Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 99 guests, and 25 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    parentologyco, Smartlady60, petercgeelan, eterpstra, Valib90
    11,410 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 52 of 77 1 2 50 51 52 53 54 76 77
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 49
    G
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    G
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 49
    Maybe I am being naive, but I don't think that the ivies are completely biased toward selecting students who will only go into finance and other business professions. Many, many students are selected without those interests, and many do NOT go into those fields.

    And there are pre-professional fields at many of the ivies - Penn, Princeton, Brown and Cornell have engineering, Penn has nursing, etc.

    Not trying to completely defend them, since I think the prestige factor is way out of proportion, but I do think they offer an amazing education for those who can get in.

    Joined: Apr 2012
    Posts: 453
    N
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    N
    Joined: Apr 2012
    Posts: 453
    I think the 10% admitted based on academics is misleading. Look at the College Board website and look up Harvard's 25th-75th percentile SAT scores. 75th percentile for CR, M and W is 800 - so I guess that others here are saying that only two-fifths of that 75th percentile and above, the kids with 800 on the section, are admitted on academics. Umm...that doesn't make sense.

    If your school has Naviance, take a look at the SAT & GPA of kids admitted to Ivies from your HS. Hmmm...most of them look academically qualified.

    And when others are counting only the "b" kids in that 10 percent, that isn't true at all. My eldest knows "a" kids who are not only very well rounded, interesting, social kids, but also the cream of the crop academically.


    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    2
    22B Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    2
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    Originally Posted by NotSoGifted
    I think the 10% admitted based on academics is misleading. Look at the College Board website and look up Harvard's 25th-75th percentile SAT scores. 75th percentile for CR, M and W is 800 - so I guess that others here are saying that only two-fifths of that 75th percentile and above, the kids with 800 on the section, are admitted on academics. Umm...that doesn't make sense.
    There's a flaw in this logic. What about all the 800 scorers who don't get admitted? What are the criteria for choosing? When Pinker says "At the admissions end, it’s common knowledge that Harvard selects at most 10 percent (some say 5 percent) of its students on the basis of academic merit." he's not talking about mere SAT scores. He's talking about higher level rarer academic accomplishments. For applicants who don't have such higher level rarer academic accomplishments, even if they have high SAT/ACT scores, some non-academic criteria will be used, and they are not in Pinker's 10 (or 5) percent.

    The real point is that it shouldn't be this way. All applicants should be taking tougher tests.



    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 3,296
    Val Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 3,296
    Originally Posted by JonLaw
    The tragedy of our age is that there are so few places in the hallowed halls of truly profound and meaningful higher learning. And there are so many who cry out, begging to be given the Golden Ticket that will allow them to fit through those narrow gates to ascend the stairway to relevance.

    Verruca Salt got a golden ticket. shocked

    Falling off the stairway to relevance (or rolling off it, in her case) must hurt.

    Last edited by Val; 09/17/14 06:11 PM.
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    2
    22B Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    2
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    Originally Posted by Tigerle
    I think the institution I'd want to go to,and the one that creates the most educational value overall, would be one that tries to find a good balance between the two types (and while there won't be many ideal types and most people will be on a spectrum blah blah! I think most people in the ability range were talking about will veer clearly towards one or the other).
    I do not think that an institution who tries to limit type b to only 10 percent of candidates will create as much overall educational value as one that moves the percentage closer to 50. Having pointy types dominate might not be good for either type of student.
    I really think this "two types" thing is a complete myth.

    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 1,453
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 1,453
    Quote
    The tragedy of our age is that there are so few places in the hallowed halls of truly profound and meaningful higher learning. And there are so many who cry out, begging to be given the Golden Ticket that will allow them to fit through those narrow gates to ascend the stairway to relevance.

    You sound like a Calvinist over this LOL


    Become what you are
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Originally Posted by 22B
    Originally Posted by Tigerle
    I think the institution I'd want to go to,and the one that creates the most educational value overall, would be one that tries to find a good balance between the two types (and while there won't be many ideal types and most people will be on a spectrum blah blah! I think most people in the ability range were talking about will veer clearly towards one or the other).
    I do not think that an institution who tries to limit type b to only 10 percent of candidates will create as much overall educational value as one that moves the percentage closer to 50. Having pointy types dominate might not be good for either type of student.
    I really think this "two types" thing is a complete myth.

    Why?

    Polymaths certainly exist, and those who excel at a single preferred domain also do. The two general groups of individuals do sort of form a mutually exclusive pair of sets. Granted, there are probably some people who trend one way or the other without being at either extreme, but among gifties, it doesn't seem to me to be a grossly controversial statement to note that most tend to be one or the other.

    So there are children who take college coursework in one domain as quite young kids-- those would be the pointy ones. There are also children like my DD, who is entering college years before her peers (though she wouldn't have been ready quite as young as a "pointy" peer-- perhaps 12-13yo rather than 6 or 7), and is seemingly "very good" at everything she has ever done-- but doesn't yet for-sure-for-sure have a major picked out, and keenly feels that she isn't "extraordinary at any one thing."

    She is right about that-- she isn't. She's very good at everything. But she is also a lot more comfortable to be around for most people than super-pointy types who are VERY good at a single domain and may only be "adequate" or even just "good" at other things.

    It's not clear to me what the right proportion of the two basic tendencies is "right" for an institution of higher learning, but clearly such institutions have an unstated desire to produce "rounded" education in their graduates, else general education requirements for degrees would not exist. I have seen quite a few VERY brilliant students struggle with some elements of such general education requirements, for whatever that is worth-- the pointy ones sometimes can, in a relative weakness.

    The bottom line is that BOTH types look identical via the imperfect and not-terribly-difficult testing that is currently used to winnow the field of applicants. Test them both at age 18 with the SAT, and on any given day, perfect scores are as likely as not.

    By that measure, they are both "highly qualified" for elite institutions.






    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,639
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,639
    Originally Posted by 22B
    The real point is that it shouldn't be this way. All applicants should be taking tougher tests.
    A suboptimal alternative is for applicants to take those tests at an earlier age. The Study of Exceptional Talent (open to students scoring 700+ on math or verbal before age 13) newsletter mentions periodically that it will write letters of recommendation for members, mentioning that their high scores were achieved at a young age. The newsletter said some colleges find this to be useful information.

    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    2
    22B Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    2
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    Originally Posted by Bostonian
    Originally Posted by 22B
    The real point is that it shouldn't be this way. All applicants should be taking tougher tests.
    A suboptimal alternative is for applicants to take those tests at an earlier age. The Study of Exceptional Talent (open to students scoring 700+ on math or verbal before age 13) newsletter mentions periodically that it will write letters of recommendation for members, mentioning that their high scores were achieved at a young age. The newsletter said some colleges find this to be useful information.
    Great point, I absolutely agree. I'm always puzzled when people say they will discard scores taken at a young age. It seems like great information (though perhaps it helps to have followed through with later academic achievements as well). That also looks like an incentive to go for SET if colleges respect that achievement.

    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    2
    22B Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    2
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    Another Stephen Hsu blog post
    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2014/09/harvard-admissions-and-meritocracy.html
    supports Steve Pinker's contention
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...should-judge-students-standardized-tests
    that "At the admissions end, it’s common knowledge that Harvard selects at most 10 percent (some say 5 percent) of its students on the basis of academic merit."

    Other recent blogs on this
    Stephen Hsu (earlier)
    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-best-for-harvard.html
    Scott Aaronson
    http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2003

    There's a lot of great points in these blogs and the comments.

    Page 52 of 77 1 2 50 51 52 53 54 76 77

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Detracking
    by indigo - 03/16/24 08:23 PM
    Gifted kids in Illinois. Recommendations?
    by lll - 03/07/24 06:51 PM
    Chicago suburbs - private VS public schools
    by lll - 03/03/24 10:14 AM
    Patents and Trademarks and Rights, oh my...!
    by indigo - 03/02/24 01:03 PM
    529 savings for private high school?
    by lululo4321 - 02/27/24 05:28 PM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5