Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More accurate to test kids in 3rd than second? I have no idea. Curious though.

Earlier scores aren't as accurate as scores in 3rd. Testing in 1st or 2nd would favor kids from enriched environments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Median is median for admitted students.

How do you know? Did someone in GT admissions tell you this or is this an assumption? Generally curios.

Not PP - but our decision letter also stated that the median scores listed in the letter are the median scores among students accepted to the program.

One thing I was less sure about was whether these scores were the median scores for students accepted to our particular center or for the entire county

Our child was WL - had one score well above median, one right at median and one below median. This is total speculation - but my guess is that WL consists of students that were not accepted that had least one score above median. Done that way in order to "appease" parents of rejected children. Who knows?

I'd be curious to hear of others' results on things like
1) anyone with DC accepted with just 1 score above median (or no scores above median?)
2) anyone with WL DC have all 3 below median?

I think the test is heavily weighted in this process.

It's the median for your center, not county wide. In years past, people have posted the medians from their center and some were definitely higher than others.

Anonymous wrote:Since it is a median, I assume some kids already accepted have all three scores below..and there are kids on the wait list with 3 scores above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Median is median for admitted students.

How do you know? Did someone in GT admissions tell you this or is this an assumption? Generally curios.

Not PP - but our decision letter also stated that the median scores listed in the letter are the median scores among students accepted to the program.

One thing I was less sure about was whether these scores were the median scores for students accepted to our particular center or for the entire county

Our child was WL - had one score well above median, one right at median and one below median. This is total speculation - but my guess is that WL consists of students that were not accepted that had least one score above median. Done that way in order to "appease" parents of rejected children. Who knows?

I'd be curious to hear of others' results on things like
1) anyone with DC accepted with just 1 score above median (or no scores above median?)
2) anyone with WL DC have all 3 below median?

I think the test is heavily weighted in this process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Median is median for admitted students.

How do you know? Did someone in GT admissions tell you this or is this an assumption? Generally curios.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Median is median for admitted students.

How do you know? Did someone in GT admissions tell you this or is this an assumption? Generally curios.

Anonymous wrote:Median is median for admitted students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i am poster 20:25. son is now in 5th and is doing fine but frankly is bored esp under curr 2.0 (not an indictment of the curriculum, just commenting since he's had both). i do not think son is a genius or "gifted," but nor do i think that most of the kids admitted from his grade were either. i do think he would have done just as well there as the kids we know from his school who attended (and they've all loved the hgc program, btw). my son did not test well on the hgc test - no idea why, since his 2nd grade gifted testing administered by mcps was highest in his class and since he seemed to do well on the wppsi and wisc tests. but it doesn't really matter since the hgc admittance is almost exclusively based on the hgc test scores. his 2nd grade teacher thought he'd be a shoo in. his 3rd grade teacher did recommend him (according to her - the parents never see that info) but she was a dud and probably didn't advocate for him very much. i know i sound bitter but i was disappointed in the hgc process - obviously since my child wasn't admitted - but i suspect my kid just had an off day on the test and it seems a pretty big penalty to have the whole admittance rest on that (even the sat's can be taken more than once). Also having seen who was admitted from our school and who was not, I can see that is was kind of a crapshoot bc many qualified kids did not get admitted and several did get admitted out of left field. The only reason I posted any of this on this thread is just to say to not put all your eggs in that basket!

I'm curious how you know that admittance is mostly based on the test scores.

My DC got in, but DC's quantitative test score was below the median. The other 2 scores were really high. So, that leads me to believe that test scores aren't given as much weight as some people may believe. I suspect that the teachers highly recommended DC, and the teachers may have a better idea of how the child learns and whether the child is a fit for the GT program. So their recommendations may be given some importance.

Just like the SATs, test scores are not necessarily indicative of how well a child learns. From what I have read about the GT program, it is for kids that can grasp the concept much deeper and quicker than the other kids. I'm not sure that this kind of learning would be reflected in test scores.

At least half the class is going to have one or more scores below the median of accepted kids; that's how it works. In order to make a determination about test scores you would have to have the scores of the kids that weren't admitted. With respect to the PP who felt that several kids got in from left field and several qualified kids got left out, unless she had all of the information and test scores for each of the kids she really can't know who did and did not deserve to be admitted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i am poster 20:25. son is now in 5th and is doing fine but frankly is bored esp under curr 2.0 (not an indictment of the curriculum, just commenting since he's had both). i do not think son is a genius or "gifted," but nor do i think that most of the kids admitted from his grade were either. i do think he would have done just as well there as the kids we know from his school who attended (and they've all loved the hgc program, btw). my son did not test well on the hgc test - no idea why, since his 2nd grade gifted testing administered by mcps was highest in his class and since he seemed to do well on the wppsi and wisc tests. but it doesn't really matter since the hgc admittance is almost exclusively based on the hgc test scores. his 2nd grade teacher thought he'd be a shoo in. his 3rd grade teacher did recommend him (according to her - the parents never see that info) but she was a dud and probably didn't advocate for him very much. i know i sound bitter but i was disappointed in the hgc process - obviously since my child wasn't admitted - but i suspect my kid just had an off day on the test and it seems a pretty big penalty to have the whole admittance rest on that (even the sat's can be taken more than once). Also having seen who was admitted from our school and who was not, I can see that is was kind of a crapshoot bc many qualified kids did not get admitted and several did get admitted out of left field. The only reason I posted any of this on this thread is just to say to not put all your eggs in that basket!

I'm curious how you know that admittance is mostly based on the test scores.

My DC got in, but DC's quantitative test score was below the median. The other 2 scores were really high. So, that leads me to believe that test scores aren't given as much weight as some people may believe. I suspect that the teachers highly recommended DC, and the teachers may have a better idea of how the child learns and whether the child is a fit for the GT program. So their recommendations may be given some importance.

Just like the SATs, test scores are not necessarily indicative of how well a child learns. From what I have read about the GT program, it is for kids that can grasp the concept much deeper and quicker than the other kids. I'm not sure that this kind of learning would be reflected in test scores.

At least half the class is going to have one or more scores below the median of accepted kids; that's how it works. In order to make a determination about test scores you would have to have the scores of the kids that weren't admitted. With respect to the PP who felt that several kids got in from left field and several qualified kids got left out, unless she had all of the information and test scores for each of the kids she really can't know who did and did not deserve to be admitted.

Anonymous wrote:i am poster 20:25. son is now in 5th and is doing fine but frankly is bored esp under curr 2.0 (not an indictment of the curriculum, just commenting since he's had both). i do not think son is a genius or "gifted," but nor do i think that most of the kids admitted from his grade were either. i do think he would have done just as well there as the kids we know from his school who attended (and they've all loved the hgc program, btw). my son did not test well on the hgc test - no idea why, since his 2nd grade gifted testing administered by mcps was highest in his class and since he seemed to do well on the wppsi and wisc tests. but it doesn't really matter since the hgc admittance is almost exclusively based on the hgc test scores. his 2nd grade teacher thought he'd be a shoo in. his 3rd grade teacher did recommend him (according to her - the parents never see that info) but she was a dud and probably didn't advocate for him very much. i know i sound bitter but i was disappointed in the hgc process - obviously since my child wasn't admitted - but i suspect my kid just had an off day on the test and it seems a pretty big penalty to have the whole admittance rest on that (even the sat's can be taken more than once). Also having seen who was admitted from our school and who was not, I can see that is was kind of a crapshoot bc many qualified kids did not get admitted and several did get admitted out of left field. The only reason I posted any of this on this thread is just to say to not put all your eggs in that basket!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i am poster 20:25. son is now in 5th and is doing fine but frankly is bored esp under curr 2.0 (not an indictment of the curriculum, just commenting since he's had both). i do not think son is a genius or "gifted," but nor do i think that most of the kids admitted from his grade were either. i do think he would have done just as well there as the kids we know from his school who attended (and they've all loved the hgc program, btw). my son did not test well on the hgc test - no idea why, since his 2nd grade gifted testing administered by mcps was highest in his class and since he seemed to do well on the wppsi and wisc tests. but it doesn't really matter since the hgc admittance is almost exclusively based on the hgc test scores. his 2nd grade teacher thought he'd be a shoo in. his 3rd grade teacher did recommend him (according to her - the parents never see that info) but she was a dud and probably didn't advocate for him very much. i know i sound bitter but i was disappointed in the hgc process - obviously since my child wasn't admitted - but i suspect my kid just had an off day on the test and it seems a pretty big penalty to have the whole admittance rest on that (even the sat's can be taken more than once). Also having seen who was admitted from our school and who was not, I can see that is was kind of a crapshoot bc many qualified kids did not get admitted and several did get admitted out of left field. The only reason I posted any of this on this thread is just to say to not put all your eggs in that basket!

I'm curious how you know that admittance is mostly based on the test scores.

My DC got in, but DC's quantitative test score was below the median. The other 2 scores were really high. So, that leads me to believe that test scores aren't given as much weight as some people may believe. I suspect that the teachers highly recommended DC, and the teachers may have a better idea of how the child learns and whether the child is a fit for the GT program. So their recommendations may be given some importance.

Just like the SATs, test scores are not necessarily indicative of how well a child learns. From what I have read about the GT program, it is for kids that can grasp the concept much deeper and quicker than the other kids. I'm not sure that this kind of learning would be reflected in test scores.

Anonymous wrote:i am poster 20:25. son is now in 5th and is doing fine but frankly is bored esp under curr 2.0 (not an indictment of the curriculum, just commenting since he's had both). i do not think son is a genius or "gifted," but nor do i think that most of the kids admitted from his grade were either. i do think he would have done just as well there as the kids we know from his school who attended (and they've all loved the hgc program, btw). my son did not test well on the hgc test - no idea why, since his 2nd grade gifted testing administered by mcps was highest in his class and since he seemed to do well on the wppsi and wisc tests. but it doesn't really matter since the hgc admittance is almost exclusively based on the hgc test scores. his 2nd grade teacher thought he'd be a shoo in. his 3rd grade teacher did recommend him (according to her - the parents never see that info) but she was a dud and probably didn't advocate for him very much. i know i sound bitter but i was disappointed in the hgc process - obviously since my child wasn't admitted - but i suspect my kid just had an off day on the test and it seems a pretty big penalty to have the whole admittance rest on that (even the sat's can be taken more than once). Also having seen who was admitted from our school and who was not, I can see that is was kind of a crapshoot bc many qualified kids did not get admitted and several did get admitted out of left field. The only reason I posted any of this on this thread is just to say to not put all your eggs in that basket!