<p>I’m using a holistic approach to awarding points. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I prefer to quantify my methodology to optimize maximum positive value to the community. ;)</p>
<p>I hit my daily limit on point awards way too early. :(</p>
<p>Oops, it was Roger, not Dave. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/community-forum-issues/1425170-say-thanks-helpful-cc-member.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/community-forum-issues/1425170-say-thanks-helpful-cc-member.html</a></p>
<p>I really have to wonder about the correlation of hard work and talent. If a talented athlete trains 1 hour a day, will he get much better with four hours a day? </p>
<p>Why would the smart students have to work much longer than the … less gifted ones? Or could it be that the really smart ones do not have to slave through the busy work aka homework? Could it be that the real smart ones do not have to whipped towards a level of excellence that comes naturally to some. The same who can find the time to study, and play sports, and have friends, and laugh at the need to collect badges of academic honor to please parents overly vicarious objectives.</p>
<p>Is there really only one way to look at what constitutes academic success? I cannot help to think that it is easier to see the reality when not running in a wheelhouse like a madman. And easier from a good distance than with a hand on the wheelhouse and another on a whip.</p>
<p>Learning should be a gift of joy. Not a race and a lot more than a collection of badges of dubious value.</p>
<p>^
</p>
<p>That’s my first thought too when I saw the numbers. Then, I wondered if the author was comparing apples and apples, not ones that took 6 APs a year versus those with 0-1 AP. When many parents of talented kids reported that theirs studied much harder, I felt that isolated numbers could be misleading, including Unz’s graphs.</p>
<p>Efficiency should be what we look at/for. That’s why I wanted to modify USAMO 1 to USAMO 1 / time of preparation. There is a big difference between a well prepared perfect score and a barely prepared perfect score.</p>
<p>Nice people doesn’t mean that one cannot ask tough and pointed questions with heated discussions. Holistically, we know who is nice and who isn’t. No not nice people here at this thread.</p>
<p>
You can ask people how much they prepared for X, but since you cannot verify their answers, doing so in an admissions context would be pointless and merely reward the dishonest.</p>
<p>Discuss:
[The</a> Myth of American Meritocracy | The American Conservative](<a href=“http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/]The”>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/)</p>
<p>"Why would the smart students have to work much longer than the … less gifted ones? "</p>
<p>You are expected to get an hour of work each day in high school per class and also have tests every other week. So if you are doing your work, you should have enough work to fill about 5 hours per day. </p>
<p>If you don’t care to study or in a lower level class in a 3 tier class system, then it is not relevant how long you need to put in. </p>
<p>There is no such thing as gifted in a high school. There is however a lot of busy work.</p>
<p>
A favorite subject of mine, but when the article was mentioned previously in this thread, a few people suggested starting a new thread. I don’t see that thread, so I guess CC pulled it.</p>
<p>My really gifted kid took 3 APs as a senior (Econ, Chem, Latin) and one post AP (Linear Equations). He might have spent 2 hours on homework a day on average. In any event, for the most part he did what it took to get the A, then he spent the rest of his time teaching himself what he really wanted to learn (mostly the Linux operating system), reading (over 100 books a year) and participating in a couple of ECs.</p>
<p>My non-gifted kid did 7 APs in junior year and spent about 7-8 hours roaming around the house. She did not like being stationary and so used every area not considered a bed room.</p>
<p>World History, US History and AP English are huge time killers. They are taught such that a kid actually spends far more time on them than 2-3 other classes combined.</p>
<p>Is it really about how efficiently you dispatch your homework? </p>
<p>If you are talking about something like the SATs, how impressive it is when a kid can “toll free” on the first try- well, “nice but no cigar,” to me. It’s a fleeting success if something doesn’t back it up. Could be random. </p>
<p>Why look at it as smart kids “having to” work longer? You can skim the chapters, if the point is just to do what was assigned. Or you can actually read it, make sense of it. I think some “use it or lose it” applies.</p>
<p>You know, I have no idea how much time my children spent on school work in high school. It was enough. I didn’t monitor it (nor did my wife, who was not even living at home during the week at the time). It was probably more than a couple hours a day, but they each also spent meaningful time on ECs, volunteer activities, and, beginning in 10th grade, paid work. Plus both did large amounts of reading on their own – far more than they did for school requirements (which, frankly, were not that much). They watched TV some, too, and went to movies, plays, concerts when they could. And occasional parties. </p>
<p>They were not exactly monastic in their dedication to school work.</p>
<p>One was officially “gifted,” the other not, although the gifted one was at the lowest end of that spectrum, the kind of everyday gifted kid the parents of really gifted kids complain about, and the non-gifted one was (and is) the more intellectual of the two by some margin, and to date the more successful one.</p>
<p>
This reminded me of one of my favorite threads ever on CC, which has some interesting thoughts about the value of extra practice:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/753128-michael-jordan-vs-my-roommate.html?highlight=my+roommate+jordan[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/753128-michael-jordan-vs-my-roommate.html?highlight=my+roommate+jordan</a></p>
<p>Hunt,
"Quote:
No need to be brilliant at all. Just give them choices, they will know, not only at 5, even at 4. Mine knew, all kids around her knew, good parents listened.<br>
Newsflash: not all kids are like your kid. Most kids are not like your kid.
Quote:
I have asked her at 5 about the most important activity in her life. And when she gave incorrect answer, I corrected her and that is still with her today.<br>
Indeed, even your kid is not like your kid. "</p>
<p>-It is NOT effective to attack my experiences. All of us share what we have, we cannot share some imaginary facts or facts that do not belong with us, this will not be fair. You can continue attacking me, which still will not erase my experiences, so I am not sure what is a point, but you are free to continue. However, it would be much more valuable for everyone here if you share your experiences, instead of getting all wind up about somebody else’s. We have what we have, we can share or not, I guess I am not smart enough to see any point in attacks on each other.</p>
<p>MiamiDAP, I’m not attacking your experiences. But I would like to point out to you that you can’t extrapolate them to everybody else. Also, it’s inconsistent to say that your kid knew what her priorities were at age 5, and then to turn around and say that some of her perceptions were “incorrect.” There’s no doubt that your kid is great and has done very well–but kids come in all varieties, even smart kids.</p>
<p>Frazzled S took all AP/honors classes his junior and senior years and never seemed to study more than two or three hours a day. He did like to point out however that he studied almost every day, got a good night’s sleep every night, and paid attention in class when needed. He got an occasional B, however, although he still did well on standardized tests such as AP tests and SAT’s with minimal or no preparation. However, I believe the ceilings on these tests are very low when it comes to differentiating among top scores.</p>
<p>Like mathmom’s son, he spent many hours reading for pleasure, learning what he wanted to learn (including the Linux operating system), and participating in EC’s for pleasure. I think he found much less busy work in high school than in early elementary school, fwiw, although in elementary school we did get special permission to allow him to read books at his level of comprehension.</p>
<p>He did have gifted peers who spent much more time on class work, and these tended to be those who were gunning for straight A’s and were unwilling to even risk an occasional B. I am pretty sure that many of these could have gotten by with far less work had they or their parents not insisted on perfect grades. It seemed to me that they got far less pleasure out of learning, although they ended up as better candidates for tippy-top schools.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, students who are in the top 5 to 10 percent of graduates at his school, have verbal/math SAT’s above 1500, a few EC’s, and decent LOR’s will have a pretty decent choice among top 50 schools if they apply to about a dozen or so, even if they will not be assured admission to a HYP type school.</p>
<p>“MiamiDAP, I’m not attacking your experiences. But I would like to point out to you that you can’t extrapolate them to everybody else”
-OK, got the message, I will shut up as I have nothing else to say, I have only 2 kids, I do not have 20.</p>
<p>“A favorite subject of mine, but when the article was mentioned previously in this thread, a few people suggested starting a new thread.”</p>
<p>This is an interesting article. I go with the view that numbers can’t lie. I pointed out the 20% barrier last year and have never read any of the books or underlying studies but was told that there are no quotas but holistic admissions.</p>
<p>I do agree that schools have the right to do whatever they want but let us call a spade a spade and a quota a quota.</p>
<p>My experience is similar to MiamiDAP’s in the sense that when I look back at what my kids were like at age 5, they are pretty much the same as they are today, in terms of interest level in activities and learning about the world. The particular interests did change, but the degree of interest and manner of pursuing them is the same. For example, one has always managed to do 5+ different things well at once, while the other could only focus on one thing at a time, but that thing became all-encompassing. If I had known that these traits were immutable, I would have saved myself and the latter child a lot of grief over trying to encourage an increase in the number of interests at one time.</p>