared to other kids, but the MCPS selection committee wouldn't really have known. While parents now know the raw COGAT scores, I don't think the MCPS selection committee had that data (at least they didn't for the MS admissions). So among the UMC kids from high performing schools, it was essentially a lottery. The only real "outliers" are kids at lower performing schools, where maybe there is just one or two 99 percentilers compared to the rest of the class, or situations where a kid who got 92% but dealt with FARMS status and other adversities gets a boost. And this same reasoning applies to all the other metrics they used in the process, not just the COGAT.

Anyway, I sympathize with your frustration. It's hard to not get what you want for your kid. I suggest supplementing, and spending lots of time on extracurriculars like sports and music to develop the brain in other ways. With a high school kid now, I see that the younger years were the times to put in all the hard work on that kind of stuff, because by high school there are so many other demands on a kid's time.

Wise response, and I particularly agree with the bolded. I have a middle schooler, and I see that he has developed critical thinking skills and work strategies that a lot of his peers don't have, because he worked hard at them in elementary - without the benefit of CES or magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, someone needs to get in given that they want every school represented in the centers. Raw scores in this are arguably more meaningful than a few points higher on MAPS.

That's it. Someone does need to get in, from each school, and it is all nice and dandy, I just refuse to buy their slogan about 'peerless outliers'. We've known these children since K, they all are in the same ballpark, achievement- and ability-wise. No one of them has solved Fermat's last theorem.

What enrages me the most in all of this is total lack of transparency, covered by in-your-face BS. If they'd just said they were taking top 3 highest achievers from each class, with raw scores given the highest weight in the decision-making, followed by MAPs, followed by Inview results, followed by each child's involvement in school activities (or should this one be moved up?), followed by yesterday's star alignment, that would give parents a realistic prognosis on where their child stands. Instead, they feed you this 'peerless outlier' crap and expect you to eat it up. Don't insult my intelligence, ladies.

PP, I felt some of your same emotions during the MS magnet admissions, when my extremely high scoring kid was rejected and other UMC kids going to the same middle school were accepted. What helped a little was when someone pointed out that MCPS is not saying that everyone accepted is an outlier. They are simply saying that your kid is not an outlier. That's very different. There are very few outliers, if you think about it. MCPS doesn't have enough information about UMC kids with no special needs to determine whether a certain 99% kid is an outlier compared to another 99% kid - especially for the CES process, with only the COGAT screening test given. You might know your kid is an outlier compared to other kids, but the MCPS selection committee wouldn't really have known. While parents now know the raw COGAT scores, I don't think the MCPS selection committee had that data (at least they didn't for the MS admissions). So among the UMC kids from high performing schools, it was essentially a lottery. The only real "outliers" are kids at lower performing schools, where maybe there is just one or two 99 percentilers compared to the rest of the class, or situations where a kid who got 92% but dealt with FARMS status and other adversities gets a boost. And this same reasoning applies to all the other metrics they used in the process, not just the COGAT.

Anyway, I sympathize with your frustration. It's hard to not get what you want for your kid. I suggest supplementing, and spending lots of time on extracurriculars like sports and music to develop the brain in other ways. With a high school kid now, I see that the younger years were the times to put in all the hard work on that kind of stuff, because by high school there are so many other demands on a kid's time.

Wise response, and I particularly agree with the bolded. I have a middle schooler, and I see that he has developed critical thinking skills and work strategies that a lot of his peers don't have, because he worked hard at them in elementary - without the benefit of CES or magnets.

What is his secret then? What did he work on to develop such skills that his peers didn't have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child was denied with 56 total. Verbal analogies - all correct, Number analogies - 17 out of 18, and Figure Matrices, well, that's, probably, what did her in.

Anyone care to share your child's scores? Just wondering how mine compares to the rest of the MoCo genius pool.

64/64, 99%, CES accepted

OP. Congrats!! Now, that's a real peerless outlier!

Yes, to all those doubters who say that the CES was dumbed down because they had universal testing, this should put their mind at ease. People with high scores got admitted, depending on their regional pool. If your pool was shallow, you could get in with lower scores. if your pool was deep, only the highest scorers got it. Simple.

yea.. this one poster proves that they didn't lower the threshold.

No one said it was dumbed down because of universal testing. No one thinks universal testing is a bad idea. Get that through your thick skull. It's the lowering of the threshold for admittance that people are lamenting. And no, one high score posted on here doesn't prove a thing.

You know what would prove it: if MCPS would publish the median test scores of admitted students, like they used to do.

You seem stuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child was denied with 56 total. Verbal analogies - all correct, Number analogies - 17 out of 18, and Figure Matrices, well, that's, probably, what did her in.

Anyone care to share your child's scores? Just wondering how mine compares to the rest of the MoCo genius pool.

64/64, 99%, CES accepted

OP. Congrats!! Now, that's a real peerless outlier!

Yes, to all those doubters who say that the CES was dumbed down because they had universal testing, this should put their mind at ease. People with high scores got admitted, depending on their regional pool. If your pool was shallow, you could get in with lower scores. if your pool was deep, only the highest scorers got it. Simple.

yea.. this one poster proves that they didn't lower the threshold.

No one said it was dumbed down because of universal testing. No one thinks universal testing is a bad idea. Get that through your thick skull. It's the lowering of the threshold for admittance that people are lamenting. And no, one high score posted on here doesn't prove a thing.

You know what would prove it: if MCPS would publish the median test scores of admitted students, like they used to do.

You seem stuck.

Dollars to donuts, PP doesn't have a kid in MCPS. There's a perennial crank in these threads. If there were an actual kid involved the discussion would progress. It doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child was denied with 56 total. Verbal analogies - all correct, Number analogies - 17 out of 18, and Figure Matrices, well, that's, probably, what did her in.

Anyone care to share your child's scores? Just wondering how mine compares to the rest of the MoCo genius pool.

64/64, 99%, CES accepted

OP. Congrats!! Now, that's a real peerless outlier!

Yes, to all those doubters who say that the CES was dumbed down because they had universal testing, this should put their mind at ease. People with high scores got admitted, depending on their regional pool. If your pool was shallow, you could get in with lower scores. if your pool was deep, only the highest scorers got it. Simple.

yea.. this one poster proves that they didn't lower the threshold.

No one said it was dumbed down because of universal testing. No one thinks universal testing is a bad idea. Get that through your thick skull. It's the lowering of the threshold for admittance that people are lamenting. And no, one high score posted on here doesn't prove a thing.

You know what would prove it: if MCPS would publish the median test scores of admitted students, like they used to do.

You seem stuck.

Agree -- this poster has said the same thing about 50 times.

[Anonymous]

53/64, 99%, CES rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child was denied with 56 total. Verbal analogies - all correct, Number analogies - 17 out of 18, and Figure Matrices, well, that's, probably, what did her in.

Anyone care to share your child's scores? Just wondering how mine compares to the rest of the MoCo genius pool.

64/64, 99%, CES accepted

OP. Congrats!! Now, that's a real peerless outlier!

Yes, to all those doubters who say that the CES was dumbed down because they had universal testing, this should put their mind at ease. People with high scores got admitted, depending on their regional pool. If your pool was shallow, you could get in with lower scores. if your pool was deep, only the highest scorers got it. Simple.

yea.. this one poster proves that they didn't lower the threshold.

No one said it was dumbed down because of universal testing. No one thinks universal testing is a bad idea. Get that through your thick skull. It's the lowering of the threshold for admittance that people are lamenting. And no, one high score posted on here doesn't prove a thing.

You know what would prove it: if MCPS would publish the median test scores of admitted students, like they used to do.

You seem stuck.

Dollars to donuts, PP doesn't have a kid in MCPS. There's a perennial crank in these threads. If there were an actual kid involved the discussion would progress. It doesn't.

I have two in MCPS. One went through HGC several years ago. You really think it's only one person who thinks the "peer cohort" is nonsense? I don't live in a w cluster either.

[Anonymous]

yea.. this one poster proves that they didn't lower the threshold.

No one said it was dumbed down because of universal testing. No one thinks universal testing is a bad idea. Get that through your thick skull. It's the lowering of the threshold for admittance that people are lamenting. And no, one high score posted on here doesn't prove a thing.

You know what would prove it: if MCPS would publish the median test scores of admitted students, like they used to do.

Not the PP this person was responding to, and maybe I just have a thick skull, but I'm confused as to why this person thinks the threshold was lowered given the regional nature of the CES program.

For as long as the regional programs have existed, kids have been compared against their peers at nearby schools. That does mean that it takes a higher score to get into some programs than others, but that's always been true.

It also stands to reason that the bar to get into a local program will be lower than the bar to get into a regional program, simply because the top 25 (or 50 in the case of PBES) are going to be marginally less high achieving than the top 10.

But even with all of that, I still don't understand why PP think the bar is lower this year for the elementary magnets. Other than testing more kids, there's no change. Kids are still being evaluated against their peers at their own school and nearby schools.