<p>Theory #3: Potential negative stereotyping of “top scorers”</p>
<p>I think this thread provides enough evidence of this, in itself.</p>
<p>Theory #4: Limitations of opportunity, due to changed perceptions of school-district liability</p>
<p>35 years ago: I was allowed to work on a microbiology project (inspired by an article in Scientific American) in the biology prep room, an hour a day during school and two hours a day after school. Usually, I was alone.</p>
<p>Now: It’s very unlikely that this would be permitted, for safety reasons. Overall, I think that this is actually an improvement. But it means that students with limited access to laboratory equipment and research guidance have a harder time with projects.</p>
<p>No impact on college admissions, but re the general issue of liability: The local middle school used to have a “Walk, Run, Roller Blade” event, as a fund-raiser and exercise opportunity for the students. One year, a student knocked out a tooth, after falling while skating (luckily, the tooth was successfully re-implanted). The next year, the school held a “Walk, Run.” Now I think it’s a “Walk.”</p>
<p>Tokenadult - I think you have a powerscorer. So do I. It’s a really, really good thing. Have faith.</p>
<p>Theory # 5: Insufficient difficulty of the SAT.</p>
<p>This point has already been mentioned several times on the thread. In math, the difference between an 800 and a score of 770-790 (depending on the test form) is usually one question. It’s easy to make a careless mistake, or two. Harder tests are more “forgiving” of a small number of careless errors, and more likely to differentiate (at the top) on level of understanding. </p>
<p>Also, accompanying the re-centering of the SAT in the early 1990’s was an increase in the number of top scorers. On the CR, I think the College Board’s equivalence tables show that an 800 after recentering is equivalent to 740 or 760 before (of course, an 800-scorer now might well have had 800 on the older, more difficult version–but can’t prove it). If I understand the scoring procedure for the SAT II’s, the recentering of the SAT I’s also pushed the SAT II scores up.</p>
<p>In the early 70’s, the National Merit Corporation published a booklet showing that there were approximately 25 NMF’s with SAT verbal scores of 800 that year. So the number of 1600 scorers that year was probably an order of magnitude lower than the number of 2400 scorers now.</p>
<p>I sometimes wonder whether my son’s close to perfect scores and grades served him better than perfect ones. I also didn’t touch his essay, except for noting one typo. There are things I’d have done differently, but I wanted his voice to come through. No inflating of community service hours–he had some, but not impressive in number. His essays did say, “Here I am.” I think that’s what they want–not someone who would become anyone to fit in, but somebody who is uniquely him or herself and says, “Take me or leave me–this is who I am.”</p>
<p>Theory #6: The uncertainty principle</p>
<p>(See user name). The product of the length of the application and the likelihood of error in the admissions decision is at least h-bar divided by 2–or actually, much larger.</p>
<p>For practical reasons, the colleges have to limit the application length. As pointed out on this thread, it’s really the application and not the student that’s being assessed.</p>
<p>Occasionally, a truly excellent student is just unlucky in the admissions decisions at the “very” top schools. I think that such a student can still prosper at a strong research institution or top LAC, outside the “very” top.</p>
<p>I have other crack-pot theories (the end of the cold war is one), but I’ll spare the forum!</p>
<p>Bethievt,
Your S’s approach is precisely what DS is doing. He is not afraid to be who he is, and if the school doesn’t like it, it wouldn’t be the right place for him. Having said that, he has crafted his list very carefully and would be happy at any one of them on his list. Some more than others, but he’s had this list simce April and has not changed it.</p>
<p>CountingDown</p>
<p>That’s it–all great choices, so when he knows where he’s accepted, he can pick his dream school–heart-whole.</p>
<p>Bethie,
Idad calls this “the imperfect resume.” For DS, it’s the grades that are the fly in the ointment (relatively speaking) – but in return for the slightly lower GPA, he has racked up some seriously good stuff in other areas that adcoms aren’t likely to see from a HS senior. Those goodies are what will outweigh the blemishes on the transcript. The test scores (at least for DS) actually validate his EC achievements – probably more so than his GPA does.</p>
<p>At least this is what I’m telling myself!</p>
<p>While getting a top score is impressive it doesn’t prove true brilliance. I have two lopsided kids, one in math and one in English. Each scored perfectly on his side of the standardized tests. I don’t consider my kids to be geniuses, yet I know that each could have scored perfectly in his area with even higher bars --maybe significantly higher. How high would the bar need to be set to ferret out the truly stellar genius --much MUCH higher than those tests measure. To differentiate true, outrageous geniuses, the tests would have to be far FAR more difficult than they are. As few perfect scorers as there are on these tests across the three measuring areas, the tests STILL do not set the bar high enough to pick the truly brilliant in any given niche. When it comes to the tip-top of the talent search there must be other measures, because these tests simply are not difficult enough to differentiate between the extremely smart and the truly brilliant. Of course the colleges know this. So they have other, more accurate ways of selecting the true superstar --like for example in math, taking high level college math classes through almost the graduate level while still in high school and getting As in them is simply a better measure of brilliance. The essay on the writing test is no more than a test of competency --anyone who would look to a perfect score on that as a test of writing brilliance fails to understand what gifted writing is. Top scorers do not always make it in because their top scores do not mean they are really the very tip of the talent pyramid.</p>
<p>"To differentiate true, outrageous geniuses, the tests would have to be far FAR more difficult than they are. "</p>
<p>Actually, they would have to be far DIFFERENT than they are. Or better, the measurements & varieties of measurements would have to be several, & differentiated.</p>
<p>Further, recognizing talent is best arrived at through a live process, not a static one, & on multiple measures. One may read a book by a brilliant author, but often the experience that better reveals the width & depth of his or her brilliance is the live, interactive talk by which that writer raises the ceiling even higher.</p>
<p>Um, in my experience, no differentiation methodology is needed to ferret out true outrageous geniuses. You know them when you meet them. Here in Silicon Valley at least, Bill Joy, Bud Tribble, etc., when you meet them you can tell the difference. No need for testing.</p>
<p>If you meet them. Not all colleges require interviews. And many interviewers aren’t well versed in the subjects your child may be a genius in. That said, I’ve met some smart math/science guys who were extremely smart in other areas too. They oozed cleverness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nor are many of the people serving on college admissions committees. Hence, the need to develop useful measures by which committees will determine who is to be admitted, including tests of some sort.</p>
<p>In most cases, no tests are required. Even adcoms who don’t know much more than precalc are able to evaluate the worth of AIME scores, Intel awards, Olympiad gold medals. Tests are not be good measures of a student’s true writing abilities–extended papers are.
At interviews, it is not difficult to snow an uninformed interviewer with big words. Some students may be brilliant problem-solvers but also reticent and laconic and may not present themselves very well in person. I would not want an interview to make or break an application.</p>
<p>I know someone who got into the Top Ivy. She had low 90’s average borderline 89. Didn’t take AP’s except for one and got a 3. Very nice person was an ok tennis player. Nothing exceptional though. She had one thing to get her in can you guess what it was?</p>
<p>Was she a famous actress? Supermodel? Had a famous parent?
Had two heads? What, tell us. The suspense is killing me.</p>
<p>Was she a legacy? Was her parent the Dean of Admissions? Was she a unique minority?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of the main reasons is that, nowadays, undergraduate admissions in many U.S. colleges/universities are not actually handled by academic staff, but rather by adcoms that “have their own agenda” (ideologically speaking). I know that is a pretty blunt assessment, but it is true nonetheless. </p>
<p>If college professors were the ones actually calling the shots (as it is the case e.g. in British universities), then undergraduate admissions would begin to look more like in graduate school and the basic question that would be asked concerning each applicant would be: is he or she likely to do well in my class and complete his/her degree successfully ?</p>
<p>“If college professors were the ones actually calling the shots (as it is the case e.g. in British universities), then undergraduate admissions would begin to look more like in graduate school and the basic question that would be asked concerning each applicant would be: is he or she likely to do well in my class and complete his/her degree successfully ?”</p>
<p>The overwhelming majority of students of any race at top colleges graduate from those colleges. Those are the highest rates of any colleges in the U.S. Consequently, it’s clear that their admissions system is working, and I doubt if professors have any complaints. Professors also do help out with admissions decisions.</p>
<p>If foreign universities were so wonderful, foreign students wouldn’t be applying in droves to top US universities nor would top U.S. universities have such high international ratings.</p>
<p>"At interviews, it is not difficult to snow an uninformed interviewer with big words. Some students may be brilliant problem-solvers but also reticent and laconic and may not present themselves very well in person. I would not want an interview to make or break an application. "</p>
<p>When it comes to places like Ivies, they aren’t looking for people who can’t present themselves well in person. They are looking for people who not only have the academic skills and demonstrated motivation to be able to graduate from places like Ivies (as is the case of the majority of their applicants), but also have the personalities to be active participants, contributors and leaders in campus life and eventually the lives of their communities.</p>
<p>As for interviewers being snowed by big words, hardly. When it comes to the top colleges, the interviewers either are alum or are people who graduated from such colleges. IN addition to the interviewing skills that many (including alum) gained from their jobs, professions, etc., they also have the wisdom that one gains from having gone to a top college and having interacted with lots of peers and professors at such places. ONe knows how to cut through b.s.</p>
<p>“And many interviewers aren’t well versed in the subjects your child may be a genius in.<br>
Nor are many of the people serving on college admissions committees. Hence, the need to develop useful measures by which committees will determine who is to be admitted, including tests of some sort.”</p>
<p>There are tests: SAT IIs, which provide measurements of how good student are in specific fields.</p>
<p>In addition, there are certain achievements that reflect those abilities: having participated in RSI, having had articles published in professional journals; having been a featured soloist in a professional music group at Carnegie Hall; having been a national first place winner in History Fair or Intel Science competition, etc.</p>
<p>In addition, the admisisons officers ask professors to review applicants to assess them for extraordinary talent.</p>