Reply to How did your super high stats kid fare (1550 plus and 4.5 plus with max rigor)

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "How did your super high stats kid fare (1550 plus and 4.5 plus with max rigor)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think a lot of our frustration as parents comes from our own outdated understanding of the landscape, which is radically different today. Most of the misunderstanding probably surrounds the idea of "high stats kids" because we are using the metrics and SAT scales from the 90s. It is pretty sobering to realize that an estimated 20,000 students will score at ~1530 or above every year in one sitting (top 1%). With superscoring, that number of students will be even higher. This varies by school type, but I have also seen estimates that nearly 50% of US students will graduate high school with overall averages in the A range. [/quote]

This!  1530 is the new 1400.  4.0 is the new B.  The scary thing is you can't differentiate further among the ones with 1530+ and 4.0 on numbers.  It creates a delusion of "high stats kids."[/quote]

Agree ... so many of these kids test and retest, super score, study and have tutors, specialized college counselors etc. to achieve these stats.

These are bright kids, but universities cannot tell the difference between these kids and the EXCEPTIONALLY bright kids who score in the 1500-1600 first try no prep, ace AP tests with little to no prep, don't have to work that hard for a 4.0+ with max rigor at a top/competitive HS. We have a super high stats kid that read War and Peace on their own as a freshman in HS "for fun"...meanwhile you have T20s offering what basically amounts to remedial literature courses.

Grade inflation is real. TO has really affected the academic quality of students at T20.

[/quote]

lol let me guess.  Your kid scored high on their first try on the SAT and so they are "exeptionally" bright.  Because we all know that kids that take it more than once aren't.  Can't make some of this stuff up.[/quote]

We'll never know how the PP's kid would have scored on the vintage SAT, and it's very natural for every parent to think their kid is exceptionally bright. But it is a real problem when tens of thousands of kids are all told they have "high stats" and dream of Harvard based on 1990s or 2000s profiles. Then they and their parents are disappointed or even feel cheated when they don't get accepted to their dream school. This is what creates lot of disappointment and bitterness. [/quote]

Discussion was about test scores and grades. Kids like this are off the charts academic super stars without much effort -- they can walk into these tests cold and get near perfect/perfect scores. That is not the same as a *regular* "high stats" kid.
There's at least a few of these kids at every highly competitive high school and chances are everyone knows who they are (standouts among the standouts). It's just completely a different thing for some kids at the tippy top.
[/quote]
one hundred percent. When you teach a lot of high stats 1450-1500s kid in the top rigor track and you also have one of these off the charts super stars, you see the difference easily. Our 150-grad-class test-in private with median SAT scores of 1380 (92nd %ile) has about 1-2 a year, occasionally three, occasionally none. We have about 5 kids go to ivy+ unhooked every year and the 1-2 kids who are super starts often get into multiple T10 unless there is a personality issue or they have zero ECs. 
My nephew is at one of "those" high achieving magnets with dozens of students in this realm. The SAT is easy for them, zero trouble >1530 first try. This school is hard to test into, and not surprising it gets a much higher percent of kids into ivy/+ than the school where I teach.
A family member is a professor and has taught at T75, T27-30ish, and tenure at T10. The concentration of these "99.9%ile" superstars is remarkably higher at the T10. They push the kids just below them to work hard: it elevates the classroom discussion, the pset groups, etc. Even Honors college at the T75 did not have classes that could be run at the pace the T10 kids can handle: honors there was closer to the T30ish. 
In-state publics, even Berkeley the quintessential #1 public, cannot compete with the classroom atmosphere of a T10, due to size and due to student quality. [/quote]

I went to stuyvesant in the 1980s and had a friend that is a tenured professor of math at an ivy and he was profoundly gifted that was the first time I didn't feel like the smartest kid in the room. There were geniuses in that building when I went there.  Not geniuses in the statistical sense of being in the top X%ile.  Geniuses in the sense that they understood stuff faster and saw angles we never saw but there is no way you could populate a whole school with that level of genius.  Sometimes i felt like the rest of us were merely providing an enriched environment for them.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics