Reply to In-Pool Results Thread 2024

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "In-Pool Results Thread 2024"

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][quote=Anonymous]Small schools like Vienna elementary have around 50 kids in second, so that would be top 5. Its not per class but per grade. I also think there can be multiple kids with the same score making the top 10% greater than actually 10% of the class.

Then there are large schools that have 200+ kids making the pool larger.

[/quote]

It still speaks to how skewed the FFX area is, if the majority of the top 10 percent of a grade are actually falling within top 2-3 percent or higher, nationally, such that a school cutoff just to be "in pool" is above the 97th (130) or 98th (133-134). [/quote]
The CogAT national percentiles are based on kids who didn't prep.  FCPS isn't that much more gifted than anywhere else.  A lot of FCPS people prep, which boosts the scores enough to skew them.  This actually happens in every major city with this type of gifted program.  Suddenly, an overabundance of kids are in the national top 2% on whatever easily prepped standardized test is being used.  [/quote]

DC is a major metropolitan area and families move to Nova for their schools. We live in a high SES area and our school is filled with well educated parents from Harvard, Princeton, UPenn, UVA, etc. The offspring of these engineers, lawyers and doctors will also test well like their parents. MCPS, FCPS, LCPS, Arlington all have concentrations of well educated people. These are not the same as any normal area. [/quote]

I see where you’re going with this… but it makes it seem like testing well is genetic. Just gives an icky feeling. [/quote]

Smart parents have smart kids. It is genetic.[/quote]

Yeah. That’s the ick. [/quote]

So scientific fact gives you the ick?
The fact that there is a genetic component to intelligence is not disputed by anybody.
The dispute is only over how much that innate intelligence can be affected by environmental factors.
The nature vs nature debate.  There is absolutely no debate that there is a nature element to it.  Just as there is absolutely no debate that there is a nurture element to it.
What the anti-test crowd appears to be saying is that nurture either [b]does not[/b] or [/b]should not[/b] affect or be allowed to affect innate intelligence.
What the pro-testing crowd says is that study can improve cognitive ability just as exercise can improve athletic ability.
Sure the innate intelligence will allow for better and faster development of cognitive ability just as athletic talent will allow for better and faster development of athletic ability but it is the combination of the two that creates the resulting ability.

[b]So saying that a region that has one of the highest concentrations of graduate degree holders "isn't that much more gifted than anywhere else" is making a pretty bold and unsubstantiated statement.[/b][/quote]
Twice as many gifted kids as expected?  Sure.  5 times as many?  No way.  If we had that many gifted kids, the top 10% in FCPS would be performing at a much higher level than they are.  If prepping were completely ineffective, no one would be doing it.  A lot of kids who unprepped would score in the 120-130 range are being prepped to the 98th+ percentile.  [/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