<p>This thread reminds me of a thread from years gone by about the funniest bumper stickers/car decals. Can’t find the thread, but the one that cracked me up (ok, I have a warped sense of humor) is an oldie but a goodie-- “A$$, grass or gas. Nobody rides for free”. Still makes me laugh.</p>
<p>Way back when, just to tease our parents, my brother and I scraped off some of the letters from our college window decals in their car. When we got done with our prank, mine was missing a “V” and an “AR” . His was missing a “Y”. The decals in their car rear window proudly shreaked “A$$” and “ALE”. Also still cracks me up :). OK. Its late. Time for bed.</p>
<p>From jym626’s list in #96, it seems to me that CA at 220, CT at 218, DC at 221, MD at 219, MA at 221, NJ at 221, and the New England Boarding Schools at 221 stand out. I have to admit that I was surprised by NY at 215, which is lower than I expected. If New York City and a few other areas were treated separately from the rest of the state, the cut-offs might be different. Also, VA at 217 is a little lower than I would have guessed. </p>
<p>So, from my earlier list, keep CT/MA/NJ and MD/DC. Add CA. Keep VA in with a rating of ? keep NY in with ?- and add TX and WA with ?-</p>
<p>The states with cut-offs of 211-215 are not in quite the same league, in my opinion–although, of course, individual students there may well have PSAT scores of 240, and there may be concentrations of high scorers in some areas within those and other states with even lower cut-offs.</p>
<p>Just doing my bit to feed the monster :)</p>
<p>Actually, my point was to support the suggestion that there might be regional differences in the intensity of college-admissions anxiety. I do suspect that there is a correlation with the NMSF cut-offs.</p>
<p>Perhaps population density? Or concentration of colleges/LACs might also feed that monster? What about quality of the public/private secondary school education? Please do not scoff at the successes of states like Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina, Vermont, Texas etc. Why not be surprised at PA, who “only” has a 214. </p>
<p>** ETA and of COURSE if you separate out the large metro areas of states, those scores will differ from the rural parts of the state. Thats true for probably most any state-- not just NY.</p>
<p>On another thread, I mentioned that I have ancestors, not that far back, from West Virginia. Also, I have several scientist friends with West Virginia roots; a couple of them went to Caltech. So I am not scoffing at any state based on the NMSF cut-offs. There are smart people and good educations to be had in many locales.</p>
<p>The rise of the Research Triangle and the growth of the financial sector in North Carolina are probably connected to the PSAT scores near the top there. I don’t know whether the Minnesota results are linked to the Mayo Clinic, 3M and Cray (and probably other organizations that are eluding me at the moment). Perhaps the high-scoring students are the children of the “Norwegian bachelor farmers,” to borrow Garrison Keillor’s phrase. Oh, wait . . . </p>
<p>I do think that there is geographic variation in the extent of concern about going to a “top” school, which is linked to the state of residence, though–even if there are also pockets of intense concern within states where there’s not a lot of concern overall.</p>
<p>Minnesotans place a high value on education. The Mpls-St. Paul area has a lot of good K-12 schools, both public and private. And yes, GK is correct, all the children ARE above average! ;-)</p>
<p>Dont have time to look now, but suspect it has to do with the total number of students taking the test in any state. If, say, 80% of the NC students taking the test are in the research triangle, that might make sense. If students from all over the state take it, with a lower % in one concentrated area, that wouldnt explain it.</p>
<p>Forgive my ignorance on this, but do kids in some places actually PREPARE for the PSAT? They very well might at my kids’ school within some circles. My son didn’t at all. I should have known better, having been on CC for a few years. (Not that it would have made a difference or that he would have practiced beforehand–he/we viewed the PSAT <em>as</em> the practice test.)</p>
<p>Anyway, my point is that I wonder if the difference in scores in some areas could also be due to awareness of the value of doing well toward the goal of NMSF/NMF and related scholarships. Students who know how to take the test because they have practiced or been tutored are likely to do better, no?</p>
<p>Maybe NY’s scores are low because they are sending their kids to the New England boarding schools. I still resent that category which kept me from being a finalist! My school was nowhere near New England!</p>
<p>I live in South Florida and my kids attend a very competitive HS. 6 kids are entering Yale, 8 John Hopkins, 1 Stanford, 1 Caltech, 3 MIT, etc (only 150 kids in the class of 2013). We wanted our son to stay close to home in a top 50 ( to the horror of many parents) school. My son that was very excited with his option at the beginning, started to feel insecure, as his friends started to say that his school was not a top 20 as theirs. I put a sticker on my car and bought him 3 t-shirts and told him to wear them with pride. Since there his been the happiest guy on campus. The truth is that one has to explore all the options and find the BEST FIT for YOUR kid. It might be a Ivy 200 miles away, it might be a great college 5 miles from home. Undergraduate is about learning but is about social skills and grown up too. It is not called an Alma Matter for nothing.</p>
<p>sally305 - Frazzled kids did not prepare for the PSAT and did not begin to consider colleges until the summer after junior year, but they have told me that some of their peers began to study for these tests in middle school. I imagine that students who have practiced do better, but it is hard to tell how much better an individual student might get with practice or how quickly they might improve.</p>
<p>This is probably true; however, it’s not because people are shallow prestige hounds who want to torture their children. It’s because the upper-middle class is starting to feel more acutely the material fears and insecurities that make “exploration” and “late blooming” an economic luxury for people who do not have to worry about making a living. I am also a big fan of the LAC experience, but I expect that it will become a harder sell as times get harder.</p>
<p>Your concerns also touch on what David Brooks called the “Organization Kid” a few years ago in an essay for the Atlantic. These highly trained, highly accomplished kids learn how to jump through every hoop set before them, but they never learn to think about which hoops are worth attempting. When they leave college, they are unprepared for the confusing, trackless jungle which is actually the “real world.” The increased interest in tracks and programs with supposedly guaranteed vocational outcomes is a reflection of a desire to avoid insecurity, but life is not linear and never has been. I think kids (and parents) who know this and accept it are at an advantage to kids who don’t.</p>
<p>These kids must learn a second and third language to compete globally, all the fancy prep schools in the US and top Uni’s will not prepare them for global work, speaking at least Chinese or Arabic, and Spanish and English ( a given) REGARDLESS of their haughty taughty Uni, will be what employs them! I see this in the workforce even now, prepare!</p>
<p>NJ Sue: David Brooks has posted an update to the “Organization Kid”, it was in NYT under “The Empirical Kids”. This is off-topic, just thought others might want to see other thoughts (Organization Kid was written in early 2001, before 9/11).</p>
<p>NJSue, your 2nd paragraph above nicely highlights some of my thinking…and that is the thesis that LAC presidents are trying to get out there but I fear to little avail due to the pressures and realities you cite in your first paragraph. And even for those of us who buy into the liberal arts thesis, the vast majority of our kids aren’t going to access the better to “best” ones unless the are very focused, very motivated, and on what I have referred to as a “linear” path. The kids who excel in all the right categories and still have the time and ability to be “loose and creative” certainly are very deserving, and I absolutely believe their admittances are well-earned. I think all of us want the truly brilliant, off-the-charts, special kids to get what they get. But for that next tier of kids just below that who are very bright, with fairly high to high scores, high to very high gpas, strong “regular” ECs (sports, school gov, school paper/drama, volunteering) I think are forced to be pretty laser-like and more resume-driven to ensure they hit all the categories they need to hit for moderately high to high level admissions.</p>
<p>I think it’s well established that it is harder for the “average above-average” kid to get into a selective school these days than it was 30 years ago. But I’m not convinced this has any bearing on ultimate life outcomes. I’ve watched several kids of my acquaintance graduate from top 10 schools and not have a clue, a plan, or a job, while other kids from Rutgers and Penn State walked right into adult life without angst, so I just don’t think it matters all that much except among certain social circles.</p>
<p>Well, the top tier schools do not tend to have vocational majors. Therefore, a kid going to a state school can major in dental hygiene, graphic design, or a business major like accounting and his career path will be pretty linear. Not so for the top school grad whose degree might be human biology, math, or economics.</p>
<p>NJSue, I agree, but the fact that the elite stuff may not make much of a difference and MANY folks do quite well without it, doesn’t keep a lot of us from still desiring it. Sort of two different issues I think. And I’m not talking about average to above average. In that last post I was talking about kids who are considered top students – like top 2-5% in a class of 300 or more with 2000s-2250s and 3.9ish and higher gpas. I think the vast majority in that category have to be pretty darn focused. I consider the truly gifted those couple of kids you see in your high school every few years (while understanding there are some privates around the country that obviously have a higher concentration of truly gifted).</p>
<p>I think those are exactly the kids NJSue talked about-- the “average above average” kids (I like that term), (not average to above average)-- stars but not the starriest. They will be fine. We just have to stop telling them they won’t.</p>