<p>“Some contemporary lit crit IS closer to a math text than Charles Dickens.”</p>
<p>^^ Also very accurate. At a reputable institution advanced literary criticism, even on the undergraduate level, encompasses more than the formal elements of literature. Much more. It is more analytical than most people imagine, & way more demanding in the exploration of theory. It is a major not for the faint of intellect, those who believe they’ve chosen an easy field, or who wish to avoid the rigors of academia.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’m still focused on why supposedly a standardized test score is evidence of “a hungry & humble mind” more than other manifestations of academic excellence.</p>
<p>re: parental involvement in olympiad/RSI/Intel and the like</p>
<p><a href=“CountingDown:”>quote</a></p>
<p>Then there are those kids who go to <em>public</em> math/science schools and manage to get to Olympiads, RSI, etc. without mom and dad forking out big bucks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Being at a public math/science school is already unusual and correlated with parental involvement. So is enrollment at a public “feeder” high school, or a good private school of the kind that does more with its talented students than just smother them with homework. Sure, some students manage to accomplish things despite clueless parents or a limited environment. But it is quite rare compared to the high-parental-involvement model. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In theory, pencil, paper and access to a library are enough. Statistically, doing it that way is rare. You say that in your house the investment is just the cost of books, but I doubt it’s that little; probably there was also early investment in a computer for the children; attention paid to getting them books and games of the right kind at an early age; identification and pursuit of “gifted and talented” opportunities over the years; maybe finding a mentor at nearby university; or paying the higher living costs of a town where schools are well funded and competitive, and the population educated. </p>
<p>The process usually runs for years and starts early, even if it is not a question of overt pushing and demands for 2400 SAT or 24-karat medals.</p>
<p>siserune: I agree with you. At our excellent public high school (top 50 - 100 nationally) the students consistently scoring higher on math/science measures, including more advanced measures offered by Marite, are the children of Brookhaven National Lab. scientists, whereas both my children won the English prize at graduation even though neither is primarily interested in literature. Even allowing for a genetic component to specific abilities, it seems evident that the most important resources are often the parents themselves.</p>
<p>The correlation between parental accomplishment and interest and student achievement seems high, though certainly not true in all cases. Richard Feynman demonstrates this well when he describes his father actively questioning the very young Richard (three perhaps) about his young theories about his observations of his toy wagon. Formulating the answers began a life-long involvement with physics (and of course, exceptional achievement.) The older Feynman had been thwarted in his desire for a career in science, but scientific thinking pervading many of his conversations with his young son. The Feynman familly was not wealthy; special programs were not available to Richard, but clearly this continual training was a resource that most students don’t have.</p>
<p>Feynman’s father was a scientist in all but vocation, and would have a PhD had he grown up in our time. The education he provided his children was remarkable, though also somewhat manipulative: he clearly steered both of them toward science, and indirectly some of his grandchildren as well.</p>
<p>“Most truly fine scientists are quite wonderful writers.”</p>
<p>Well I don’t know what your source is, but let me tell you mine: 25 years on staff at some of the top national science magazines in the country, most of that time as an acquisitions editor. I think this vests me with a top level of expertise on the reality here: Statement is patently false. Most scientists are NOT quite wonderful writers, only a very tiny minority are. Most science journalism is done by writers, not scientists, because, for the most part --and there are of course some remarkable exceptions-- scientists are NOT capable of writing at this level, with this kind of clarity and artistry for a lay audience. MOST scientists who appear in the magazines I have edited have been severely rewritten by the editors to make their writing accessible. There are some wonderful exceptions --but exceptions they are. </p>
<p>In my 25 years of experience behind the editor’s desk of the countries top science magazines I can tell you, unequivocally, that the BEST writers for this market and similar ones are actually —trained writers!!-- albeit those with a bit of science background, NOT scientists. Yes many scientists have books out --but as an insider I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of those out for the lay public have been ghostwritten by --omg, yes-- science journalists who are not scientists, but rather, writers.</p>
<p>Let us give credit where credit is due. I HAVE of course met many scientists and doctors who THINK they are great writers despite their lack of professional training in this area. I call it hubris.</p>
<p>I won’t try to defend myself or my ideas which have been distorted beyond recognition as I might say things I would regret. I will only express surprise and disgust that someone could write about “the random comments of a bigoted TA” without presenting a shred of evidence that the comments are random and the TA is bigoted.</p>
<p>“Even allowing for a genetic component to specific abilities, it seems evident that the most important resources are often the parents themselves.”</p>
<p>Amen. (My favorite quote of myself.;)</p>
<p>No question that whether it’s Intel or whether it’s the arrangements for a summer program or driving them to an add’l public library (I remember when I had to escort my own to a university research library when the general public access ones were inadequate), or --ahem-- driving them to the standardized test sites, parental ‘involvement’ to one degree or another is anywhere from minor to major in importance. I don’t see this as nefarious. </p>
<p>Also, from the point of view of an admissions committee, distinctions among student preparation for the SAT are not discernible for any one student with a single-sitting perfect score. Some will have received no prep & bad school instruction; others commercial prep; others will have been sat down daily in family establishments by parents to drill repeatedly in preparation for these tests. </p>
<p>Some evidence of parental involvement is more visible than other kinds – if nothing else, financial support, and committees do compare students with generous opportunities against those with much fewer.</p>
<p>“I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of those out for the lay public have been ghostwritten by --omg, yes-- science journalists who are not scientists, but rather, writers.”</p>
<p>thanks for that info, cloverdale. I have suspected that when I’ve read some of the finer pieces.</p>
<p>Cloverdale, my very tiny, very old experience accords with yours, amassed over a 25 year publishing career. What’s usually lacking is the artistry.</p>
<p>Now that I think about it, I should have been more aware of this myself. In my campus job after graduation I was asked to edit the manuscripts of the profs in the science dept. where I worked. (It wasn’t technically part of my job; I just happened to enjoy it.) They were incredibly grateful & I now I understand why.</p>
<p>“I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of those out for the lay public have been ghostwritten by --omg, yes-- science journalists who are not scientists, but rather, writers.”</p>
<p>thanks for that info, cloverdale. I have suspected that when I’ve read some of the finer pieces.</p>
<hr>
<p>I don’t think it’s fair to assume this, although it may happen. Anyway, considering that people have to write their own grants it’s a good assumption that if you are a good writer, it is an advantage. Also, I think verbal/right-brained abilities are essential for scientific investigation and often separate the people who are good at spitting back the material in school from the great independent investigator.</p>
<p>I’m not “assuming” anything. But both my earlier experience, <em>wth</em> scientists, and cloverdale’s combined 25-yr experience as a professional in the editing/publishing field reinforce the likely frequency of ghostwritten, or heavily edited, scientific articles.</p>
<p>Kluge, I don’t think you are correct re: missed answer = wrong answer. You can not answer every single question on the test and still get an 800 because of the curve, but you are penalized more for getting a wrong answer. The instructions for taking the test specifically state it is better to leave an answer blank if you don’t have a clue how to answer it.</p>
<p>menloparkmom, wrong answers are only worse if you have more than 2 of them. Raw scores are rounded before being converted. That means, on a 50 question test, if you leave one blank and get the rest right, you get a raw score of 49. If you get one wrong and the rest right, you get a raw score 0f 48.75 (-0.25 for a wrong answer on 5 choice questions), which rounds to 49, which is the number they use to convert to the scaled score (the number out of 800).
And, in fact, it is never better to leave a question blank, CollegeBoard is providing misinformation. If you have absolutely no clue, then it makes no difference whether you leave it blank or answer it. This is because your chances of getting it right are 1/5. When multiplied by 1 (the number of points a right answer is worth), it means you get 0.2 points on average. The chances of getting it wrong are 4/5. When multiplied by -0.25 (the number of points received for a wrong answer), you find that on average you get -0.2 points. Combine the two numbers and you have 0, the same thing you would receive for a blank. Of course, if you have any inkling as to the right answer (can eliminate a single choice, have a gut intuition, etc) then it is better to guess.</p>
<p>When moving from old SAT to new SAT, the number of questions in each subject is reduced. For math it is reduced from 60 to 54, so now a raw score represents a larger range in scaled score.</p>
<p>wait wait --I did NOT say their scientific articles in the peer review were ghostwritten, although many of these are very poorly written. I said that when scientists try to write in a LITERARY fashion for the consumer and general public, when they try to do “quite wonderful” writing, most cannot --they almost always lack the training and talent for this. It doesn’t mean they can’t write a clear, concise and well-crafted article describing the nuts-and-bolts of a research project for a technical journal, many can. THIS IMO does not make someone a writer, it makes them a scientist with the ability to do technical writing. I consider “quite wonderful” writing to be literary, dynamic, dramatic, accesible, powerful, etc etc: No, the best scientists are not largely “quite wonderful” writers. To find the bulk of quite wonderful writers you will need to look among another professional class, and how shocking, those people are the writiers: those trained in journalism or other forms of WRITING are the ones who produce 99% of the “quite wonderful” writing under the umbrella of science journalism.</p>
<p>Thanks for this correction, cloverdale. I myself should not have used that word carelessly. My own direct experience with this corresponds with yours: that the editing (not the writing) is done by others – others who have greater skill with words. Although in the writing I was involved with, that also sometimes included improvements in clarity, conciseness, & craft, additionally there was a need for style to transform a dry piece into something that flowed and had some vibrancy to it. Good differentiation on your part.</p>