Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A minimum of 6 sets of eyes viewing each file separately along with the appeals process is a pretty extensive way to ensure very few kids call through the cracks. If anything, admission is too inclusive.

Sure, 6 sets of eyes view the file for no more than 5 minutes each. There isn't nearly enough time for the committee members to evaluate work samples for their merits or really review much of anything, other than the scores. So why would one child with 97th percentile CogATs, a very high GBRS, advanced math, above grade level reading group, and good grades get rejected, while another child with 90th percentile CogATs (or even lower. I know several of these) get in? Just what are the committee members seeing in that super brief glance at the work samples or in the parent referrals that is tipping the balance in favor of admissions for kids with really meh test scores? FWIW, the aart said that every year, the school committee members feel shocked by some of the kids who aren't admitted, because the files were really strong, and they're shocked by some of the ones who are admitted with very weak files.

I agree that the appeals process fixes things for the kids who otherwise fell through the cracks on the first pass. I'm annoyed that people on dcum as well as somewhat in real life are snotty about appeals, as if the kids who get in via appeal are somehow lesser than their kids.

I would think the teacher's assessment would count heavily.

The ones with good scores didn't make it the first round - typically also with low GBRS scores.

Yes, and the GBRS score is, by definition, subjective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child had a 96 percentile and didn't get in. I didn't prep because we were told not to. Had I known that prepping is so widespread, of course i would have prepped. I feel like I have done a disservice to my child.

Was your kid in the pool?

No, not in pool.

Did you parent refer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child had a 96 percentile and didn't get in. I didn't prep because we were told not to. Had I known that prepping is so widespread, of course i would have prepped. I feel like I have done a disservice to my child.

Was your kid in the pool?

No, not in pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A minimum of 6 sets of eyes viewing each file separately along with the appeals process is a pretty extensive way to ensure very few kids call through the cracks. If anything, admission is too inclusive.

Sure, 6 sets of eyes view the file for no more than 5 minutes each. There isn't nearly enough time for the committee members to evaluate work samples for their merits or really review much of anything, other than the scores. So why would one child with 97th percentile CogATs, a very high GBRS, advanced math, above grade level reading group, and good grades get rejected, while another child with 90th percentile CogATs (or even lower. I know several of these) get in? Just what are the committee members seeing in that super brief glance at the work samples or in the parent referrals that is tipping the balance in favor of admissions for kids with really meh test scores? FWIW, the aart said that every year, the school committee members feel shocked by some of the kids who aren't admitted, because the files were really strong, and they're shocked by some of the ones who are admitted with very weak files.

I agree that the appeals process fixes things for the kids who otherwise fell through the cracks on the first pass. I'm annoyed that people on dcum as well as somewhat in real life are snotty about appeals, as if the kids who get in via appeal are somehow lesser than their kids.

I would think the teacher's assessment would count heavily.

The ones with good scores didn't make it the first round - typically also with low GBRS scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child had a 96 percentile and didn't get in. I didn't prep because we were told not to. Had I known that prepping is so widespread, of course i would have prepped. I feel like I have done a disservice to my child.

Was your kid in the pool?

Anonymous wrote:Re the topic of prepping for the NNAT, I found this article. It's from 2013, but it does imply that prepping "artificially" raises NNAT scores. Significantly.

https://nycgiftedandtalented.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/nnat-test-score-distribution/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A minimum of 6 sets of eyes viewing each file separately along with the appeals process is a pretty extensive way to ensure very few kids call through the cracks. If anything, admission is too inclusive.

Sure, 6 sets of eyes view the file for no more than 5 minutes each. There isn't nearly enough time for the committee members to evaluate work samples for their merits or really review much of anything, other than the scores. So why would one child with 97th percentile CogATs, a very high GBRS, advanced math, above grade level reading group, and good grades get rejected, while another child with 90th percentile CogATs (or even lower. I know several of these) get in? Just what are the committee members seeing in that super brief glance at the work samples or in the parent referrals that is tipping the balance in favor of admissions for kids with really meh test scores? FWIW, the aart said that every year, the school committee members feel shocked by some of the kids who aren't admitted, because the files were really strong, and they're shocked by some of the ones who are admitted with very weak files.

I agree that the appeals process fixes things for the kids who otherwise fell through the cracks on the first pass. I'm annoyed that people on dcum as well as somewhat in real life are snotty about appeals, as if the kids who get in via appeal are somehow lesser than their kids.

I would think the teacher's assessment would count heavily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A minimum of 6 sets of eyes viewing each file separately along with the appeals process is a pretty extensive way to ensure very few kids call through the cracks. If anything, admission is too inclusive.

Sure, 6 sets of eyes view the file for no more than 5 minutes each. There isn't nearly enough time for the committee members to evaluate work samples for their merits or really review much of anything, other than the scores. So why would one child with 97th percentile CogATs, a very high GBRS, advanced math, above grade level reading group, and good grades get rejected, while another child with 90th percentile CogATs (or even lower. I know several of these) get in? Just what are the committee members seeing in that super brief glance at the work samples or in the parent referrals that is tipping the balance in favor of admissions for kids with really meh test scores? FWIW, the aart said that every year, the school committee members feel shocked by some of the kids who aren't admitted, because the files were really strong, and they're shocked by some of the ones who are admitted with very weak files.

I agree that the appeals process fixes things for the kids who otherwise fell through the cracks on the first pass. I'm annoyed that people on dcum as well as somewhat in real life are snotty about appeals, as if the kids who get in via appeal are somehow lesser than their kids.

Anonymous wrote:
A minimum of 6 sets of eyes viewing each file separately along with the appeals process is a pretty extensive way to ensure very few kids call through the cracks. If anything, admission is too inclusive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. The process isn't arbitrary. SIX committee members review the file before it gets admitted and that doesn't even mean for those that have 3 yes'...in which case 12 will end up reviewing it. Except for the sixth person, ALL REVIEWS ARE BLIND (as in, they have no idea what the other committee members were recommending regarding admission.

One careless mistake doesn't make a "huge difference." Lots of careless mistakes can make a huge difference OR maybe the kid legitimately missed several questions and then had a careless mistake and that affected things. One mistake? GMAFB

You seem unreasonably worked up and defensive over this. Was your child one of the one who had low test scores and somehow got in, making you cling to some notion the AAP panel is perfect and recognized some special giftedness in your child or something?

1. Every process in which someone holistically reviews someone else's application or resume is imperfect. No one has come up with the "right" formula for college admissions or job applications, and even if the SAME person is reviewing things, that person's opinions can be swayed by how early in the process they're reviewing the file, how strong the previous file was, or nebulous things in the file that they "relate to" or don't (case in point: The AART told everyone not to say that their kids needed AAP because they were bored or school was too easy, since that apparently negatively disposes the panel members toward your child). Much like college admissions, the AAP panel is AT BEST spending 5 minutes reviewing each file, which means they're making a snap judgement. Why do you assume that the AAP system is flawless when nothing else can manage to be so? Even the AAP panel seems to understand that there's a reasonable error rate in the process. If not, they wouldn't allow for appeals or admit anyone on appeal.

2. My kid had a 130 SAS on one section with only 3 incorrect answers out of 52 problems (actually, 2 incorrect and 1 unanswered). One more correct answer would have led to a 135+ on that section. Since the composite was just a hair under the in-pool cutoff, that one question could have made a huge difference. Kids generally don't get rejected with 98th percentile CogAT and high GBRS, but apparently they can be with 97th percentile CogAT and the same GBRS.

No, both my kids were in the pool and and admitted first round. Both had very high gbrs (15 for one, 16 for the other). Kids didnt prep.

A minimum of 6 sets of eyes viewing each file separately along with the appeals process is a pretty extensive way to ensure very few kids call through the cracks. If anything, admission is too inclusive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. The process isn't arbitrary. SIX committee members review the file before it gets admitted and that doesn't even mean for those that have 3 yes'...in which case 12 will end up reviewing it. Except for the sixth person, ALL REVIEWS ARE BLIND (as in, they have no idea what the other committee members were recommending regarding admission.

One careless mistake doesn't make a "huge difference." Lots of careless mistakes can make a huge difference OR maybe the kid legitimately missed several questions and then had a careless mistake and that affected things. One mistake? GMAFB

You seem unreasonably worked up and defensive over this. Was your child one of the one who had low test scores and somehow got in, making you cling to some notion the AAP panel is perfect and recognized some special giftedness in your child or something?

1. Every process in which someone holistically reviews someone else's application or resume is imperfect. No one has come up with the "right" formula for college admissions or job applications, and even if the SAME person is reviewing things, that person's opinions can be swayed by how early in the process they're reviewing the file, how strong the previous file was, or nebulous things in the file that they "relate to" or don't (case in point: The AART told everyone not to say that their kids needed AAP because they were bored or school was too easy, since that apparently negatively disposes the panel members toward your child). Much like college admissions, the AAP panel is AT BEST spending 5 minutes reviewing each file, which means they're making a snap judgement. Why do you assume that the AAP system is flawless when nothing else can manage to be so? Even the AAP panel seems to understand that there's a reasonable error rate in the process. If not, they wouldn't allow for appeals or admit anyone on appeal.

2. My kid had a 130 SAS on one section with only 3 incorrect answers out of 52 problems (actually, 2 incorrect and 1 unanswered). One more correct answer would have led to a 135+ on that section. Since the composite was just a hair under the in-pool cutoff, that one question could have made a huge difference. Kids generally don't get rejected with 98th percentile CogAT and high GBRS, but apparently they can be with 97th percentile CogAT and the same GBRS.

Anonymous wrote:My child had a 96 percentile and didn't get in. I didn't prep because we were told not to. Had I known that prepping is so widespread, of course i would have prepped. I feel like I have done a disservice to my child.