<p>My position has been very consistent. I have stated that since SAT1 math is so easy, there is really no difference in ability between 770 and 800. The difference between them can either attributed to luck (I even spend time doing mathematical modeling to show that luck can account for the scoring pattern for the near perfect scores) or someone is more careful. If it is luck, then it can change from day to day, and so there is variance.</p>
<p>So there is no disagreement on that front.</p>
<p>Now let us go to the issue of mindfulness. Many seem to think that you need to be careful on important matter, but can be careless on unimportant matter. Since 20-30 points in the SAT test is not important, then you need not be careful. Mindfulness is an attitude, you do it because you always try to do thing right. You try not to make mistake whether you are 1 point ahead or 30 points ahead. No coach would say since you are 30 points ahead you can be careless and make mistakes. It is not that a mistake would cost you the game at that point, but the coach don’t want you to have the wrong attitude.</p>
<p>Careless mistake are made precisely because someone thinks that it is not important and so he can put down the guard. When people throws cigarette butts out of the window, they do it because they think it is harmless other than more litter on the road. He certainly don’t think it is a life or death matter. 99.9999% of time it is true. However that is how some wild fire started.</p>
<p>So when a mindful person is taking the SAT test, he try to make sure he make no mistakes and get every problem right, not to gain the 30 points, but because it is his attitude to do thing right.</p>
<p>BTW, it is very unlikely a SAT1 math score of 770 is due to a single mistake.</p>
<p>“Well, no one would suggest that an 800 verbal or writing score defines giftedness in language arts or history, and there isn’t a vast network of competitions and subcompetitions to sort out who has the goods and who doesn’t.”</p>
<p>True. That’s why those students in those fields have to look diligently for those opportunities. They’re out there, but they are often less publicized or as prominent/available.</p>
<p>Good writing is important. But beyond style, college writing is about quite different subjects. English majors may not be good at analyzing a piece of historical research; asked to compare two authors writing on the same historical events or presenting memos arguing different courses of action, some students have been known to discuss the tone and nuances of the writings rather than the arguments themselves. Conversely, students who excel at political theory may have a tin ear when it comes to poetry. </p>
<p>Bomgeedad:
I am not arguing that mindfulness is unimportant. But it also depends on context. Cooking and pharmacy and surgery involve similar procedures: cutting, measuring, mixing. But the importance of absolute exactitude is wildly different. [A digression: In fact, the scientific approach to cooking (on 1/2 tsp of this and 3 tbsps of that) dates from the late 19th century. That’s when cookbooks were first written and cooking (and national cuisines) were codified.] </p>
<p>I am explaining when carelessness occurs. Carelessness can be induced by boredom, repetitiveness or overconfidence. S did not take the SAT as seriously as some do on this thread, especially when he was in 7th grade and all he needed and wanted was a score high enough to qualify for the CTY class he wanted to take. He knew all the math required for the test and then some. By the time he took it again in 10th grade for college applications, he knew a lot more math, none of which was relevant to the SAT. But this time, he paid a bit more attention because a high score was of some importance. S happens to do better when he is more challenged because challenging work forces him to pay attention.</p>
<p>“Good writing is important. But beyond style, college writing is about quite different subjects. English majors may not be good at analyzing a piece of historical research; asked to compare two authors writing on the same historical events or presenting memos arguing different courses of action, some students have been known to discuss the tone and nuances of the writings rather than the arguments themselves. Conversely, students who excel at political theory may have a tin ear when it comes to poetry.” </p>
<p>Sorry, but I don’t buy this at all. I don’t believe the ability to exel in history is different than in english. In fact, I can often tell from listening to someone talk about mathematics whether they also excel in the humanities and vice versa. They may not have the training, but I can tell from the arguments themselves. </p>
<p>I think Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is highly overrated or at the very least abused.</p>
<p>I agree importance of mindfulness depends on context. If you want to be in experimental science, it is very important. If you want to be a poet, then it does not matter at all.</p>
<p>I agree only partly with the first paragraph of 683. However, just as students may be capable across a variety of sciences (because they are in tune with the scientific discipline & experimental models in general), so can humanities majors (in several fields). Further, the best ones are able to apply analytical disciplines consistently & accurately in the social sciences, while also using different methods of analysis in Engl. Lit. It really depends on the training in verbal analysis - how rigorous & practiced that is.</p>
<p>When I worked in business, I was able to perform quantitative & qualitative market analyses, though never trained in that, and more precisely than the MBA’s from Stanford were – not to mention being able to express the conclusions more accurately. (My supervisors consistently told me this.) This was also true of those with a similar educational background as me.</p>
<p>{“They may not have the training, but I can tell from the arguments themselves.'”) Exactly.</p>
<p>Well, S, by most yardsticks, excels at math. He also scored high in the SAT-Writing. But I would not say he excels in the humanities. He can do a decent job. That’s it, and that’s not modesty speaking.</p>
<p>Could anyone claim that any writer, however admired, can be shown through his or her writing, to excel at math? I would not know how to look for math abilities in Jane Austen or Tolstoy (anyway, I doubt either would score high on the SAT, especially the essay).</p>
<p>By the way, Talent Searches show that in general, high math scorers also have high verbal scores (though not as high as their math scores). The reverse is not true, however. High verbal scorers do not necessarily have high math scores.</p>
<p>marite, I wasn’t assuming that creative writers (authors) necessarily have a lot in common with math students or math profs. I was referring to the ability to analyze literature & argue in support of theory (or against it), etc.</p>
<p>My son scored an 800 on both the Math and Writing sections. He writes quite beautifully, and I think it always surprises his teachers a little, to be honest. I think most don’t expect kids that are really strong in math to also be good writers.</p>
<p>“Definitely “not just you.” It does not represent my hierarchy (I don’t have such a subject-hierarchy at all, actually), but I agree with the perceived popular bias that you’re suggesting.”</p>
<p>Well, I think this bias is at least partly imagined. You’ve jumped on me a couple of times for having this bias, when in fact I don’t have one. I have the highest respect for achievement in the humanities. As JHS said, no brand-name awards exist in writing that are as reliable for measuring excellence as the math/science contests. So there is no point to making arguments on a public forum about the admission results of people who were excellent writers because people could very easily dismiss my assertion that the person was talented. On the other hand, if I say that a person made the math olympics tryouts and had certain admission results everyone will agree that the person had an extremely high level of talent.</p>
<p>Sorry, epiphany. I’ve known many students who excelled in one area–humanities–not being able to transfer their skills in another area that was also writing-heavy but demanded different reading strategies. The example I gave of students analyzing different memos arguing different courses of action was told to me by graduate students leading sections in a history class. The analyses were not part of oral discussions; they were perfectly well written --and they missed the mark entirely. The graduate students explained to me that these examples were probably from humanities majors. </p>
<p>Indeed, it is partly an issue of training. But good writing alone (especially as measured by SAT scores) will not indicate whether a student will excel at English poetry or political theory.</p>
<p>“Well, I think this bias is at least partly imagined.”</p>
<p>Apparently it’s not imagined, as there are several echoes of it right in this thread.</p>
<p>“You’ve jumped on me a couple of times for having this bias, when in fact I don’t have one.”</p>
<p>No, I haven’t actually. You just assumed that I was doing so previously. My statements were a general ‘warning’ (bad word) or commentary regarding the dominance of this subject matter on CC, something that can be quantitatively verified if anyone has the interest to do so. (Which I don’t: the frequency of the postings about math/science scores & abilities are ones which attest to the CC perception, minimum.) Those perceptions are ones that carry outside to other environments which I frequent, but perhaps not to everyone’s environments. (Which is why I seconded Drosselmeier’s comment about the perception of that.)</p>
<p>I agree, marite, that good writing alone is not necessarily indicative of analytical skill across a variety of disciplines. I don’t think I said that, either.</p>
<p>I think JHS has a good point. It is easier to measure giftedness in math science. A high score in AIME really does means something. There is no equivalent competition in humanities. Spelling Bee championship does not make you a great writer. A swimming coach would look mainly at the time record of a swimmer, while to a diving coach it is a non-issue.</p>
<p>I think a lot of the disagreement would go away if we allow more subjective factors in humanities admission, and more objective factors in science admission.</p>
<p>Ha, my editing attempt didn’t “take.” I was going to add that “top schools” (subject of thread;)) particularly value students who can indeed so adjust to a variety of analytical & intuitive approaches across many disciplines – remaining in the appropriate discipline --and who are comfortable with ‘higher-order’ thinking, since naturally they are likely to encounter new subjects in college, not to mention more demanding intellectual applications in subjects they’re familiar with. Thus, the humanities students who also did exceptionally well in math & science areas in high school are particularly valued for admission (& vice-versa for the ‘opposite’ students). Or so I’m told.</p>
<p>For some reason, CC does not allow me to edit posts.</p>
<p>To some extent, it is a matter of training, to be sure. But writing ability alone–which is under discussion here–will not indicate whether a student will be able to do a great job analyzing the weaknesses in someone’s political science theory (although the student may turn in a perfectly well-written paper); conversely, someone who can write perceptively about the limitations of rational choice theory may not be able to say anything meaningful about voice, literary references, imagery, plot, character, in a piece of fiction.<br>
Just as English majors may focus on the wrong features of policy memos, so can history or political science majors be unable to discuss the aspects of literature I listed above. Members of either group, however, are entirely capable of producing well-written papers; but their analytical weaknesses, whether in history, political science or history, will result in shallowly argued papers.</p>
<p>This reminds me of my first encounter with Wallace Stevens (i confess right away that I have a tin ear for English poetry). It was in my freshman year English Composition class, and at least I had the excuse of not being a native English speaker. The instructor asked about the symbolic significance of a particular image in the poem. The collective response was “Huh?” followed by a lot of head-scratching then silence. Another session, discussing Plato was far more successful. But that’s because we discussed arguments, not imagery.</p>
<p>Another post, since CC does not seem to let me edit:</p>
<p>I should have directed my post to Collegealum who disagreed with my post 683–and epiphany, you seemed to be agreeing with Collegealum. My example comes from a couple of years ago, by the way. It’s not hypocryphal.</p>
<p>Well, I think one could very quickly familiarize oneself with the vocabulary of a certain field of the humanities and master it if you had a gift for analysis in the humanities in general. You should also be able to recognize what you don’t know (i.e., a good writer should not throw around terms they don’t understand.)</p>
<p>marite: You & I seem to have parallel problems editing CC posts, but dissimilar experiences with versatility in very bright students – i.e., if you’re talking a significant number of students unable to step out of one discipline into another. Something is lacking in the teaching/training of such students, i.m.o.</p>
<p>So let’s see if this “edit” works, LOL. Again, I’m not referencing the SAT writing score (a test which we agree has significant limitations, anyway) as a barometer of analytical ability in an undergraduate or graduate student of a “top” school. Thought I said that earlier, maybe not.</p>
<p>Okay, the edit function still does not work. It’s “apocryphal,” not “hypocryphal.”</p>
<p>Collegealum: a gift for analysis in the humanities is not the same as a gift for analysis in the social sciences (and these are not the same). Learning the “vocabulary” is not sufficient. It’s like knowing how to read all the notes but not being able to really play the music. You are a scientist, right? My S excelled in physics and was only so-so in biology. Not all sciences are the same or require the exact same skills. Why should social sciences which include sociology, political science, anthropology, history, economics? And why should they be confounded with literature?</p>