Presidential Scholarship Candidates

[Anonymous]

There's kid from my child's Maryland school on the list. He had straight 36s on the ACT, FWIW

[Anonymous]

Good point on the ACT. I had not realized it is so prevalent now.

Here is ACT data for CA. http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2014/pdf/profile/California.pdf If I'm reading it right, 196 students scored a 36. If that's right, then that is roughly half of the 452, and the math would work to be roughly consistent with CA's population %.

Interestingly, for DC, the SAT still is much more popular. 4,832 students took the SAT, versus only 1,492 took the ACT. And of that 1,492, only 2 people scored a 36.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good point on the ACT. I had not realized it is so prevalent now.

Here is ACT data for CA. http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2014/pdf/profile/California.pdf If I'm reading it right, 196 students scored a 36. If that's right, then that is roughly half of the 452, and the math would work to be roughly consistent with CA's population %.

Interestingly, for DC, the SAT still is much more popular. 4,832 students took the SAT, versus only 1,492 took the ACT. And of that 1,492, only 2 people scored a 36.

PP here. That much student preference for the SAT really surprises me. The local Ivy-fixation might have something to do with it, although today pretty much all of the Ivy schools consider the tests equally. Historically, there were regional biases in terms of colleges' preferences (ACTs at southern schools). But, I thought that had all but gone away.

[Anonymous]

Historically, East/West coast states were considered SAT region and middle/south states ACT region. ACT's been catching up with SAT over the years and finally, last year I think, surpassed SAT. Even in DMV area, you see more and more kids taking ACT including my own. One of the reasons SAT is revising the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a first grader at a charter but am constantly thinking about next steps. We like Stoneridge and Visi and Gonzaga and St Anselms for our son. Why aren't these schools on the list? I thought they had top academics? Please educate me!

Because the list of Presidential Scholar candidates is purely a matter of having perfect/near perfect SAT/ACT scores. The fact that DC's threshold is considerably lower than DC or Maryland's gives a huge boost to the DC private schools. The number of students who test at the very top end is not a reflection of the quality of the school. It is more a reflection of how they pick their students. The public magnets are selecting based on test taking ability. Independent schools vary in how they use the WPPSI and SSAT/ISEE. The top scorers and the average scores are very bad indicators of how good a school is. SAT scores are boosted by extensive, expensive prepping. Just because my DS's classmate scores perfectly on the SAT doesn't mean anything about the education DS receives. And, the student with a perfect score may likely have done just as well no matter where school she went to.

Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:08:59 -- this is all based on a single test score -- and perfect or close to perfect ones at that. Many kids go on to fantastic colleges without perfect scores. Our oldest child is a senior in a public school and is headed to an Ivy (which some people care way more about than we do, as neither of us went to an Ivy and things turned out just fine). He wasn't a national merit semifinalist or even commended based on his PSAT scores; his SAT scores went way up -- but they weren't close to perfect. Bright kids will bloom where they are planted. I happen to think that for middle and high school the most important thing is that kids are happy and well supported by teachers who really get to know them. (So after talking to him a lot about it, our second child is in private for HS). As long as those things are true, and they are dedicated to working hard, things will work out fine. So enjoy elementary school!

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the list of Presidential Scholar candidates is purely a matter of having perfect/near perfect SAT/ACT scores. The fact that DC's threshold is considerably lower than DC or Maryland's gives a huge boost to the DC private schools. ...

I'm not so sure you're correct about DC's threshold being lower. I haven't seen much direct data on this point, but you might be able to get a rough sense by looking at the state SAT reports:
CA - https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/CA_14_03_03_01.pdf
DC - https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/DC_14_03_03_01.pdf
MD - https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/MD_14_03_03_01.pdf
VA - https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/VA_14_03_03_01.pdf

I don't have time right now to dig into all the numbers, but I just did a little quick math to see what % of students in CA and DC scored in the top section (700-800) on the sub-tests. A quick glance suggests about the same % of DC students as CA students are in that top range (although it might bear checking closely because I see some big swings in some of the sub-tests).

Perhaps others have better ideas on the best methodology to approach this problem in light of the limited data we have.

Making a rough calculation, there were 44 Presidential Scholar candidates in DC out of 348 students who scored in the 700-800 range on CR. That's a ratio of almost 13%. In contrast, there were 101:3356 in Virginia (3%) and 69:2446 (2.8%) in Maryland. While it is possible that the difference is due to a a higher proportion of perfect scoring Washingtonians, it is more likely that the threshold is lower than MD and VA. Since the the threshold is calculated using the the top 20 scores by gender, it makes sense that a small jurisdiction would have a lower threshold than a much larger one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a first grader at a charter but am constantly thinking about next steps. We like Stoneridge and Visi and Gonzaga and St Anselms for our son. Why aren't these schools on the list? I thought they had top academics? Please educate me!

Because the list of Presidential Scholar candidates is purely a matter of having perfect/near perfect SAT/ACT scores. The fact that DC's threshold is considerably lower than DC or Maryland's gives a huge boost to the DC private schools. The number of students who test at the very top end is not a reflection of the quality of the school. It is more a reflection of how they pick their students. The public magnets are selecting based on test taking ability. Independent schools vary in how they use the WPPSI and SSAT/ISEE. The top scorers and the average scores are very bad indicators of how good a school is. SAT scores are boosted by extensive, expensive prepping. Just because my DS's classmate scores perfectly on the SAT doesn't mean anything about the education DS receives. And, the student with a perfect score may likely have done just as well no matter where school she went to.

Doubt that it is "considerably" lower. My DC has perfect score and is not the only DC resident at his school who does. Presumably, there are other DC kids at other schools who also have perfect scores. I"m guessing that if the threshold for DC is not 1600, it is very close to 1600.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a first grader at a charter but am constantly thinking about next steps. We like Stoneridge and Visi and Gonzaga and St Anselms for our son. Why aren't these schools on the list? I thought they had top academics? Please educate me!

Because the list of Presidential Scholar candidates is purely a matter of having perfect/near perfect SAT/ACT scores. The fact that DC's threshold is considerably lower than DC or Maryland's gives a huge boost to the DC private schools. The number of students who test at the very top end is not a reflection of the quality of the school. It is more a reflection of how they pick their students. The public magnets are selecting based on test taking ability. Independent schools vary in how they use the WPPSI and SSAT/ISEE. The top scorers and the average scores are very bad indicators of how good a school is. SAT scores are boosted by extensive, expensive prepping. Just because my DS's classmate scores perfectly on the SAT doesn't mean anything about the education DS receives. And, the student with a perfect score may likely have done just as well no matter where school she went to.

Doubt that it is "considerably" lower. My DC has perfect score and is not the only DC resident at his school who does. Presumably, there are other DC kids at other schools who also have perfect scores. I"m guessing that if the threshold for DC is not 1600, it is very close to 1600.

You are probably both right. From self reporting done on College Confidential a few years ago, the successful scores for even some of the poorer and less populous states (think, the Dakotas - no offense) were in the 1570+ range. Perhaps some bias in reporting, admittedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Thanks for the correction on my estimate of 3,000 perfect M+R SATs to the 1,922 that you report. I believe that the right comparison is between the 1,922 and roughly 1/2 of the Presidential Scholar's nominees, because roughly half qualified based upon ACT scores. Let's gross the "perfect board score" up to 3,000 for this analysis to account for the ACT component. And here is why the CA cutoff must be 1600. If you take the Top 40 plus ties methodology that they use, it must mean that the 41st person must have had the same score as the 40th. In the hypothetical case that the 40th person scored 1590 or lower, then that would mean that 39 students or less scored 1600. This would then imply that CA had 39 of the 3,000 "perfect scores" or 1.3% versus 12% of US population. Even if you use the 1,922 pre gross up number, it would only represent 2.0% of recipients. 1600 as a cutoff is the only way to get the math to work.

You make a very persuasive point about how assuming a 1590 cutoff for CA would suggest that CA students account for only 1.3% of the 1600s versus 12% of the population. But isn't the alternative just as surprising?: If we assume a 1600 cutoff for CA, then CA students account for 23.5% of the 1600s versus 12% of the population. Even if we skim some off for the ACT (and perhaps there's good data on ACT results too), those numbers seem off-base.

But in the end, even though either CA scenario seems odd, I suppose one must be correct. I suppose we could consider the population % part of the analysis too, to see if it makes sense. Does CA's 12% of US population strike you as fitting a normal representation of SAT scores? And since we know it likely cannot be that CA is supplying a truly proportional % of the 1600s -- since we know it's either roughly 1.3% or 23.5% -- which appears more likely? I tend to think of CA's top-end students as pretty smart, which might suggest the 23.5% number makes more sense. But on the other hand, I also suspect that a big piece of CA's population is not even taking the SAT, much less scoring 1600, which suggests the 1.3% number might make sense too.

There are a lot of smart kids in CA:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/schools-highest-sat-scores_n_4654077.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Thanks for the correction on my estimate of 3,000 perfect M+R SATs to the 1,922 that you report. I believe that the right comparison is between the 1,922 and roughly 1/2 of the Presidential Scholar's nominees, because roughly half qualified based upon ACT scores. Let's gross the "perfect board score" up to 3,000 for this analysis to account for the ACT component. And here is why the CA cutoff must be 1600. If you take the Top 40 plus ties methodology that they use, it must mean that the 41st person must have had the same score as the 40th. In the hypothetical case that the 40th person scored 1590 or lower, then that would mean that 39 students or less scored 1600. This would then imply that CA had 39 of the 3,000 "perfect scores" or 1.3% versus 12% of US population. Even if you use the 1,922 pre gross up number, it would only represent 2.0% of recipients. 1600 as a cutoff is the only way to get the math to work.

You make a very persuasive point about how assuming a 1590 cutoff for CA would suggest that CA students account for only 1.3% of the 1600s versus 12% of the population. But isn't the alternative just as surprising?: If we assume a 1600 cutoff for CA, then CA students account for 23.5% of the 1600s versus 12% of the population. Even if we skim some off for the ACT (and perhaps there's good data on ACT results too), those numbers seem off-base.

But in the end, even though either CA scenario seems odd, I suppose one must be correct. I suppose we could consider the population % part of the analysis too, to see if it makes sense. Does CA's 12% of US population strike you as fitting a normal representation of SAT scores? And since we know it likely cannot be that CA is supplying a truly proportional % of the 1600s -- since we know it's either roughly 1.3% or 23.5% -- which appears more likely? I tend to think of CA's top-end students as pretty smart, which might suggest the 23.5% number makes more sense. But on the other hand, I also suspect that a big piece of CA's population is not even taking the SAT, much less scoring 1600, which suggests the 1.3% number might make sense too.

If you read more of the thread, you will realize that we have found religion on that point.

There are a lot of smart kids in CA:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/schools-highest-sat-scores_n_4654077.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:08:59 -- this is all based on a single test score -- and perfect or close to perfect ones at that. Many kids go on to fantastic colleges without perfect scores. Our oldest child is a senior in a public school and is headed to an Ivy (which some people care way more about than we do, as neither of us went to an Ivy and things turned out just fine). He wasn't a national merit semifinalist or even commended based on his PSAT scores; his SAT scores went way up -- but they weren't close to perfect. Bright kids will bloom where they are planted. I happen to think that for middle and high school the most important thing is that kids are happy and well supported by teachers who really get to know them. (So after talking to him a lot about it, our second child is in private for HS). As long as those things are true, and they are dedicated to working hard, things will work out fine. So enjoy elementary school!

So true. My DC is a candidate, but I am confident that no college will be jumping up and down about it. Any kid who scores over 2250 is plenty smart enough and hopefully as demonstrated it in more meaningful ways than scoring well on a stupid standardized test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:08:59 -- this is all based on a single test score -- and perfect or close to perfect ones at that. Many kids go on to fantastic colleges without perfect scores. Our oldest child is a senior in a public school and is headed to an Ivy (which some people care way more about than we do, as neither of us went to an Ivy and things turned out just fine). He wasn't a national merit semifinalist or even commended based on his PSAT scores; his SAT scores went way up -- but they weren't close to perfect. Bright kids will bloom where they are planted. I happen to think that for middle and high school the most important thing is that kids are happy and well supported by teachers who really get to know them. (So after talking to him a lot about it, our second child is in private for HS). As long as those things are true, and they are dedicated to working hard, things will work out fine. So enjoy elementary school!

So true. My DC is a candidate, but I am confident that no college will be jumping up and down about it. Any kid who scores over 2250 is plenty smart enough and hopefully as demonstrated it in more meaningful ways than scoring well on a stupid standardized test.

You can be proud of your child and not discount the accomplishments of others at the same time. Some of the kids that I know on this list are academic superstars (by that, I mean curve setters who have the capacity to be physics PhDs or brain surgeons). I am not suggesting that they are the only ones, by any means. I can't stand all of the celebration of athletics, and often mediocre athletics, when the Brainiacs can't get a moment in the sun without someone denigrating their accomplishments so that they can feel okay about not matching their mark. Congratulations recipients! From a group of very smart students, you stood out for once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:08:59 -- this is all based on a single test score -- and perfect or close to perfect ones at that. Many kids go on to fantastic colleges without perfect scores. Our oldest child is a senior in a public school and is headed to an Ivy (which some people care way more about than we do, as neither of us went to an Ivy and things turned out just fine). He wasn't a national merit semifinalist or even commended based on his PSAT scores; his SAT scores went way up -- but they weren't close to perfect. Bright kids will bloom where they are planted. I happen to think that for middle and high school the most important thing is that kids are happy and well supported by teachers who really get to know them. (So after talking to him a lot about it, our second child is in private for HS). As long as those things are true, and they are dedicated to working hard, things will work out fine. So enjoy elementary school!

So true. My DC is a candidate, but I am confident that no college will be jumping up and down about it. Any kid who scores over 2250 is plenty smart enough and hopefully as demonstrated it in more meaningful ways than scoring well on a stupid standardized test.

You can be proud of your child and not discount the accomplishments of others at the same time. Some of the kids that I know on this list are academic superstars (by that, I mean curve setters who have the capacity to be physics PhDs or brain surgeons). I am not suggesting that they are the only ones, by any means. I can't stand all of the celebration of athletics, and often mediocre athletics, when the Brainiacs can't get a moment in the sun without someone denigrating their accomplishments so that they can feel okay about not matching their mark. Congratulations recipients! From a group of very smart students, you stood out for once.

I certainly didn't mean to denigrate anybody's accomplishment. No offense intended. Congratulations to all the candidates. I also think the accomplishments of brainiacs should be celebrated much more than they are. I couldn't agree more with you on that point.

I just meant that there is little difference between a kid who scores at the 2250 and kid who scores at the 2400 level, and colleges know that. Also, I question whether scoring well on a standardized test is a particularly meaningful accomplishment for a brainiac. Calling something an accomplishment implies effort. Doing well on IQ tests, talent search tests like the SCAT, and yes, the PSAT and SAT, reflects innate ability and usually educational and socioeconomic advantage more than achievement. Bright kids are too often praised for being smart rather than what they do with their smarts, which can be counterproductive.

The kids who go to the trouble of writing all the essays and are selected to be semifinalists and scholars based on all their academic and other achievements will really have worked for the honor, and colleges will no doubt recognize that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:08:59 -- this is all based on a single test score -- and perfect or close to perfect ones at that. Many kids go on to fantastic colleges without perfect scores. Our oldest child is a senior in a public school and is headed to an Ivy (which some people care way more about than we do, as neither of us went to an Ivy and things turned out just fine). He wasn't a national merit semifinalist or even commended based on his PSAT scores; his SAT scores went way up -- but they weren't close to perfect. Bright kids will bloom where they are planted. I happen to think that for middle and high school the most important thing is that kids are happy and well supported by teachers who really get to know them. (So after talking to him a lot about it, our second child is in private for HS). As long as those things are true, and they are dedicated to working hard, things will work out fine. So enjoy elementary school!

So true. My DC is a candidate, but I am confident that no college will be jumping up and down about it. Any kid who scores over 2250 is plenty smart enough and hopefully as demonstrated it in more meaningful ways than scoring well on a stupid standardized test.

You can be proud of your child and not discount the accomplishments of others at the same time. Some of the kids that I know on this list are academic superstars (by that, I mean curve setters who have the capacity to be physics PhDs or brain surgeons). I am not suggesting that they are the only ones, by any means. I can't stand all of the celebration of athletics, and often mediocre athletics, when the Brainiacs can't get a moment in the sun without someone denigrating their accomplishments so that they can feel okay about not matching their mark. Congratulations recipients! From a group of very smart students, you stood out for once.

I certainly didn't mean to denigrate anybody's accomplishment. No offense intended. Congratulations to all the candidates. I also think the accomplishments of brainiacs should be celebrated much more than they are. I couldn't agree more with you on that point.

I just meant that there is little difference between a kid who scores at the 2250 and kid who scores at the 2400 level, and colleges know that. Also, I question whether scoring well on a standardized test is a particularly meaningful accomplishment for a brainiac. Calling something an accomplishment implies effort. Doing well on IQ tests, talent search tests like the SCAT, and yes, the PSAT and SAT, reflects innate ability and usually educational and socioeconomic advantage more than achievement. Bright kids are too often praised for being smart rather than what they do with their smarts, which can be counterproductive.

The kids who go to the trouble of writing all the essays and are selected to be semifinalists and scholars based on all their academic and other achievements will really have worked for the honor, and colleges will no doubt recognize that.

+1000!