Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Effectiveness/advisability - SAT prep young kids?

Fluency, to do many such questions fast and accurately, sure. Talent, no. None of those questions requires more than knowing what the words mean: they're utterly routine. I think if someone wants a measure of progress that can be repeated eg each year, the maths competitions (especially those with several levels, eg AMC8/10/12) are a better bet IMO.

I can see both sides here.

ColinsMum is right that the math on the SAT is run-of-the-mill algebra and geometry. One of my big objections to the SAT is precisely that it wants you to answer lots of questions very quickly. Ergo, by design, there's nothing too deep there. I know I've said this before, but comparing with the Higher Level Maths on the Irish Leaving Certificate (google it) will give you an idea about what it means to ask questions that require some thought. I don't know about the A-Level Maths. I presume it's more like the Irish exam, but maybe more advanced because Irish students study more subjects in secondary school than do students in the UK (?).

On the other hand, the SET program at Hopkins is focused specifically on getting a score of 700 before age 13. To get there, a kid would have to have finished geometry and have got partway through Algebra 2. This is because the SAT does test facts that can't generally be intuited in the 45 seconds or less that you get for each problem. Most 12-year-olds haven't even got to Algebra 1 yet. So the point seems to be that Hopkins is looking for kids who have already shown enough interest in maths that they're willing to do a fair bit of extra work to get to Algebra 2 and have a good foundation in Algebra 1 and Geometry when most kids their age are still in pre-algebra or below.

SET is almost certainly biased toward lightning-fast types over slow-and-deep types. But that is another discussion.

ETA: Remember also that the SAT is grueling (ten subtests and 5.5+ hours from start to finish). So getting through it at a young age also requires an ability to concentrate for a long period that most kids that age don't have yet.

I'm NOT defending the SAT as an adequate test of a high school education (I don't think it is). I'm only saying that I can see the reasoning behind using it to quality for SET. Personally, I think a homemade exam would be better, but then Hopkins would have to write one or two exams per year.

I think measuring young students on the same scale as high school students is important, and a homemade exam would not enable this. Julian Stanley guessed that young students who do well on the SAT are ready for college, and he accumulated many examples that confirmed his guess.

A level is also very routine (not as routine as SAT, but it has a different role: not every successful 18yo taking A levels takes A level maths). The alternative qualification Pre-U was designed to be less so.

If you have time, could you look at the currently available full SAT practice test at
http://sat.collegeboard.org/practice/sat-practice-test
and tell me specifically which questions you think require the student to have finished geometry and got part way through alg 2? I'm really not seeing it. I see a couple of uses of "vertical angles are equal" for example, but if the ALEKS syllabuses are a reasonable guide, that's in 6th grade maths. And I see some places where you have not to be scared by exponents, or by the idea of a variable being used to mean a number (both well covered in prealgebra). Beyond that?

I'm not disputing that young children who do that well are unusual. Indeed, they probably do tend to be exceptionally mathematically talented by correlation, or by accident if you like - parents who think to put their children in with this in mind probably do so because they think their children have exceptional mathematical talent - but I don't see why I should believe that the test itself would be a good filter for that.

Not necessarily. They could, if they chose, use exceptional success at an exceptionally young age in the AMC tests, which are getting set anyway, for example. My guess, though, is that this system seemed like a good idea once upon a time, and nobody has had a reason to change it. Sounds more as though SET hasn't been killed yet than as though it's really alive.

If he takes algebra when he is 10, then geometry when he is 11, it is very possible that he will score 700+ prior to the age of 13 without studying.

As others have mentioned, the math on the SAT is not hard. Getting 700+ is mainly a matter of not making silly mistakes. My eldest is not a math type. She didn't do that well on the SAT math when she took it in 7th grade, but she got a 730 when she took it in 11th (that was two wrong, skipped one question - there are a total of 54 questions on SAT math).

My middle kid took the SAT in 7th when she was halfway through Algebra I. She is clearly better at math than my eldest. She did one 25 minute practice section of math prior to the test - she got a 580. This year she is in 9th and she took the PSAT (because the school makes all 9th-11th graders take it). She refused to open the practice booklet, but she managed a 71 (equivalent to a 710) on the math.

I wouldn't worry too much about prepping him for the test. Perhaps he should do a practice test under timed conditions just to get an idea of the length of the test - my kids felt the SAT was largely a test of endurance. I can also see that scoring well on the SAT and ACT has something to do with speed, as others have mentioned. My older two kids are no where near PG types, but I recall that they had high PSI on the WISC - they can really motor through tests like SAT/ACT.

Ahh. I see what's happening.

In order to get a real idea of what's can show up on the SAT, you'd have to look at the The Official SAT Study Guide. It has ten real SAT tests.

There are questions on probability and statistics that are more algebra 2-ish than 1-ish. There are lots of different geometry questions, questions about functions, etc.

Problem is, I'm finishing a paper right now and have to get it to the journal by the end of the week. I will find some actual questions when this task is done.

But the bottom line is that if you want to get a 700, you need to know the geometry and algebra 2. Because of the way the SAT is scored (-0.25 point per incorrect answer on top of the point you don't get, so a total of -1.25 per wrong answer), you have to get a lot of the harder questions correct to get a 700.

Remember, I'm not defending it. I'm only seeing CTY's point of view.

Dottie, I think she got the 730 on the March 2012 test. The curve varies a bit from test to test, but this chart will give you an idea of the curve in recent years:

http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-Released-Test-Curves.pdf

She thought the 730 was pretty good as it was 96th percentile nationally and 98th percentile state...then she saw it was only 83rd percentile for her HS.

And on the PSAT, my kid got the 71 with two wrong and one skipped. She thought that was kind of harsh, but she doesn't really care that much about the scores yet since she is in 9th.

Look for my new thread on this topic...although it could be argued that it is relevant here, because the original poster brought up the issue of SAT scores partly to get into SET.

Interesting - I can see how that may occur but I would imagine you would have to take it many times and spend a substantial amount of time prepping, which would not be necessary for very bright kids.

That's part of my reasoning as well. It's been a really long time since I took the SAT and I only took it once and didn't prep, but I seem to recall it was an issue of a few tricky questions and being able to see the strategy quickly.