If your child score 99.9% ile on WPPSI, who tested him/her?

[Anonymous]

I have no evidence or data to support any dollar transactions. A few of these testers do serve some of these schools in other formal advisory capacities/positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Seems to me that if a school had a down year, they would simply admit students with lower scores. Why would they need to have testers inflate scores for them? Schools are free to set whatever admission requirements they want - and change it at will.

Would that approach jeopardize the testers' educational testing business in the long run?

If Colleges followed the same approach with SAT/ACT they would have nothing to brag about in the annual US News and Report College Sweepstakes.

Except the reality is that private schools are very, very careful not to tell people the scores of their students. They aren't posting them in US News, and aren't even supplying approximate ranges to parents at the schools. So it doesn't seem to make sense to me that schools would have any interest in having applicants supply inflated scores, much less to have particular testers benefit from providing inflated scores. Sounds like a conspiracy gone wild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - maybe you should broaden your request to 99th percentile and above. you'll get more answers.

8)

[Anonymous]

The WPPSI is only one component of the admissions process. The playdates, teacher recs, & family interview carry a lot of importance in determining if the school is the right fit. High WPPSI does not guarantee admittance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Shocking that someone so smart can't get her kid into school without cheating.

Since my child got 99.9 percentile on the bogus test and turned down 2 spots a what you folk consider Big 3 I can speak freely about this farcical test. By the way, my child did the smarter thing and went to a magnet school. Given the low admission bar I do not anticipate any barriers to entry should he decide to apply in future. Unfortunately, these schools have very little to offer him until perhaps high school.

Now you see what useless and erroneous speculation gets you...pie in the face.

Did your child turn down a Big 3?

NOW IS CLEAR!

Your agenda here is clear. You do not have the money to pay for private and came here to try to feel better. The test scores are not very helpful indeed but quality of public school is going downhill fast. If your kid got into a big 3, you should have accepted, but money issues were on the way, right? Just be honest on thiS issue as you wanted people to be honest on the testers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No paranoia here. You sound like Alice in Wonderland. Professionals clearly never violate their code of professional ethics.
Can you explain the epidemic of "geniuses" in the area D.C. area?

Do you really believe all these anonymous posters on DCUM who brag about their children's WPPSI 99 + %iles??? For someone so skeptical, you should be more wary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no evidence or data to support any dollar transactions. A few of these testers do serve some of these schools in other formal advisory capacities/positions.

Why I am not surprised that you have no evidence? As for the latter, please list the testers and their formal advisory capacities/positions. If these are, indeed, formal, I'm sure that you won't mind telling us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Since my child got 99.9 percentile on the bogus test and turned down 2 spots a what you folk consider Big 3 I can speak freely about this farcical test. By the way, my child did the smarter thing and went to a magnet school. Given the low admission bar I do not anticipate any barriers to entry should he decide to apply in future. Unfortunately, these schools have very little to offer him until perhaps high school.

Now you see what useless and erroneous speculation gets you...pie in the face.

Did your child turn down a Big 3?

If your child already truly received this score, then why are you pressing others to identify testers? Also, if what you're saying is true, why don't YOU identify the tester you used?

Smells like some BS to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seems to me that if a school had a down year, they would simply admit students with lower scores. Why would they need to have testers inflate scores for them? Schools are free to set whatever admission requirements they want - and change it at will.

Would that approach jeopardize the testers' educational testing business in the long run?

If Colleges followed the same approach with SAT/ACT they would have nothing to brag about in the annual US News and Report College Sweepstakes.

Except the reality is that private schools are very, very careful not to tell people the scores of their students. They aren't posting them in US News, and aren't even supplying approximate ranges to parents at the schools. So it doesn't seem to make sense to me that schools would have any interest in having applicants supply inflated scores, much less to have particular testers benefit from providing inflated scores. Sounds like a conspiracy gone wild.

And I betcha that is because after the cherry picking, Sidwell's average is just 50 points per section higher than Whitman and no higher than Thos. Jeff. So it would be in their best interest to keep that sort of thing to themselves.

[Anonymous]

I know three 99-percentile kids that were not accepted in several good schools. The explanation for all the cases was the playdate. The kids were acting out in some fashion (bossy or alike) and recoiled (or cried in one instance) when prompted to be more cooperative. Ultimately, behavior issues are the key problem schools want to filter out. So, unless you are very rich or influential, your kid needs to be polite, assertive in the right amount and able to learn. It is really a competition among parents on a sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seems to me that if a school had a down year, they would simply admit students with lower scores. Why would they need to have testers inflate scores for them? Schools are free to set whatever admission requirements they want - and change it at will.

Would that approach jeopardize the testers' educational testing business in the long run?

If Colleges followed the same approach with SAT/ACT they would have nothing to brag about in the annual US News and Report College Sweepstakes.

Except the reality is that private schools are very, very careful not to tell people the scores of their students. They aren't posting them in US News, and aren't even supplying approximate ranges to parents at the schools. So it doesn't seem to make sense to me that schools would have any interest in having applicants supply inflated scores, much less to have particular testers benefit from providing inflated scores. Sounds like a conspiracy gone wild.

So go to public school and stop feeling sorry fir not having the money to pay for private. You are clearly trying to convince yourself.

And I betcha that is because after the cherry picking, Sidwell's average is just 50 points per section higher than Whitman and no higher than Thos. Jeff. So it would be in their best interest to keep that sort of thing to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know three 99-percentile kids that were not accepted in several good schools. The explanation for all the cases was the playdate. The kids were acting out in some fashion (bossy or alike) and recoiled (or cried in one instance) when prompted to be more cooperative. Ultimately, behavior issues are the key problem schools want to filter out. So, unless you are very rich or influential, your kid needs to be polite, assertive in the right amount and able to learn. It is really a competition among parents on a sense.

With all of this filtering it makes me wonder. Is Sidwell capable of teaching "normal" kids? Are their teachers or resources substandard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know three 99-percentile kids that were not accepted in several good schools. The explanation for all the cases was the playdate. The kids were acting out in some fashion (bossy or alike) and recoiled (or cried in one instance) when prompted to be more cooperative. Ultimately, behavior issues are the key problem schools want to filter out. So, unless you are very rich or influential, your kid needs to be polite, assertive in the right amount and able to learn. It is really a competition among parents on a sense.

With all of this filtering it makes me wonder. Is Sidwell capable of teaching "normal" kids? Are their teachers or resources substandard?

There are plenty of "normal" kids that meet the criteria above and they get in. I know cases in which the scores were in the low 80s percentile and the kids got in prestigious schools (no diversity bonus). The problem is that parents are not happy to find out 6 years down the road that their kids lack social skills when compared to others of the same age. So, it is really about parenting. Of course this is not the whole story and influential people bypass the process, but for "normal" people social skills matter a lot. Way more than scores provided there are not learning disability with the child.

[Anonymous]

I love that no one is offering a name.

You're never getting a name OP! Ha ha ha ha ha! It hurts so bad...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No paranoia here. You sound like Alice in Wonderland. Professionals clearly never violate their code of professional ethics.
Can you explain the epidemic of "geniuses" in the area D.C. area?

For one thing having an iq in the 99% is NOT a genius. Gifted yes, genius no. You need 99.9% for that; and the difference between 99% & 99.9% is significant. Yes, I realize that it can be hard to believe that so many people have kids with scores in the upper 90's, but in an area like this it is possible. Basically smart people tend to live near other smart people and send their kids to the same schools. I used to teach 3rd grade (gifted testing year) in an upper middle class public school and I was very surprised by how many students had scores in the 90's - and I can assure you there was no "good old boy" system of test inflation, the scores were legit. I had a friend who taught 3rd in the same county, but in a school with very different demographics. She didn't have any students who tested in the 90's. People with similar iq's tend to congregate together so it's very possibly that within a group of very highly educated people, they would have kids with very high scores.