Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.
I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.
OP here. Please no flame, but at our school, DD and 2 close friends who are similarly smart but not genius types scored 1530-1540 first try, minimal prep. While a true brainiac kid who has been brilliant since 1st grade scored 1600 first try, no one was surprised. Other friends told us their kids scored in the 1300s and need tutors to get up to 1450-ish. Those are the kids who always needed tutors and consistently performed a band under the 1540 kids (bc the school have different tracks for core subjects since middle school) and def under the 1600 kid. We have known all these kids since K and it's been very consistent. I disagree you can't tell the difference between a 1540 and 1400 kid, just as I can tell the difference between my 1540 kid and the 1600 kid. I have also seen kids who were happy in normal courses and got pushed by parents to get tutored into the advanced track math and chem classes and ended up having to drop back down to non-advanced track the following year.
I truly think kids do well in the track they naturally excel in but all have a chance to be very successful when they grow up if they learned in an environment where learn with peers with similar aptitudes and build confidence.
It sounds like your DD has gone to school with many types of smart kids. Some are "naturally" more gifted than her, some are less, and some are similar.
Here's my question: How was that experience for her? Was she ok being a part of this mix of kids?
The fact is that all T20 schools (and arguably T50 schools) have a similar mix of kids. Some crazy gifted kids (natural 1600s) take a full ride at a T50 while some high-effort kids leverage their superscore 1550 (among other assets) into a T10.
The idea that your DD should be in a college enviornment with kids exactly like her on this very narrow dimension strikes me as incredibly strange.
Not only is this only a small indicator of . . . well, anything . . . but also, it's strange to aspire to send your DC to a school with such a narrow type of peer.
Err is the highlighted line true for MIT or Caltech?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.
I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.
OP here. Please no flame, but at our school, DD and 2 close friends who are similarly smart but not genius types scored 1530-1540 first try, minimal prep. While a true brainiac kid who has been brilliant since 1st grade scored 1600 first try, no one was surprised. Other friends told us their kids scored in the 1300s and need tutors to get up to 1450-ish. Those are the kids who always needed tutors and consistently performed a band under the 1540 kids (bc the school have different tracks for core subjects since middle school) and def under the 1600 kid. We have known all these kids since K and it's been very consistent. I disagree you can't tell the difference between a 1540 and 1400 kid, just as I can tell the difference between my 1540 kid and the 1600 kid. I have also seen kids who were happy in normal courses and got pushed by parents to get tutored into the advanced track math and chem classes and ended up having to drop back down to non-advanced track the following year.
I truly think kids do well in the track they naturally excel in but all have a chance to be very successful when they grow up if they learned in an environment where learn with peers with similar aptitudes and build confidence.
So I’m going to tell you a story about my Ivy kid.
1400 first try no prep. With a few attempts, up to 1540. It’s test prep. Whatever. Private HS.
Now at Ivy - their “brainiac” friends are in the library nonstop. Devastated they don’t get into the right business club. Devastated with choices with Greek life. Devastated by not getting the next “rung” (internships, coffee chats, etc).
Then there are other kids that are really low-key and easy-going that end up rolling with the punches. None of this makes or breaks them. Now those low-key kids (including mine) are in the ultimate student leadership positions of the Ivy and no one knows how it happened. The PE internships are just falling in their lap.
Strange tbh. Those other kids - my kids friends - intuitively have perfect stats, perfect scores, perfect college grades (which mine definitely doesn’t have) perfect everything. But they are frankly just overwhelmed by constantly seeking perfection. They almost can’t cope or deal with the fast balls that come their way.
What you think is the perfect environment for your kid may actually not be. We have been so surprised.
My kid always said they were bottom 50% of the class when they matriculated. But now? Leading everything. President of uni knows on first name basis on speed dial.
I wouldn’t over rotate on your kids perceived strengths. What you think of is a strength man being a weakness and vice versa.
You can’t over engineer this. Cream rises. Let your kid figure it out.
Spot on. My deepest desire is for my child to develop self-direction and the ability to overcome adversity. True success in adult life is measured by growth and problem-solving, not cramming for tests or the mere pursuit of outward appearances.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.
I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.
+1
It's really not an important part of life. Just like, go check where everyone you work with attended college. Good chance most are not T30 schools (or even T50). Good chance you report to someone (or a few levels up from you) who didn't even attend a T100 school.
Yes, but I think the subtext here is that OP wants DD to be educated in such a way so as live and work in a world without encountering people unlike herself.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.
I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.
OP here. Please no flame, but at our school, DD and 2 close friends who are similarly smart but not genius types scored 1530-1540 first try, minimal prep. While a true brainiac kid who has been brilliant since 1st grade scored 1600 first try, no one was surprised. Other friends told us their kids scored in the 1300s and need tutors to get up to 1450-ish. Those are the kids who always needed tutors and consistently performed a band under the 1540 kids (bc the school have different tracks for core subjects since middle school) and def under the 1600 kid. We have known all these kids since K and it's been very consistent. I disagree you can't tell the difference between a 1540 and 1400 kid, just as I can tell the difference between my 1540 kid and the 1600 kid. I have also seen kids who were happy in normal courses and got pushed by parents to get tutored into the advanced track math and chem classes and ended up having to drop back down to non-advanced track the following year.
I truly think kids do well in the track they naturally excel in but all have a chance to be very successful when they grow up if they learned in an environment where learn with peers with similar aptitudes and build confidence.
It sounds like your DD has gone to school with many types of smart kids. Some are "naturally" more gifted than her, some are less, and some are similar.
Here's my question: How was that experience for her? Was she ok being a part of this mix of kids?
The fact is that all T20 schools (and arguably T50 schools) have a similar mix of kids. Some crazy gifted kids (natural 1600s) take a full ride at a T50 while some high-effort kids leverage their superscore 1550 (among other assets) into a T10.
The idea that your DD should be in a college enviornment with kids exactly like her on this very narrow dimension strikes me as incredibly strange.
Not only is this only a small indicator of . . . well, anything . . . but also, it's strange to aspire to send your DC to a school with such a narrow type of peer.
Anonymous wrote:With so much talk about colleges that TO, even Dartmouths with only 1/3 submitting as the rest likely scoring under 1450 if they had submitted...which colleges have a majority student body of say 1540 SAT without heavy prepping?
Our DC got 1540 with some self prep and no tutoring. We know she doesn't belong in a MIT, Caltech, Chicago type genius schools full of high scoring geniuses, but so many T30 seem to have at least 1/2 scoring under 1500. Which colleges have majority who could score in mid-1500 without tutoring and superscoring?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.
I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.
OP here. Please no flame, but at our school, DD and 2 close friends who are similarly smart but not genius types scored 1530-1540 first try, minimal prep. While a true brainiac kid who has been brilliant since 1st grade scored 1600 first try, no one was surprised. Other friends told us their kids scored in the 1300s and need tutors to get up to 1450-ish. Those are the kids who always needed tutors and consistently performed a band under the 1540 kids (bc the school have different tracks for core subjects since middle school) and def under the 1600 kid. We have known all these kids since K and it's been very consistent. I disagree you can't tell the difference between a 1540 and 1400 kid, just as I can tell the difference between my 1540 kid and the 1600 kid. I have also seen kids who were happy in normal courses and got pushed by parents to get tutored into the advanced track math and chem classes and ended up having to drop back down to non-advanced track the following year.
I truly think kids do well in the track they naturally excel in but all have a chance to be very successful when they grow up if they learned in an environment where learn with peers with similar aptitudes and build confidence.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:With so much talk about colleges that TO, even Dartmouths with only 1/3 submitting as the rest likely scoring under 1450 if they had submitted...which colleges have a majority student body of say 1540 SAT without heavy prepping?
Our DC got 1540 with some self prep and no tutoring. We know she doesn't belong in a MIT, Caltech, Chicago type genius schools full of high scoring geniuses, but so many T30 seem to have at least 1/2 scoring under 1500. Which colleges have majority who could score in mid-1500 without tutoring and superscoring?
This list is a good starting point: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/MedianSAT/
Some of the top schools are test optional, so the high score is artificial, you need to discount that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.
I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.
+1
It's really not an important part of life. Just like, go check where everyone you work with attended college. Good chance most are not T30 schools (or even T50). Good chance you report to someone (or a few levels up from you) who didn't even attend a T100 school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.
I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.
OP here. Please no flame, but at our school, DD and 2 close friends who are similarly smart but not genius types scored 1530-1540 first try, minimal prep. While a true brainiac kid who has been brilliant since 1st grade scored 1600 first try, no one was surprised. Other friends told us their kids scored in the 1300s and need tutors to get up to 1450-ish. Those are the kids who always needed tutors and consistently performed a band under the 1540 kids (bc the school have different tracks for core subjects since middle school) and def under the 1600 kid. We have known all these kids since K and it's been very consistent. I disagree you can't tell the difference between a 1540 and 1400 kid, just as I can tell the difference between my 1540 kid and the 1600 kid. I have also seen kids who were happy in normal courses and got pushed by parents to get tutored into the advanced track math and chem classes and ended up having to drop back down to non-advanced track the following year.
I truly think kids do well in the track they naturally excel in but all have a chance to be very successful when they grow up if they learned in an environment where learn with peers with similar aptitudes and build confidence.
So I’m going to tell you a story about my Ivy kid.
1400 first try no prep. With a few attempts, up to 1540. It’s test prep. Whatever. Private HS.
Now at Ivy - their “brainiac” friends are in the library nonstop. Devastated they don’t get into the right business club. Devastated with choices with Greek life. Devastated by not getting the next “rung” (internships, coffee chats, etc).
Then there are other kids that are really low-key and easy-going that end up rolling with the punches. None of this makes or breaks them. Now those low-key kids (including mine) are in the ultimate student leadership positions of the Ivy and no one knows how it happened. The PE internships are just falling in their lap.
Strange tbh. Those other kids - my kids friends - intuitively have perfect stats, perfect scores, perfect college grades (which mine definitely doesn’t have) perfect everything. But they are frankly just overwhelmed by constantly seeking perfection. They almost can’t cope or deal with the fast balls that come their way.
What you think is the perfect environment for your kid may actually not be. We have been so surprised.
My kid always said they were bottom 50% of the class when they matriculated. But now? Leading everything. President of uni knows on first name basis on speed dial.
I wouldn’t over rotate on your kids perceived strengths. What you think of is a strength man being a weakness and vice versa.
You can’t over engineer this. Cream rises. Let your kid figure it out.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some flaws in your first post:
Dartmouth is on year 2 of test required.
Chicago takes a lot of middle-of-the-road private school kids who apply ED and are full pay. There may be some geniuses there but also a lot of completely regular kids who got a great great education at a strong private in NYC, Boston, DC but were totally average kids.
A big flagship like UCSD probably still have a larger number of "genius" kids (whatever it means) than Chicago.
Anonymous wrote:OP's obsession with fine graduations of score as determinant of personality and compatibility is lunatic.
Anonymous wrote:With so much talk about colleges that TO, even Dartmouths with only 1/3 submitting as the rest likely scoring under 1450 if they had submitted...which colleges have a majority student body of say 1540 SAT without heavy prepping?
Our DC got 1540 with some self prep and no tutoring. We know she doesn't belong in a MIT, Caltech, Chicago type genius schools full of high scoring geniuses, but so many T30 seem to have at least 1/2 scoring under 1500. Which colleges have majority who could score in mid-1500 without tutoring and superscoring?