I know a few kids who took it via RSM (Russian school of math) in middle school, but this didn’t sound like that to me.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone has said that the SAT can identify creative geniuses.
This particular line of discourse is about a strong negative bias that exists both in this thread and on this board in general. The bias is this: high achievers on the SAT (and mathematically gifted people in general) are not creative, artistic or athletic, and the more meritocratic you make college admissions, the more you are throwing up roadblocks to prevent creative people from highly selective colleges.
I am not saying that every 1500+ scorer on the SAT, or every gifted mathematician, is also highly creative and/or artistic. I am saying that there are many highly creative & artistic people who are also academically & mathematically gifted and we are better off as a society when those special people are at our best-resourced universities and are being taught by our top professors.
4 Likes
I’m getting a little uncomfortable with the equation being made, perhaps inadvertently, between being good at math and being academically gifted.
Again, I know this may be coming out just in the back and forth of discussion, not as a considered position.
But it’s important to emphasize that reading and writing are academic skills. They do not just belong to some squishy realm of “creativity.” They are intellectual attainments as impressive and rare as exceptional math skills.
Maybe more rare, because 800s on the EBRW part of the SAT, which itself is a pretty low ceiling (in my estimation), are less common than 800s on the math portion.
It’s no doubt true that some students now are excellent readers, even of old and difficult writing. But many more, even “average excellent” ones, fall short.
Only the very rarest of students can pick up a difficult older text by an author like Laurence Sterne and understand it. This has changed from around 50 years ago. And the SAT doesn’t even bother to test for it.
Even a relatively straightforward writer like Jane Austen presents “average excellent” students with sentences they do not understand.
I’m not talking about the layers of irony and suggestion, the use of techniques like free indirect discourse, etc.
I’m talking about simply what the sentences mean.
2 Likes
I really get the feeling you are arguing against a straw man here… unless what you are actually trying to argue is stronger than what I think.
Maybe you can help to clarify?
Let’s assume two sets of people,
-
S: The set of 1500+ scorers on the SAT (or some other medium-high bar for scores)
-
A: The set of academically gifted and highly creative people who should be at our best-resourced universities.
I think most people here would agree with you that “there are many highly creative & artistic people who are also academically & mathematically gifted” and in fact, that many of these people score well on the SAT.
That is,
- There is quite a bit of overlap between sets A and S (lots of people are in both sets)
I haven’t seen anyone argue against that position (have you?)
What I do see people arguing is this:
- There are also lots of people who are in set A, but who are not in set S.
To me, this doesn’t seem in conflict with saying there’s a lot of overlap between the two sets. Theoretically in my mind, there can be both lots of overlap, and also a significant number of people who fall into just set A.
But it’s possible you are trying to make a stronger claim than what I think?
Do you feel that
- A is a subset of S?
(or, the number of people in A and not in S is extremely small and insignificant?)
1 Like
Funny, I see the opposite bias on CC.
IMO many posters on CC greatly overvalue math proficiency as the proper measuring rod for just about everything, whether it is related to math proficiency or not. My experience in the real world is that the correlation between math proficiency and professional or personal success is not nearly as strong as is often assumed here.
Also, I think that it is a bit much to suggest that doing well on the SAT MATH means someone is “gifted,” especially with regard to kids who have been practicing and preparing for the SAT (one way or another) their entire lives. For many students, mastering the fairly basic skills necessary to do well the SAT Math is as more about preparation than giftedness.
3 Likes
Yes, I have.
You beat me to the comparison with the British system. Einstein would be obvious for Caltech
Hmm, I haven’t noticed anyone arguing that there is little to no overlap between sets A and S… but perhaps I’ve missed something in nearly 2k posts. It certainly doesn’t seem to be a commonly held opinion though, at least from how I am reading people’s posts.
What is your own perspective? Do you feel that A is a subset of S? Or are you arguing a more moderate position than that?
1 Like
I think that is because there is an over representation of kids (and their parents) on CC who are gunning for CS or Engineering. Many of these kids are very accomplished in math and accelerated well beyond the norm. That being said, good math proficiency is important and American students lag much of the world in this area.
I agree.
I agree with this too. But the math focus on CC sure isn’t about bringing everyone up to a level of acceptable proficiency.
The poster above is arguing that the SAT validates students who are strong in “logical reasoning” (and in other posts he specifically references mathematics) at the expense of creative & imaginative minds. My point is that there are many students who are strong in “logical reasoning” (mathematics) AND have creative and imaginative minds. They are not mutually exclusive.
3 Likes
I don’t think @Canuckdad could be arguing that math and creativity are mutually exclusive, because he is the one who brought up Einstein as an example of a creative thinker (in that same post you quoted). Einstein is a canonical example of a creative thinker who is good at math.
I think if this poster was trying to argue that math and creativity are mutually exclusive, he would have come up with a different brilliant public figure as an example, who was not famous for being good at math.
Are you instead interpreting the post as saying that sets A (academically gifted creative people who should be at our best-resourced universities) and S (1500+ SAT scorers) are mutually exclusive?
Maybe @Canuckdad can clarify?
1 Like
This seems to be the straw man, but no one is arguing that.
1 Like
You are missing the point. Not everyone in society needs to be “math” oriented. The grand irony is that “math” will create a world where AI will replace the very people who created it. Ain’t that a kick in the pants!
“Logic and logical reasoning are great but, heck an algorithm can do that too. This is just me but, wouldn’t we want those with that creative/imaginative “mind” in our universities?”
No one is arguing that everyone in society need to be “math” oriented.
Yes or no, just to clear some things up, you do understand that some students are great at mathematics (and test well) AND have highly creative & imaginative minds…right?
1 Like
Speaking of logic reasoning . . . that quote is not an argument that sets A and B are mutually exclusive.
Einstein had a view of math which was outside of the box of what was tested in math. The oversimplification is to say, his genius was not measurable with a focused framework of an SAT.
It is implying it. If you don’t see that, I guess we can leave it alone.
Exactly. My point is their are creative geniuses, less adept at math, who are boxed out by the SAT’s. The SAT’s penalize kids who are not “elite” in math.
1 Like