Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

(shrug) life should reward people who work hard over a long period of time.

Ugh - what is the point of "working hard" to achieve a score though on this test? I'd so much rather kids spend time working hard at a job or in classes or on activities they enjoy. Or just relaxing and not working hard. And it is absolutely a privilege and a luxury to be able to get a kid tutors and classes to boost their scores. That's one of the reasons schools like Bowdoin went test optional in the first place, because these scores are falsely inflated.

It's quite the privilege to have an opinion like that. Many families need their kids to go to the best schools they can so that they can guarantee getting the best job they can so that they can lift their families out of poverty or even from a slowly dying middle class existence. Some people don't have the wealth of social welfare networks such as extended family or generational wealth to buttress them. Hopefully their next generation or the one after that can have your laissez-faire attitude.

Yet the top schools are filled with affluent, privileged, connected kids not those that really NEED to get into a top school to get a top job to lift their family out of poverty. So hopefully you can see how messed up the system is because it is rewarding the rich for their resources that can be spent on their children’s education.

Those "poverty kids" don't NEED to go to a top school to escape poverty. They'll do just fine if they go to a state flagship. That was in fact the original purpose of state universities. And at a state flagship they won't encounter super-rich kids who will cause feelings of class envy and resentment.

The purpose of top schools is to educate the brightest kids in the nation. If those kids are from an "affluent, privileged" background, so be it.

What is ironic is PP complains that poor kids are not at top schools: more than 50% are on need based financial aid at top schools now, and lots of Pell grant and fully aided kids are there. The top schools are not "filled" with rich. There is more financial and racial diversity at the ivies than there is at UGA. And yet the SAT/ACT scores are still a lot higher at the ivies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like an outlier on this topic, have one kid that had perfect stats and gpa at a top school. Second kid has 97% SAT score with prep being 2 practice exams, but a low gpa at a tough private where they get mostly B’s with an occasional A. I don’t think they could keep up at a top school despite high SAT.

You are correct, they could not. You see the difference because you have two kids who are different yet seem "close" to someone who does not know. The 97th%ile is bottom 1/4 to 1/3 student at a top college, AND their grades are likely below average at their prep school where most likely far less than half get into ivy/plus. You get that and are acting accordingly and will find a great school one tier lower where they will thrive. It is the parents who have the kid at the easy public getting A and A- (thus not top 10%) and the same or lower percentile on SAT who do not have a clue what the typical kid at the ivy will be. They do not grasp what a 99th+ %ile is and how far above it is from their own kid.

+100
we had the opposite...the 93rd/95th%ile made the gifted program, a very smart kid, transferred to top private in 9th and just missed top 20% society thing, school seemed filled with smarties. Then 7 yrs later realized the second one ,99%ile+ was in a completely different tier, has cruised through high school and is at the very top. First one UVa ED, loved it and thrived! Second one is applying now and aiming for top10 but will be fine with UVA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

(shrug) life should reward people who work hard over a long period of time.

Ugh - what is the point of "working hard" to achieve a score though on this test? I'd so much rather kids spend time working hard at a job or in classes or on activities they enjoy. Or just relaxing and not working hard. And it is absolutely a privilege and a luxury to be able to get a kid tutors and classes to boost their scores. That's one of the reasons schools like Bowdoin went test optional in the first place, because these scores are falsely inflated.

It's quite the privilege to have an opinion like that. Many families need their kids to go to the best schools they can so that they can guarantee getting the best job they can so that they can lift their families out of poverty or even from a slowly dying middle class existence. Some people don't have the wealth of social welfare networks such as extended family or generational wealth to buttress them. Hopefully their next generation or the one after that can have your laissez-faire attitude.

Yet the top schools are filled with affluent, privileged, connected kids not those that really NEED to get into a top school to get a top job to lift their family out of poverty. So hopefully you can see how messed up the system is because it is rewarding the rich for their resources that can be spent on their children’s education.

Those "poverty kids" don't NEED to go to a top school to escape poverty. They'll do just fine if they go to a state flagship. That was in fact the original purpose of state universities. And at a state flagship they won't encounter super-rich kids who will cause feelings of class envy and resentment.

The purpose of top schools is to educate the brightest kids in the nation. If those kids are from an "affluent, privileged" background, so be it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids in the 99.99% percentile have at least 40 iq points on the kids in the 90% percentile. That’s a really big difference in smartness and what they are capable of achieving in college and beyond.

I do not know why posters are mocking this. It is very close to correct:
90th %ile is about 120 IQ, is too low for gifted and talented programs and is a little above the average IQ (85th %ile) of our local UMC public school and a little below the average IQ of the local private. They give the parents all the CTP testing data.

99.9 is 147-150, about or 1 in 1200 people.
99.99 is 157++ and is hard to test; the ceiling of the normal tests is around 99.9. True 99.99 are rare 1 in 11, 000

So yes 90%ile IQ about 120 and 99.99 about 160 is indeed about 40 points.
It is a vast difference as far as what they are capable of. I am in the gifted and talented field and spouse is a professor who has taught at many schools—the IQ/talent level of the average student matters a LOT and 40 points is a huge deal, even 20 points (120 vs 140) is a large range.

Which public school is this? Is it local? I am surprised average is that high. We are in MCPS (one of the W clusters).

DP: I just looked up my kid's high school and my own high school (current SAT not 1994) and they are in different counties in central virginia which are known for having good public high schools, both send a chunk of kids off to Maggie Walker Governor's school after 8th grade and yet have SAT average of 1260 and 1280, both above the 85th percentile. I know it is not IQ per se, but this is the average SAT after a couple dozen of the top students leave the county system for Maggie. My guess is there are many such schools around the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here--many say, "oh kid got 1350 but has all As in tough classes so it must be grade inflation" "they couldn't keep up in a top college", I am questioning that myth

Because it's not 1990. The SAT has become easier and easier as it has evolved. A 1350 back then was closer to 98th percentile because the test was actually more rigorous and tested something called scholastic aptitude. Then it was about "assessment." Huh?? Now the College Board has renamed the test to literally stand for the letters "S A T" I guess because you sit for the test.

Also a 1350 on the new digital adaptive test means the student did not make it into the harder sections, right?

Incorrect. The easier section caps around 620/630. A 1350 means they did get the harder module.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[b]

But if you actually know the kids, you wouldn't....

Is this TJ before or after the changes?

Before!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a lot of easier to get all As than top 10% or top 1% in SAT/ ACTs. Approx 40% of the 3.7million people applying have all As but only 1% have over 1500. That still is 37K students for top ranked schools to pick from.

1350 is a decent score but you are not in the top 1% of the population. Grading system in schools is screwed up so you are really measure students caliber based on grades.

And then you have kids from the few private schools who don't give As, and they have mostly Bs but 1550 SATs. So where to they fit into OP's analysis?

First, those private schools do give As to a few kids in each section. Second the AOs know the rigor of the high schools especially “known” privates: the 1550 who also has a bunch of 5s and 4s but is top 25% not top 10% still get into the top schools. The one we know well sends 30% to ivy-plus. So plenty of the kids who have Bs go to ivy plus. High school matters.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like an outlier on this topic, have one kid that had perfect stats and gpa at a top school. Second kid has 97% SAT score with prep being 2 practice exams, but a low gpa at a tough private where they get mostly B’s with an occasional A. I don’t think they could keep up at a top school despite high SAT.

You are correct, they could not. You see the difference because you have two kids who are different yet seem "close" to someone who does not know. The 97th%ile is bottom 1/4 to 1/3 student at a top college, AND their grades are likely below average at their prep school where most likely far less than half get into ivy/plus. You get that and are acting accordingly and will find a great school one tier lower where they will thrive. It is the parents who have the kid at the easy public getting A and A- (thus not top 10%) and the same or lower percentile on SAT who do not have a clue what the typical kid at the ivy will be. They do not grasp what a 99th+ %ile is and how far above it is from their own kid.

[b]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a lot of easier to get all As than top 10% or top 1% in SAT/ ACTs. Approx 40% of the 3.7million people applying have all As but only 1% have over 1500. That still is 37K students for top ranked schools to pick from.

1350 is a decent score but you are not in the top 1% of the population. Grading system in schools is screwed up so you are really measure students caliber based on grades.

Do those 1% have 1500 in one sitting or with superscore?

I know many kids that got 1500+ in one sitting, some even on their first attempt before 11th grade. Comparing anything under 1500 to kids in the 1500s is, well, not comparable in some sense because like pp has said, there are literally 10s of 1000s of kids in that group and most selective schools have small freshman classes. Yes, you can test prep to a 1500 but at least that shows a bit of diligence that will help those kids succeed in a selective school. I hate the 100% privilege argument (we are not wealthy at all) because there are things like Khan Academy and other free or cheap resources such as YouTube and the local library that are really good and accessible.

middle of the 1500s first try, before 11th--&plenty got higher, earlier. Plenty took it a couple times to get the 1500. There are usually minor differences between those groups but they are close. 1350 superscore, is a different group entirely

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here--many say, "oh kid got 1350 but has all As in tough classes so it must be grade inflation" "they couldn't keep up in a top college", I am questioning that myth

Because it's not 1990. The SAT has become easier and easier as it has evolved. A 1350 back then was closer to 98th percentile because the test was actually more rigorous and tested something called scholastic aptitude. Then it was about "assessment." Huh?? Now the College Board has renamed the test to literally stand for the letters "S A T" I guess because you sit for the test.

Also a 1350 on the new digital adaptive test means the student did not make it into the harder sections, right?

Anonymous wrote:I feel like an outlier on this topic, have one kid that had perfect stats and gpa at a top school. Second kid has 97% SAT score with prep being 2 practice exams, but a low gpa at a tough private where they get mostly B’s with an occasional A. I don’t think they could keep up at a top school despite high SAT.

I think you are underestimating your kid. Sounds like the high school is rigorous and grades tough. College will be easier, as long as the kid is a good writer.

Anonymous wrote:It is a lot of easier to get all As than top 10% or top 1% in SAT/ ACTs. Approx 40% of the 3.7million people applying have all As but only 1% have over 1500. That still is 37K students for top ranked schools to pick from.

1350 is a decent score but you are not in the top 1% of the population. Grading system in schools is screwed up so you are really measure students caliber based on grades.

And then you have kids from the few private schools who don't give As, and they have mostly Bs but 1550 SATs. So where to they fit into OP's analysis?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids in the 99.99% percentile have at least 40 iq points on the kids in the 90% percentile. That’s a really big difference in smartness and what they are capable of achieving in college and beyond.

I do not know why posters are mocking this. It is very close to correct:
90th %ile is about 120 IQ, is too low for gifted and talented programs and is a little above the average IQ (85th %ile) of our local UMC public school and a little below the average IQ of the local private. They give the parents all the CTP testing data.

99.9 is 147-150, about or 1 in 1200 people.
99.99 is 157++ and is hard to test; the ceiling of the normal tests is around 99.9. True 99.99 are rare 1 in 11, 000

So yes 90%ile IQ about 120 and 99.99 about 160 is indeed about 40 points.
It is a vast difference as far as what they are capable of. I am in the gifted and talented field and spouse is a professor who has taught at many schools—the IQ/talent level of the average student matters a LOT and 40 points is a huge deal, even 20 points (120 vs 140) is a large range.

Which public school is this? Is it local? I am surprised average is that high. We are in MCPS (one of the W clusters).

Anonymous wrote:But how many kids who ultimately get in the 1500s start out around 1350 and then study and tutor up to the 1500s? I'll put my own kids in that bucket. And I know that's the way it is but man the rat race we've created that rewards the kids who can afford those privileges...

That is not that common to bump that far. 50-70 points is the average bump even with prep. There are plenty of kids who get 99%ile and higher on every standardized test they have ever taken. Most kids at the top colleges are in this group. There are a lot of 99%ile kids (who always have been).

Anonymous wrote:Kids in the 99.99% percentile have at least 40 iq points on the kids in the 90% percentile. That’s a really big difference in smartness and what they are capable of achieving in college and beyond.

I do not know why posters are mocking this. It is very close to correct:
90th %ile is about 120 IQ, is too low for gifted and talented programs and is a little above the average IQ (85th %ile) of our local UMC public school and a little below the average IQ of the local private. They give the parents all the CTP testing data.

99.9 is 147-150, about or 1 in 1200 people.
99.99 is 157++ and is hard to test; the ceiling of the normal tests is around 99.9. True 99.99 are rare 1 in 11, 000

So yes 90%ile IQ about 120 and 99.99 about 160 is indeed about 40 points.
It is a vast difference as far as what they are capable of. I am in the gifted and talented field and spouse is a professor who has taught at many schools—the IQ/talent level of the average student matters a LOT and 40 points is a huge deal, even 20 points (120 vs 140) is a large range.