<p>Nobody ever mentions that some people are capable of acquiring, processing and storing information in prodigious quantities since day one. Not only have they been filling up their “bag of tricks” but they have the ability to go thru it quickly and retrieve the information from it. Scores many times reflect this. Being able to identify this quality in early childhood allows parents and schools to supplement Nature with good Nurture. In these cases, instead of “no prep” you could say “best prep.”</p>
<p>Do you think Michael Phelps preps before a swim meet?</p>
<p>Do you think all the prep in the world could turn one of the Olsen twins (take your pick) into an Olympic swimmer? :)</p>
<p>No, but it might make one of them better than the other. That might be enough if, for example, they were trying to get away from a shark.</p>
<p>“No” is the first half of the word “None.” 'Nuff said. :-)</p>
<p>J’adoube, interesting point. Back in my “Dweck interruption” of the main discussion, I did state that anyone can learn anything at any time. While I am inclined to think that neither Olsen twin could become an Olympic swimmer, before the success of Dara Torres I would not have guessed that a person over 40 could win a silver medal in swimming at the Olympics, let alone three. I do think that either Olsen twin, if she dedicated sufficient time to it, could be a serious competitor in one of the U.S. Masters Swimming age categories. The time devoted is the crux of the issue . . . . but I suppose also the willingness to acquire the body fat to achieve neutral buoyancy in the pool (which seems to be very helpful in swimming).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>J’adoube,
Our neighborhood elem school used to complain ever so subtly about this with my kids. The “extensive background knowledge” they cited in reports often muddled the school’s ability to accurately place my kids into the right reading or math group – because they were off the charts from what was expected. Rather than acknowledging that there might be a zebra in the classroom with unusual needs, the school regarded “background knowledge” as something we force-fed our kids while keeping them tied to chairs, and if the school ignored this background long enough, the zebra would lose his stripes and become just like everyone else.</p>
<p>Ha! There was no “pushing” at our house – just the sound of parents being dragged along by kids who wanted to know everything, age-appropriate timelines be damned.</p>
<p>I also like QM’s categories of folks who would benefit from prep. We never did the CTY/TIP thing, which was unusual among our kids’ academic peers. Didn’t seem worth the $$, S1 was finding plenty of things to keep himself amused, and they were in schools with a critical mass of academic peers, so the social part was good. Both kids applied to programs with competitive admissions, so they were familiar with testing routines and had demonstrated excellent skills in that regard.</p>
<p>S2, my junior, tends to benefit from direct instruction, so for him, spending time actually going over questions (esp. math) is quite profitable. He would not improve his score by poring endlessly over practice tests. He did, however, dramatically improve his math skills (and, by extension, his math scores) with us working w/him on reviewing HW, extra practice and test problems, thereby remediating the less-than-wonderful Alg I and Geometry courses he had in MS. Didn’t cost us anything except time, and it helps that DH and S1 are competent in math and could offer that kind of assistance.</p>
<p>Hunt, in fairness, I think the issue is that the SAT only goes up to 2400. Phelps has no such limit. </p>
<p>If the SAT only had questions like “what is 3+3” then a lot of us here would be arguing that no prep is needed. I have no problem with the idea that for some individuals the SAT poses absolutely no challenges and these individuals would not need to prep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TrinSf, I was trying to make a point about the value of learning time management and espeically learning to skip questions that could represent timesinks. While I do not like to quote posts from years ago, I was making a reference to what you posted in 2005. If I misread your original posts, please accept my apologies.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/109382-oh-good-lord-sat-scores-back-retake-give-up-next-year.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/109382-oh-good-lord-sat-scores-back-retake-give-up-next-year.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the way, congratulations on the scholarship that allows your son to attend Reed without parental contributions. However, when it comes to scholarships, and especially non-need based financial aid, the SAT and ACT scores take a heightened relevance as the bar gas been raised in prior years. For some students and their families, it seems that a small effort in maximizing the chances of high score represent one of the wisest investment. Getting that ACT from 31 to 35 or that SAT from 720 to 780 might represent the difference between a few dollars and a half or full ride. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, I was not talking about extensive and expensive test preparation nor utterly silly word lists, but about something different. Something that is appropriate to the individual needs of candidates, not a one size fits all.</p>
<p>
I agree with you, but with one quibble–it does appear that it pays, even for some very high scorers, to at least understand in advance what is wanted on the essay.</p>
<p>For my son no prep on the subject test meant just that. Sign up and then show up. At least for math that proved to be a big mistake. No telling how he scored, we cancelled it when he came home and said the test wasn’t hard be he didn’t get to 15 questions! I expect some familiarity with the format and time constraints if nothing else does make a difference.</p>
<p>One of my kids has issues with timing that are documented, but not covered under an IEP/504, so he gets no accommodations at school or with CB. Practicing under <em>timed</em> conditions was very important for him.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>Also, without at least looking at a sample exam, how do you even know that you don’t need to prep for it? And if you do look at the sample exam, then wouldn’t it be called ‘prep’? Call it the ‘SAT uncertainty principle’.</p>
<p>Finally, some people will prep even when they don’t need to…as I did for an open book test I had to take at the motor vehicle department when I moved to another state. I guess that makes me a loser?</p>
<p>xiggi #89: You dug up a very interesting old post. Why would people just make up stuff here?</p>
<p>We made the right choices for our family, as evidenced by the end result. If that means I’m not wise, so be it. If my current narrative doesn’t match something I posted two years ago, it’s because my memory about it has faded, and nothing more. End of story.</p>
<p>“Also, without at least looking at a sample exam, how do you even know that you don’t need to prep for it?”</p>
<p>Older siblings or friends’ experience</p>
<p>^^That was one of the things learned from taking the SAT in 7th grade.</p>
<p>Regarding prep/practice/innate ability:</p>
<p>Prep and practice can improve a person’s skills in given areas. However, hard work alone can never supersede native ability. In SAT terms, this means that there are native single sitter 750+ students, and there are those who can perhaps study themselves to the 700+ range, but the two intellects are probably not the same. Similarly, one can not practice themselves into a Michael Phelps or a YoYo Ma, without the native ability, no matter how many hours devoted to the practice.</p>
<p>There is an entity called native or innate ability. Maybe I would have loved to be an ice princess, but I just didn’t have the native ability, no matter how much practice I devoted to it. So, one finds something else that s/he is better at. Practice is important, but all the practice in the world does not make all things equal.</p>