Who is "smarter"? The Val or the top test taker?

curmudgeon · 05-04-2006, 05:31 PM

Well, I lied . That's not what this post is about BUT every val/sal discussion (like the one happening now on another thread ) ultimately comes down to some people saying the val isn't as smart as the number 10 kid with a higher SAT/ACT. True? How would you know? Maybe the val is smarter and doesn't test well. Maybe the #10 kid took a prep course but how should this "smartest" "most academically" capable student be discerned? If that is actually a goal. It appears to be at some schools and to some parents.

So what determines the smarter student (whatever that means , I'll use "academically more capable" for my definition of smarter) most effectively and what should the colleges be looking at most/least of the numbers we (or at least some) regularly spout out? #1 of 145, 35 ACT, 4.0 UW, 4.73 W.

It appears that colleges will continue to consider class rank in the admission decision process (no matter how disguised it is). Other than a few schools , test scores will still be considered. GPA both weighted and unweighted as shown on a transcript of classes will still be considered. Assume for the purpose of this discussion that a well prepared school profile accompanies the transcript.

I don't have dog in this fight (my kid is in already and did about equally on each measure) but I think it would interesting to see which of these numbers are considered the most important in admissions for the class of 2011, and which one of these numbers should be relied upon the most in admissions.

Obviously the correct answer is "none of the above, the app needs to be viewed holistically with all the other component parts" BUT is one of these three more valuable than the other two?

If I knew how to do a poll on this site, I'd do one.

I'll start and I'll pick the standardized tests, simply because they are standardized. And even though I know they have a built-in bias and can be gamed and studied for, I still think it's a better judge of whatever it is that we are judging than the other two.

ADad · 05-04-2006, 05:41 PM

I say neither.

The smartest ones, and I use the plural intentionally, are the ones who usually do well, but not the best, in school and usually do well, but not the best, on tests but...

somehow have figured out that there is something different or more important, above and beyond both tests and grades, that they are attuned to.

They are the ones who, thirty years later, turn out to be the roaring successes of the class. And people wonder why they weren't "the best" in high school.

cowtipper1 · 05-04-2006, 05:42 PM

i think overall grades are the most important. i am a terrible standardized test taker, mainly because of the critical reading sections, which are timed. i don't read for understanding very fast at all. i could get a perfect score in reading if i had all the time i needed. i don't believe that a timed test actually tests what a student knows. it tests what they know in a set amount of time.

i don't think rank should be considered at all. my friend has a 3.6 weighted gpa. he takes all regular classes and gets As and Bs in all of them. with his 3.6 gpa, he is ranked in the bottom half of my class, which has 750 students in it. i am ranked 52, with a 4.3. looking at class rank is not fair to people who go to schools where everyone has well over a 4.0. especially if they are compared to someone who is ranked 30 out of 700 with a 3.8

calmom · 05-04-2006, 05:50 PM

Disagree strongly here, partly as a parent of two kids, one who tests better, the other who works harder. I suppose that in a sense my high-testing son -- the National Merit scholar who dropped out of college after 2 years - might be the "smartest" in our family. He definitely is very smart. But he was also pretty lazy in high school, and he carried his lazy ways to college.

Colleges ought to be looking for students who are most likely to perform well. I suppose that top grades along with top scores would give you the combination of both -- but if it comes down to a choice between smart-but-lazy and hard-working, the hard-working student is the one who has the best prospects for a successful college career.

Fortunately my son has now experienced real life, and you don't get a damn thing in life based on a test score. Since his first real job involved working on commission, and the boy does like money, he soon became a very hard worker and his laziness is a thing of the past.

I am also a person who scores well on standardized tests... which is one reason that I don't place much stock in them. What I share with my son is a love of doing puzzles -- we're both happy to while away hours of time on crossword puzzles or soduku or logic problems -- and that's the kind of minds that standardized tests are geared to. But the tests have no way of assessing for all the life skills that are the mark of true competency -- qualities like originality, deep analytical thinking, or exercising good judgment in complex situations. Now I happen to think that my son and I also have these latter qualities.... but so do many people who don't test well.

curmudgeon · 05-04-2006, 05:51 PM

ADad, and I may agree with you if you'll hold open the possibility that one of those two (Val or Test taker) could also be that kid who "gets it". (If on the other hand only the "romantic" figure of the computer dude in "Peggy Sue Got Married" fits your posit, then I disagree.)

and here is where the poll would be loads better,

pick one- Tests, GPA with transcript and school profile , Rank with transcript and school profile.

I believe I will now let go of the kite string. It appears that this thread is headed somewhere I never intended it to go. LOL. Let's see where it ends up.

cangel · 05-04-2006, 05:58 PM

If your definition of "smart" is highest IQ, then I vote for the test takers - I think they are usually smarter, for the reasons Calmom mentioned. They excel at puzzles and problem solving and have a feel for a test that transcends fund of knowledge and correlates with pure intelligence.

Are they the most successful or most deserving or happiest? Uuuhh, yes, at the same rate as their lower IQ peers, in other words, some are and some are lazy bums and some are totally psychotic.

curmudgeon · 05-04-2006, 06:01 PM

How about a definition of "the smarter student" that says "most academically capable". Does that help? That's what prompted this in my mind. On the other thread a poster suggested they had a val/sal system and the position of "most academically capable" or something akin to that. I don't know what that means - "most academically capable", at least not for sure anyway , and I started this partly to get some ideas. (And partly because it's my belief that some folks might tend to support the measure that shows their kid in the best light, and discount the measure that they didn't do as well on. Human nature. There are things I discount as not very good indicators. )

dstark · 05-04-2006, 06:05 PM

I'm with Adad, none of the above.

To assess somebody's intelligence by how they perform in high school, or how they perform in a test is pretty silly to me. A person's brain isn't formed until about 25. And intelligence is very hard to measure. Successful people think they know more than they do know. You can be a genius in one thing and an idiot in another.

dmbne1987 · 05-04-2006, 06:07 PM

All of the kids I know that have great test scores but not a great class rank tend to have a more laid back attitude towards academics and are often lazy(this is me). The kids that are ranked top in the class tend to be the ones that have a combination of brains and work ethic. I'd say that the most academically capable students are those who are at the top of the class and willing to work.

curmudgeon · 05-04-2006, 06:13 PM

But Dstark, even though I mostly agree with you, isn't that what these colleges are trying to discern from the history of 17-18 years on the planet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dstark

To assess somebody's intelligence by how they perform in high school, or how they perform in a test is pretty silly to me.

That's all they have to select their class. Those years and what the kid has done with them. They don't have a crystal ball. (Or maybe they do, LOL).

So of the tools available to them , which is the best?

cavalier302 · 05-04-2006, 06:19 PM

I was first in my class and had the highest SAT score. Whether or not I was the "smartest" would be impossible to conclusively determine, but I'm pretty sure that I was among the smartest handful. Not too much competition though, lol.

dstark · 05-04-2006, 06:22 PM

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dstark
To assess somebody's intelligence by how they perform in high school, or how they perform in a test is pretty silly to me.

That's all they have to select their class. Those years and what the kid has done with them. They don't have a crystal ball. (Or maybe they do, LOL)."

No they don't.
They are looking for good students and good high school students are the best predictor for who are going to be the best college students. A good college student might be somebody that can score 20 points a game in a basketball game, or somebody that can rush for 100 yards a game.

Once college is over it's a whole new ballgame.

cangel · 05-04-2006, 06:26 PM

Aahhh. Let me tell you a story about my D - sorry, kiddo, got to brag a little.
When D was in tenth grade she was in honors English with the kids, her friends, who would go on to be the top kids in the class, including the future val and sal. One story that they read was "A Modest Proposal" by Swift. For those who aren't familiar, this is an essay that is a scathing satire about the treatment of the Irish by the English in the 17th century - it is written in extremely witty, scathing 17th idioms. When they were reading passages out loud, my D is laughing aloud (the story is about using Irish babies to feed starving Irish people - trust me, in Swift's hands this is hilarious), while almost everyone else, including the val and sal were horrified - a couple of the guys I think got that it was supposed to be funny. She finally said, come on ya'll it is supposed to be a joke. That is true intelligence - developing sophisticated understanding at an earlier age than would be expected.

Now she is also a master of how much effort is enough, and does not have the competitive streak that maybe I had when i was her age and a little older, so we will see how far she goes.
Intelligence does not = smarts or success. Smarts probably correlates better with success.

ohio_mom · 05-04-2006, 06:35 PM

Cangel -
great story - I hope Swift was listening - wherever he may be!

calmom · 05-04-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

If your definition of "smart" is highest IQ, then I vote for the test takers

That's buying into the notion that the idea of "IQ" is real -- since IQ is invariably measured by some sort of standardized test, I find it to be circular reasoning. Yes, we good test-takers also tend to score very well on IQ tests... but that says nothing whatsoever for all of the skills & abilities that tests don't measure.

Quote:

How about a definition of "the smarter student" that says "most academically capable". Does that help?

Yes, I think it does ... and that's where I feel that the best indicator is demonstrated performance in the context of the courses taken, coupled with demonstrated achievement in related areas. It's more than GPA & class rank, and its more complex than simply taking the hardest schedule -- if I was on the ad com, I'd want to see something more than just grades and classes. I'd want something that gave me a sense that the lessons learned in class were carrying over to life. I wouldn't want to see EC's for the sake of EC's, but I would use them to try to guage whether the person was merely a grade grubber or whether the student seemed to lead the sort of life that you would expect a highly capable student to have.