Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Ignore ACT Reading and Science scores?

Sadly, no. The average score on the mathematics subject test is in the low- to mid-600s, with a standard deviation in the low- to mid-100s. So this year (2011), the average was 650 and the SD was 134. A score of 790 would be about the 84th percentile. For non-US people: the scores range from 200-800.

Some subject tests are even worse: the average score on the chemistry subject test is 700, with an SD of 115. In physics, the average was 692 with an SD of 157 (!). So no score on either of these tests is above average. But you can score -4 SD on chemistry and -3 SD on physics!

It seems wrong to me that you can't be above average on a test, but your poor performance can be in the range 1:10,000. Worse, the scores look like this every year. If they wanted to change things, they would have done so in, say, 1995.


So am I. But it explains a lot.

My bad. I didn't know that the math and physics subject exams had changed from a ceiling of 990 to a ceiling of 800.

Argh! No, I was wrong. They go to 990. My bad.

But you still can't get to a third SD above the mean on most of the subject tests (and you can't even get to +2 SD on physics), which is still not great.

The GRE is pretty much a repeat of the SAT, minus the new writing section, plus the analytical section, which is basically logic games. I needed to take the GRE for admittance into an Economics PhD program, and the school wanted close to perfect scores on the quantitative and analytical and didn't care at all about the verbal. Luckily, I got 800 on both the important sections:) There was an Economics subject GRE, but only a few schools wanted to see scores. Really, I think most graduate programs use the GRE as cross-check of whether the applicant has decent reasoning abilities. They take a much closer look at your grades and the courses you've completed. Graduate programs aren't necessarily looking for students who are more than 2 standard deviations above the mean - they just need people who are smart enough for the work.

Coincidentally, I am currently enrolled in an M.Ed. program for secondary math, and yes it is true that the typical students in education programs do not have stellar scores on the GRE. But, if you consider that teaching is one of the lowest-paid careers that someone would need a master's for, it becomes a little more understandable that the scores would be on the low end. Remember that only college grads who are pursuing higher degrees take the GRE, so that is typically a smart group. If you want to see higher average GRE scores among educators, you are going to have to start treating teachers as professionals. (Not singling anyone out, just the USA in general!)

That was what the GRE looked like when I took it as well and it, like the older version of the SAT, was considered to correlate reasonably well with IQ. The analytical section is now gone and, like the SAT since reformatting, is now considered a straight achievement test not an aptitude test.

Yes, the math subject test is usually only taken by students (BS or MS in mathematics) intending to pursue an MS or PhD in math and is used as a screening for proficiency, as everyone applying did well as an undergraduate/master's program in math. The 2+ sd scores I know of were foreign students whose bachelor's programs covered US MS or PhD courses. I'm not sure what that says about math education in the US...

I have to disagree with you here (for many reasons). I know that there are many very bright and capable teachers out there, but there are too many teachers who aren't like this, plus many good ones get fed up and leave the job.

Note that I'm speaking primarily of teachers in public schools here.

A Master's in Education is a far cry from say, a Master's in biology, history, or physics. An M.Ed. is far less demanding than any of these other three degrees and tends to emphasize fluffy subjects like diversity, social justice, and critical thinking skills. Plus, math and science requirements tend to center on low-end introductory courses. It's not surprising that M.Ed. degrees tend to attract less-than-stellar students. Yet they get the degree and too many seem to expect that the rest of society should defer to them because they have a master's degree. Lots of people have a master's degree. I have a one! But I don't expect anyone to defer to me or even see me as "professional" because of it. My results at work are what make me a professional.

Then there's the problem of pay increases being tied only to seniority. Teaching is one of the few jobs where you can't be rewarded because you're good at your job. Why would a talented, energetic person with other options stay in a job where even the idea of merit pay is controversial?

Teachers as a group also resist the idea of being evaluated or judged on performance. And once a teacher is tenured, that's it. If there are layoffs, a bad tenured teacher with more seniority will displace a good one with less seniority.

Sorry, but I just don't like that system, and I think it attracts (and retains) people who tend toward mediocrity. Surely, you must see some of this stuff among your fellow students.

I am...

And...there aren't mediocre members of every profession? The command of math and science needed to get into med school does not prevent mediocrity in that profession does it? Or do you feel all physicians within a given specialty are equally good at what they do?


First of all, many Masters degrees in education are specialized: reading; technology; math; etc. The types of courses you reference are more likely to be in initial certification coursework (although I've never heard of a social justice requirement). Are they fluff? They can be if not done well, but the reality is that until our college campuses (and teacher ed programs) are demographically much more like our society, they are more important than you might imagine. Perhaps this is less of an issue on the coasts, but in the midwest, there are an awful lot of people who arrive on college campuses from towns where everyone is white, christian and born in the U.S.A. On college campuses they are likely to meet people from other backgrounds, but the people they meet will be educated and most likely from at least a solid middle class background. Television sitcoms, dramas and news shows are poor preparation to work respectfully or effectively with children and families from other backgrounds.


Really? Because with all due respect, you have just deemed some masters degrees less worthy than others and you have written about teachers as if you are in a position to judge the worthiness of a large number of people. I have a hard time believing that you only expect to be seen as a professional based on your results at work (as opposed to your training and preparation). Are your individual results that visible and understandable to people outside of your immediate work environment that they can judge whether or not you are a professional? Or do you only expect to be seen as a professional by your co-workers? I don't know what your field is, but if you aren't a public employee, the question as to whether or not you are a professional probably never even comes up.


A talented, energetic person with other options would stay in a job where the idea of merit pay is controversial because:

She (or he) believes that what she is doing is important, or...

She is good at it and values results more than a bump in pay, or...

She knows that teachers competing against one another is not going to improve results because this is a profession that NEEDS a collaborative spirit. Or...

She does not believe that there are good enough/fair enough ways to measure "merit" and does not want to see teachers penalized for taking on the tough assignments or sticking with the struggling learners.

Or maybe, because when it comes right down to it, she knows that good administrators either bring their teachers up to speed or take effective steps to end their employment; and that if an administrator is not able to observe a teacher often enough to document performance problems, then an administrator also cannot observe each individual teacher often enough to accurately judge who the best teachers really are.


I completely disagree with your assertion that teachers resist being evaluated or judged on performance. Many of us seek evaluative feedback from our supervisors or peers in order to improve our practice. What "peformance" criteria will you use? I guarantee you that my colleague at the school across town, with its 5% poverty rate and homogenous population will look great based on test scores compared to my colleague down the hall in a school with a poverty rate above 80%, a population comprised of four significant racial/ethnic groups, and with 40% of students speaking english as their second language.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just someone who has chosen to be part of a mediocre group of people. Obviously if I had any real intelligence I would abandon my students and go get a real job.

I'd just like to say that getting angry doesn't help discussions of difficult subjects.


Of course there are. I never said there weren't.

The low test scores among future teachers indicate that knowledge of basic number skills, algebra, geometry, vocabulary and other things measured on the GRE and SAT are low average to below average among teachers as a group. Some individuals (e.g. LilMick) may get high scores, but most don't. The same just isn't true for future doctors, scientists, engineers, economists, historians, etc.


I didn't say anything about requirements. I said too much emphasis. Here are some social justice-related education programs around the country (out of 18 million search results for "social justice education"):

Social Justice in Education at UMASS

Teachers for Social Justice (Chicago)

Teaching and Social Justice M.A. in San Francisco

List of courses at Stanford (page 1) Note descriptions.

Social justice is the philosophy that has brought us ideas like "closing the achievement gap" which sounds great, but in practice, means paying lots of attention to struggling students while forcing bright students to stagnate.

Social justice is a political philosophy, and as such, has no place in a K-12 classroom.


None of this is relevant to the discussion.


Yes, I have. I don't believe that all degrees or ideas have equal merit.


I'm not judging anyone's worthiness as a person. Please don't introduce distracting emotional segues into this discussion.


No one in my profession (research science) gets taken seriously if they try to put more value on their training than on the quality of what they get done at work. The same is true of my husband's (software development). No one.

I know self-taught developers who dropped out of college or never went. Yet they get good jobs. I know community college grads with only an AS who do very well at work because they get stuff done, and they do it well. Etc. etc. If training is more valued in public school teaching, then you've just reinforced my position.


I've no doubt that this is true for individual teachers. But it's short-sighted to force everyone to give up recognition for excellence in favor of ideas that appeal to some.

As for no "fair" ways to measure merit, I disagree, as do many others. Knowledge of subject matter (e.g. math, science, grammar) would be a good place to start. People everywhere, in every type of job have to be evaluated. No system is perfect, but teachers (as a GROUP) resist external objective evaluation (say, of the types that medical professionals, electricians, military personnel, lawyers, and scientists face). Being reviewed by people you know isn't the same.


I realize that some of the stuff I've written is controversial, but replying in anger and accusing me of calling teaching not a "real job" is a distracting tactic that blocks honest debate. I am genuinely interested in other opinions, but I want nothing to do with shouting matches.

I believe that teaching is a critically important job and this is why I get so passionate about this stuff.