COGAT Scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VQN total of 102, we better start looking at trade schools.

111 over here. I think my child is just not a great test-taker. Verbal was her lowest score at barely over 100 but she’s such a strong reader and writer. I’m just hoping she gets high ratings on the GBRS.

Same. Verbal super low. I wonder if the kids understood it.

I believe the verbal section is pictures and my DD who took it a few years ago said she couldn’t figure out what some of the pictures were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter scored so well in NNAT but very low in CogAt NV section. I don't understand. They seems to be pretty similar. Is NNAT still relevant at this point?

The NNAT and CogAT non-verbal are probably the least important sections for AAP admissions. My kid was similar but reversed--low NNAT, high CogAT NV--and is now at the center (admitted first round). If the quant and verbal scores are good, I wouldn't worry.

What is a good verbal score?

130+ puts you in range but it depends a lot on the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VQN total of 102, we better start looking at trade schools.

111 over here. I think my child is just not a great test-taker. Verbal was her lowest score at barely over 100 but she’s such a strong reader and writer. I’m just hoping she gets high ratings on the GBRS.

Same. Verbal super low. I wonder if the kids understood it.

I believe the verbal section is pictures and my DD who took it a few years ago said she couldn’t figure out what some of the pictures were.

Yeah that makes more sense for explaining a lower score. So the verbal section has a lot of nonverbal components.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VQN total of 102, we better start looking at trade schools.

111 over here. I think my child is just not a great test-taker. Verbal was her lowest score at barely over 100 but she’s such a strong reader and writer. I’m just hoping she gets high ratings on the GBRS.

Same. Verbal super low. I wonder if the kids understood it.

I believe the verbal section is pictures and my DD who took it a few years ago said she couldn’t figure out what some of the pictures were.

Yeah that makes more sense for explaining a lower score. So the verbal section has a lot of nonverbal components.

Only the K-2 versions of the CogAT, which try to assess verbal reasoning without requiring any reading. If your child retakes the CogAT in 3rd or later, the verbal section will use words and no pictures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VQN total of 102, we better start looking at trade schools.

111 over here. I think my child is just not a great test-taker. Verbal was her lowest score at barely over 100 but she’s such a strong reader and writer. I’m just hoping she gets high ratings on the GBRS.

Same. Verbal super low. I wonder if the kids understood it.

I believe the verbal section is pictures and my DD who took it a few years ago said she couldn’t figure out what some of the pictures were.

Yeah that makes more sense for explaining a lower score. So the verbal section has a lot of nonverbal components.

My kid was really nervous about it so I pulled up some practice questions for him online so he could see what to expect. I went through them with him and some of the logic for those questions was....interesting. Like, pictures of (1) bike, (2) scooter, (3) roller skates. To answer, select the picture that should fit next: (1) wheel, (2) tricycle, (3) jump rope. So I pick wheel because all those pictures had wheels in common. But the answer is a tricycle, because the pictures are of kids' wheeled toys. Seems like the logic for both answers works to me. So I feel like it's all a dumb crapshoot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter scored so well in NNAT but very low in CogAt NV section. I don't understand. They seems to be pretty similar. Is NNAT still relevant at this point?

Same and I’m baffled that there is such a huge discrepancy between the two.

[Anonymous]

VQN 124 and NNAT 122. Any chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VQN 124 and NNAT 122. Any chance?

Depends on your school, GBRS, work samples

[Anonymous]

VQN 131 and NNAT 160. Any chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VQN 131 and NNAT 160. Any chance?

I would think there is a good chance based on that NNAT score.

[Anonymous]

It isn’t just about the VQN. CogAT sub-scores are also important. In particular, the committee wants to know that your child can handle the advanced math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VQN 131 and NNAT 160. Any chance?

I would think there is a good chance based on that NNAT score.

The NNAT is barely considered at this point. The last evaluation of the AAP application process found that the NNAT carried no weight in the actual decision to include a student in AAP or not. The CogAT was nire important and GBRS were the most important. The NNAT score will help the child be in-pool and that is about it. The 131 CogAT score is close to the 132 threhold that was the "gold standard" a few years back for being in-pool and is probably more important. A high NNAT followed by a drop in the CogAT probably points to a kid who guessed well on the NNAT with the CogAT being more reflective of the child's ability. Just like a lower NNAT with a 15-20 point bump points to a child who was most likely prepped for the CogAT. In this case, the CogAT is still high, 97th or 98th percentile I think, and on the cusp of being in-pool in the past. I don't think the discrepancy will be a big deal.

The poster who metioned the Quant score is pretty on point. The committee is looking for kids who can handle the LA and the Advanced Math. Take a look at the thread where parents are asking about their kids struggling with the math in third grade. The math is accelerated in AAP and jumps a full grade level in 5th grade. The committee wants to make sure that kids are able to handle that jump so the Quant score is important. There are plenty of parents on this board who will say that the math in AAP is too slow but they tend to be the overall outliers. A good number of kids find the math challenging and some struggle with it. Finding a kid who is strong in LA but who will not be overwhelmed with the math in important. It is part of the reason why some of us think that FCPS needs and Advanced LA and Advanced Math distinction, so the kids who are strong in one of the areas has a good fit for them. Right now it feels like there is a push to jam kids who are strong in LA into LIV even if they don't have the math chops because the LA and Social Studies component of Gen Ed is too slow.

I know it is off topic but the ideal, for me, would be Advanced Math and Advanced LA. Kids who qualify for both are accepted into LIV, otherwise they attend the Advanced program in their strength. There would be fewer LIV kids but the program would be more flexible and meet more kids needs.

[Anonymous]

NNAT 141

Cogat
Qty- 134
Non verbal-123
Verbal- 109
VQN - 128

Kid is in AAP II for reading


Surprised that verbal came so low.

Thoughts on how we refer and chances?

[Anonymous]

It’s extremely difficult to comment on chances for admission without knowing the school. I can understand not wanting to mention your school by name but you at least need to identify as high-SES, mid-tier, or Title One.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VQN 131 and NNAT 160. Any chance?

I would think there is a good chance based on that NNAT score.

The NNAT is barely considered at this point. The last evaluation of the AAP application process found that the NNAT carried no weight in the actual decision to include a student in AAP or not. The CogAT was nire important and GBRS were the most important. The NNAT score will help the child be in-pool and that is about it. The 131 CogAT score is close to the 132 threhold that was the "gold standard" a few years back for being in-pool and is probably more important. A high NNAT followed by a drop in the CogAT probably points to a kid who guessed well on the NNAT with the CogAT being more reflective of the child's ability. Just like a lower NNAT with a 15-20 point bump points to a child who was most likely prepped for the CogAT. In this case, the CogAT is still high, 97th or 98th percentile I think, and on the cusp of being in-pool in the past. I don't think the discrepancy will be a big deal.

The poster who metioned the Quant score is pretty on point. The committee is looking for kids who can handle the LA and the Advanced Math. Take a look at the thread where parents are asking about their kids struggling with the math in third grade. The math is accelerated in AAP and jumps a full grade level in 5th grade. The committee wants to make sure that kids are able to handle that jump so the Quant score is important. There are plenty of parents on this board who will say that the math in AAP is too slow but they tend to be the overall outliers. A good number of kids find the math challenging and some struggle with it. Finding a kid who is strong in LA but who will not be overwhelmed with the math in important. It is part of the reason why some of us think that FCPS needs and Advanced LA and Advanced Math distinction, so the kids who are strong in one of the areas has a good fit for them. Right now it feels like there is a push to jam kids who are strong in LA into LIV even if they don't have the math chops because the LA and Social Studies component of Gen Ed is too slow.

I know it is off topic but the ideal, for me, would be Advanced Math and Advanced LA. Kids who qualify for both are accepted into LIV, otherwise they attend the Advanced program in their strength. There would be fewer LIV kids but the program would be more flexible and meet more kids needs.

I'm new to this, but isn't this why we have Level III? My kid's teacher talked about recommending my son for advanced math but not going for full Level IV because the advanced LA might be too much.