Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids are learning to take the test and answer the questions right. They’re not learning the actual information behind the questions. This is why test prep works.

Well….not necessarily.

My sons both took mock SATs the beginning of sophomore year at their school on a Saturday.

They had never seen the test prior. Knew nothing about the sections or format going on.

At 15 they both scored flat out 33.

They really didn’t do any test prep after that. Just went to school another year. Looked at Barron’s guide over summer and one scored a 35 and the other a 36.

First try.

All the test prep in the world can only raise a score so much. Crisis why the college board flags scores with big jumps from prior exam.

I know kids that have taken the SAT 6 times and there scores barely moved.

There is raw intelligence behind it too.

I think you forget to count the quality of school your kids attend. My kid goes to a public school where the Sat is around 1000. Most of her friends improve greatly with practice 200+ points not uncommon. Your kid had a good education paired with intelligence but to say it is raw intelligence lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked at how many people on here seem to think that only the best and brightest can succeed at top schools. It may be true that kids need to be that to get into those schools, but most people who have been to one admit that it’s not that hard to get good grades there.

I don't get this, either. Have college curricula changed much during the past decade?

I was in a PhD program at Harvard and TA-ing many classes. The idea that these classes are so unbelievably hard that 99.9 percentile kids are struggling to keep up sounds insane to me. It was really not that hard. The kids were smart (especially premeds) but not once in a lifetime geniuses. If you came to classes, read the textbook, did the practice problems, you got an A. A+ was another story, and that was difficult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids are learning to take the test and answer the questions right. They’re not learning the actual information behind the questions. This is why test prep works.

Well….not necessarily.

My sons both took mock SATs the beginning of sophomore year at their school on a Saturday.

They had never seen the test prior. Knew nothing about the sections or format going on.

At 15 they both scored flat out 33.

They really didn’t do any test prep after that. Just went to school another year. Looked at Barron’s guide over summer and one scored a 35 and the other a 36.

First try.

All the test prep in the world can only raise a score so much. Crisis why the college board flags scores with big jumps from prior exam.

I know kids that have taken the SAT 6 times and there scores barely moved.

There is raw intelligence behind it too.

Anonymous wrote:*that is why (not crisis why)

Anonymous wrote:Kids are learning to take the test and answer the questions right. They’re not learning the actual information behind the questions. This is why test prep works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked at how many people on here seem to think that only the best and brightest can succeed at top schools. It may be true that kids need to be that to get into those schools, but most people who have been to one admit that it’s not that hard to get good grades there.

I don't get this, either. Have college curricula changed much during the past decade?

I was in a PhD program at Harvard and TA-ing many classes. The idea that these classes are so unbelievably hard that 99.9 percentile kids are struggling to keep up sounds insane to me. It was really not that hard. The kids were smart (especially premeds) but not once in a lifetime geniuses. If you came to classes, read the textbook, did the practice problems, you got an A. A+ was another story, and that was difficult.

I can sort of believe that because Harvard has been grade inflated for a long time. But most of those undergrads were probably easily scoring 99th percentile on their SATs though, and a 90th percentile kid would be more unusual. Perhaps this is why they found the courses easy. Moreover, 99.9th percentile is just 1/1000 kids, very smart, and probably more typical of MIT undergrads. This is not the definition of a once in a lifetime genius.

Also I went to Hopkins and had to really bust my rear in a lot of classes in order to get an A or A-, and I had a 99th percentile on the SATs without much prep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked at how many people on here seem to think that only the best and brightest can succeed at top schools. It may be true that kids need to be that to get into those schools, but most people who have been to one admit that it’s not that hard to get good grades there.

I don't get this, either. Have college curricula changed much during the past decade?

I was in a PhD program at Harvard and TA-ing many classes. The idea that these classes are so unbelievably hard that 99.9 percentile kids are struggling to keep up sounds insane to me. It was really not that hard. The kids were smart (especially premeds) but not once in a lifetime geniuses. If you came to classes, read the textbook, did the practice problems, you got an A. A+ was another story, and that was difficult.

I can sort of believe that because Harvard has been grade inflated for a long time. But most of those undergrads were probably easily scoring 99th percentile on their SATs though, and a 90th percentile kid would be more unusual. Perhaps this is why they found the courses easy. Moreover, 99.9th percentile is just 1/1000 kids, very smart, and probably more typical of MIT undergrads. This is not the definition of a once in a lifetime genius.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked at how many people on here seem to think that only the best and brightest can succeed at top schools. It may be true that kids need to be that to get into those schools, but most people who have been to one admit that it’s not that hard to get good grades there.

I don't get this, either. Have college curricula changed much during the past decade?

I was in a PhD program at Harvard and TA-ing many classes. The idea that these classes are so unbelievably hard that 99.9 percentile kids are struggling to keep up sounds insane to me. It was really not that hard. The kids were smart (especially premeds) but not once in a lifetime geniuses. If you came to classes, read the textbook, did the practice problems, you got an A. A+ was another story, and that was difficult.

I can sort of believe that because Harvard has been grade inflated for a long time. But most of those undergrads were probably easily scoring 99th percentile on their SATs though, and a 90th percentile kid would be more unusual. Perhaps this is why they found the courses easy. Moreover, 99.9th percentile is just 1/1000 kids, very smart, and probably more typical of MIT undergrads. This is not the definition of a once in a lifetime genius.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked at how many people on here seem to think that only the best and brightest can succeed at top schools. It may be true that kids need to be that to get into those schools, but most people who have been to one admit that it’s not that hard to get good grades there.

I don't get this, either. Have college curricula changed much during the past decade?

I was in a PhD program at Harvard and TA-ing many classes. The idea that these classes are so unbelievably hard that 99.9 percentile kids are struggling to keep up sounds insane to me. It was really not that hard. The kids were smart (especially premeds) but not once in a lifetime geniuses. If you came to classes, read the textbook, did the practice problems, you got an A. A+ was another story, and that was difficult.

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked at how many people on here seem to think that only the best and brightest can succeed at top schools. It may be true that kids need to be that to get into those schools, but most people who have been to one admit that it’s not that hard to get good grades there.

Anonymous wrote:If the FCPS average SAT score is 1181, the Virginia average is 1113, and the national average is 1028, who are all of the students with tippy-top scores?
The average SAT score at TJ is 1516, which is understandable since it’s a magnet school, but McLean is 1292 and Lewis is 1005. If you look at SAT scores provided by colleges, you would think that avg scores would be much higher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raygun was “good enough” to qualify for the Olympics… but I’m still not sure that was a good idea. Just saying.

I would say, for her, it probably was a good idea, overall.

So, yeah, if Harvard calls your 90th percentile kid, let them go there. "Doing well" is very subjective anyways. Many supersmart kids get crushed when they are #2. Meanwhile someone less brilliant could be happy with their lower GPA and better in using connections provided by the brand name school.

Well it provided a lot of humor for the world, I suppose.

There was a study showing that the lowest scoring stem majors at elite schools often abandoned their fields in college, even if they were more capable than the average stem major at a lower tier school. Such kids also get more positive attention and support from professors at lower tier schools than they would at elite schools, where the superstars get all the attention. So I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to just aim for the highest ranked school.

those kids needed to switch major.

Well they often do switch majors, but my point was that this is a shame, because they could still have excelled and ended up with a good stem career if they gone to school in a less competitive environment.

Perhaps, but wouldn't they come across those geniuses from other schools eventually? Or that suddenly doesn't matter?

I’m sure they must now and then. But still, the career outcomes (in STEM) are better for you if you’re a bigger fish in a small pond vs. a smaller fish in a big pond. Better mentorship and better opportunities at the outset, more appropriate class pace, etc. all help.

STEM is not for everyone. It's hard, and necessarily well paid. A lot of kids don't understand what science is until they get to college. There the learn that they don't actually like it, and are not particularly good at it.