|
0 members (),
231
guests, and
15
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432 |
I think my kids have the academic wherewithal but perhaps not the special skills/extracurriculars and "leadership." That's kind of sad, but that's how it looks to me, though DS may be more up that alley than DD. There is probably a good chance they'd get into my or DH's alma maters (SLACs--not Ivys, but top 20) due to the legacy advantage.
With DD, I'm concerned about getting her through school with mental health intact. That will be primary. She is on track for a very competitive high school experience. I'm not sure how it's going to go.
DS is more mentally centered, but interestingly, has more perfectionism issues at this time, which will be a real problem if they continue. This may be because he is totally underchallenged, whereas DD is getting at least some stretch. The perfectionism is one reason to keep him very active in chess, where he is surrounded by other very bright children and needs must lose from time to time. That is exactly why I think that DS is kind of jumping the gun. He has three long years of middle school before even starting high school so who knows what will happen. I hear so many stories of kids losing their way in middle school as well as shifts in the pecking order due to any number of things. It's not that I think either DS or DD will become average but in the top 10% there is a lot of room for other factors than pure intelligence. I wondered about the perfectionism issue - how much of it is genetic and how much environmental. Fortunately, none of my children tend that way (for now).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432 |
Based on my own experiences in conducting admissions interviews (for a top-ranked MBA program) and in conducting intern interviews for a major corporation, my goal is for my children to stand out as logical, personable, smart (!) and well-rounded individuals. The kind of people who can start their own businesses and keep them running or be welcome additions to any company. Critical thinkers who have compassion for others. What I hope they aren't is the kind of candidate who has no good answers for why they did something, what they learned from it or what they care about most deeply.
Between now and college time, I harbor some fantasy that the current "parenting arms race" will burn itself out. You and I both! Your criteria makes sense, but in a sense those kinds of characteristics would probably get in the way of building the stereotypical successful application.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432 |
I know many of you have good reasons for ruling this out, and that I've said it before, but for anyone who hasn't heard it: remember that the extra-curricular war is purely American. To a first approximation, the rest of the world thinks it weird, and is only interested in how well equipped the student is for the course. I had an American potential student in my office the other week; he had an offer from [one of the top 6 US colleges], from us and from several other places round Europe. He was visiting his shortlist to decide where to go. Sensible lad. (Lucky, too, to have the funds to make such a tour, of course - but the cost is peanuts compared to a US college education.) Doesn't have to be the UK, either; more and more European universities teach courses in English. The QS rankings for subjects of interest are one good place to start: http://www.topuniversities.com/subject-rankings/2014Thanks, Colinsmom. Come to think of it, I do have relatives in UK but I am not sure that I would want them a continent away at 18, although grad school would be different.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
It's not that I think either DS or DD will become average but in the top 10% there is a lot of room for other factors than pure intelligence. Yes, I 100% agree and this is how I feel as well. My kids will probably stay in the top 10%, barring major issues (which is not totally impossible--DD is going to be a tough teen). But there is much ahead of us, and I don't know how things will play out. I actually think one of my children is brighter than the other but that that child is not as internally motivated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 480
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 480 |
I like that visual - claws and fangs! For some reason, DS is not particularly competitive, at least with his classmates but that can change.
It's also kind of weird how clearly DS understands statistics from an early age. He undestands that even 99.9 percentile is ultimately a dime a dozen when there are millions of people. He is the one who pointed out to me that you can hit perfect scores on all the AMCs and be a long way from gaining one of the few slots on the USAMO team. That is what often scares me. Ds7 is about 1 in 18,000. We only have 4.5 million in this country. You are dealing with a much smaller pool - there can't be more than 200,000 kids within a year of his age range in your country. Just curious - how did you calculate that your DS is at the 99.995 percentile? Google says there's 4 million per year in that age range. The page with relative frequency is here. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspxSo there's about 222 kids your DS age and IQ, 2000 within +- 5 years, and of course kids with higher IQs, and just a fraction lower, too. You only have to go down to 150 to be 1 in 2000, which is much more reasonable at 2000 per year, 20,000 within +- 5 years
Last edited by Tallulah; 04/10/14 02:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432 |
I like that visual - claws and fangs! For some reason, DS is not particularly competitive, at least with his classmates but that can change.
It's also kind of weird how clearly DS understands statistics from an early age. He undestands that even 99.9 percentile is ultimately a dime a dozen when there are millions of people. He is the one who pointed out to me that you can hit perfect scores on all the AMCs and be a long way from gaining one of the few slots on the USAMO team. That is what often scares me. Ds7 is about 1 in 18,000. We only have 4.5 million in this country. You are dealing with a much smaller pool - there can't be more than 200,000 kids within a year of his age range in your country. Just curious - how did you calculate that your DS is at the 99.995 percentile? Google says there's 4 million per year in that age range. The page with relative frequency is here. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspxSo there's about 222 kids your DS age and IQ, 2000 within +- 5 years, and of course kids with higher IQs, and just a fraction lower, too. You only have to go down to 150 to be 1 in 2000, which is much more reasonable at 2000 per year, 20,000 within +- 5 years I am not the poster with the 99.995 percentile child (1 in 18,000) but was responding to that post. Interesting. It was my understanding that the frequencies did not follow the bell curve at the high end beyond a certain point for the IQ tests commonly used in the U.S. For example, a ton more kids tested at the 150+ Full Scale IQ on the WISC than bell curve statistics would have predicted. I heard that there are other ways to tease out a reliable estimate and I was simply wondering what was used.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 24
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 24 |
It was my understanding that the frequencies did not follow the bell curve at the high end beyond a certain point for the IQ tests commonly used in the U.S. For example, a ton more kids tested at the 150+ Full Scale IQ on the WISC than bell curve statistics would have predicted. I heard that there are other ways to tease out a reliable estimate and I was simply wondering what was used. You are correct. The data available at the high end of the curve is very sparse. This makes it difficult to tease out accurate normalized IQ scores. To see one way this is done, I recommend reading the following official report on the WISC IV extended norms and how they were derived: http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/assets/WISC-IV/WISCIV_TechReport_7.pdfThe standardized IQ tests in common use for gifted children were developed to be accurate in the center of the bell curve, so they could identify abnormal IQ. They weren't designed to differentiate those in the highly gifted population in any way, although they are frequently used for this purpose.
DS10 (DYS, homeschooled)
DD8 (DYS, homeschooled)
|
|
|
|
|
