Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)
Reply to "In-Pool Results Thread 2024"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][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] But it's science. Just like children get their eye and hair color from their parents.[/quote] Mmm… Hair and eye color can be pinned down to specific genes - as in scientists can point to specific places on the chromosomes that control those traits. Height, too - though even that is a combination of several different things. There are plenty of highly educated and achieving parents whose children get dealt the harder hand of a learning deficit. Or parents who don’t recognize the gifts of their high potential child. The ick comes from the feeling of birthright parents have when it comes to their kids’ ability. Wanting everything and believing the best in your kid - 1,000%. But when you present a zip code and expect that that zip code doesn’t follow the same standard deviation rules as your zip code because that zip code is less educated is flawed. That’s all. [/quote] Both nature and nurture affect the end result but it is the end result we are measuring, not some unrealized potential. IQ is absolutely heritable, there is zero controversy about that.[/quote] This is the problem with both AAP admissions and TJ admissions. Both programs are trying to be everything to everyone, rather than being for a specific type of student. Kids who are both very intelligent and very advanced have one set of needs. Kids who are very intelligent but not especially advanced have a different set of needs (whether that's a bad home environment, undiagnosed SNs, etc.. Part of the point of standardized testing is to detect such kids who are high ability but lower achieving) Kids who are academically quite advanced, but due more to effort and nurture have yet another set of needs. The same program or environment is not going to be ideal for all three groups. There's also a lot of wishful thinking in admissions, where a kid is neither displaying immense raw aptitude nor is the kid especially advanced, but the powers that be desperately want to believe that the kid is a diamond in the rough, since the optics are better. [/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