Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't they base admissions on IQ tests taken when applicants are too young to be coached on test taking strategies? Pure intelligence, sort of like how sports used to be, pure athletic talent.

Because eligibility to present-day Olympics is not based on your 100 IM eight and under time in the mini-meet when yoou were in the 2nd grade.

Of course, the kid suffering a severe head injury in a car accident as an adolescent may have more than a loss in cognitive function but a big drop in WPSSI score!

Athletic ability improves as you get older, up to a point. But your IQ stays the same unless you have a head injury or mental illness.

Again, IQ isn't everything. There are plenty of adults with 150 IQs who are languishing in cubicles because they have no ambition and/or confidence. There are also lots of adults with IQs of 120 who are captains of industry, because they are go-getters.

I think one thing colleges may be trying to measure, when they look for a "passion" or "talent", is actually the kid's persistence and drive, and leadership skills. When a college sees a kid with great soccer skills, they think, here's a kid who persisted, pushed herself, overcame failure, and worked with a team. Of course, they are also thinking "this kid will help our soccer team win, which will make the alumns happy and bring in more alum donations." But at the same time, colleges know these kids (and the debating team president and the school newspaper editor) are often the leaders and go-getters.

Creativity is another thing colleges want. High SAT scores are no guarantee you have creativity, whatever that means. Also, you can study for the SAT, to some extent. You can even study for IQ tests to some extent (anyone remember "have your kid do IQ prep instead of sports" mom?).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't they base admissions on IQ tests taken when applicants are too young to be coached on test taking strategies? Pure intelligence, sort of like how sports used to be, pure athletic talent.

Because eligibility to present-day Olympics is not based on your 100 IM eight and under time in the mini-meet when yoou were in the 2nd grade.

Of course, the kid suffering a severe head injury in a car accident as an adolescent may have more than a loss in cognitive function but a big drop in WPSSI score!

Athletic ability improves as you get older, up to a point. But your IQ stays the same unless you have a head injury or mental illness.

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't they base admissions on IQ tests taken when applicants are too young to be coached on test taking strategies? Pure intelligence, sort of like how sports used to be, pure athletic talent.

Because eligibility to present-day Olympics is not based on your 100 IM eight and under time in the mini-meet when yoou were in the 2nd grade.

Of course, the kid suffering a severe head injury in a car accident as an adolescent may have more than a loss in cognitive function but a big drop in WPSSI score!

Why don't they base admissions on IQ tests taken when applicants are too young to be coached on test taking strategies? Pure intelligence, sort of like how sports used to be, pure athletic talent.

Anonymous wrote:Why don't they base admissions on IQ tests taken when applicants are too young to be coached on test taking strategies? Pure intelligence, sort of like how sports used to be, pure athletic talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So the Asians need to be exceptional at sports and academics? Are they getting the message?

I think the idea is, EVERYONE needs to be exceptional at sports or to have won the regional oboe competition ... whether you're Asian, White, or even URM. (Or so I've heard. Apparently, even being URM isn't the bump it used to be. I'm not in admissions, though.)

Here's the problem: at the most competitive colleges, the applicant pool is already overflowing with kids with great GPAs and SATs. As a result, great GPAs and scores have basically become a threshold, and don't bother applying with SATs below 2100-2200 and a high GPA. If you're over this threshold, your next task is to make yourself stand out from the rest of the pool of kids who look just like you, SAT-wise and GPA-wise. Colleges are no longer looking for "well rounded" kids like they were back in the days when you and I applied. These days, colleges are looking for a "passion" and exceptional talent.

Sounds like grade inflation needs to be stopped and a new standardized test created. Statistically, there cannot be that many outliers. If you make it so so many can achieve in the outlier range, the outlier range is meaningless. Maybe this is what colleges realize.

You're right of course. Still, this is never going to happen, because parents will complain to the school if precious DC doesn't get enough As.

And it does beg the point: do colleges really want kids who nail their butts to the chair to get top scores on some improved, harder SAT? Or do they want smart but also interesting kids who started a not-for-profit?[/quote]

C'mon, how hard is it to start a non-profit? And once word gets around this worked, the following year tons of applicants will have - you guessed it - started a non-profit.

I think the poster above got it right about the admissions people (hopefully) being able to spot real passion and talent.

I'm the same poster - re spotting real talent, and starting a non-profit. I was just trying to vary my examples. If claim to have a passion for social justice, and then you actually start a non-profit to send money to Somalia, this is worth something I think. In DC's school, and among DC's friends at different schools, there are a handful of kids who have single-handedly started meaningful projects. By "meaningful" I don't mean the student club that together organizes a charity open-mike night, it takes them 3 months to agree on a charity, and then each individual kid has a small piece of the work, like hanging the posters.