DS9 has outgrouwned the Explore and I am planning on having him take the SAT next year. I don't have the Explore test scores back yet but he already had good scores last year and this year he indicated that the test was really easy except for the language section.

Anyhow, I had him take the three math sections of a practice test and he scored around 600. I imagined that he made some careless errors but mostly it was that he hadn't had real algebra or geometry (only elementary algebra/geometry and pre-algebra) and couldn't figure out how to do some of those problems within the time constraints ( a littel more than a minute a problem). However, he is scheduled to take Algebra next year in 5th grade so I imagine his score would go up next year.

I am looking at the SAT as a way to track his progress as well as to qualify for membership in SET (Study of Exceptional Talent), which requires a 700 score before age 13. Obviously, he has three more years to improve his score to 700. I am asking for opinions/expeiences on how likely his score would improve to 700 next year with and without prep. By prep, I don't mean a full-fledged course, but perhaps exposure to the topics and a few practice tests.

There have been studies, which I don't have the time to look up right now, that track how taking the test multiple times, taking prep courses, etc can effect the score. I would try to find them if I were you because I remember there being an odd effect where taking the test too many times could actually begin to cause a decrease in the score.

Our kids get limited if their only exposure is to the school's standard curriculum. I'd think making sure that topic coverage and range is complete makes sense (SAT does have some elementary geometry questions, too.)

Practice tests also make sense to me, particularly if he finds them fun. Helps to reduce some standard errors. Yesterday, in exploring apps with my DS who has a current obsession of finding the perfect math app on the iPad, I tried an SAT prep quiz. It had some area of triangles stuff. And I missed a question about the height of a ball after 4 bounces by forgetting to subtract the initial case in the calculation.

I've been looking into this as well for my DD12. The SAT math questions are not that difficult--meaning they are easier than math problems you'll see in those math competitions for kids. And the range of topics is quite limited compared to what you might expect. For example, there are no calculus problems.
Extrapolating from what you've said that he can already get 600 without studying or having had formal algebra study, I believe that targeted exposure to several topics in algebra 1 and 2, geometry, and trig would be likely to help his score go up over 700 within a year. If not, then certainly within 2 years.

But be very careful not to "teach to the SAT" because I found when I skipped through too much, it took the fun out of learning math, even though my DD could handle it. Now because she is older, I only teach her when she asks me to, and I make sure to give her a more well-rounded experience, and it works out fine because she gets her math "playtime" in before coming back to me to learn more.

Just for fun, I'll share with you our last topic that we discussed--how to multiply binomials. This came about because we were chatting about solving linear equations and coming to a lot of good conclusions, so I suggested we move on to thinking about how to solve a quadratic equation and compare the two types of equations to get more perspective.

I told her that in order to solve an arbitrary quadratic equation, she first needs to be able to factor trinomials of degree 2. She asked me how to do that and I said factoring is the opposite of multiplying, so first she should practice multiplying things that will give you trinomials of degree 2.

I remembered that her 4th grade teacher had taught them to multiply binomials (with numbers and no variables) and so I could connect it to that. She accepted it pretty readily that you could multiply 2 binomials and get something with 3 terms back, and then she seemed to lose interest so I stopped there, thinking that was plenty for one day.

Next time she asks me to teach her more about math, I will give her several different types of binomial multiplication problems and let her work through them and discover the patterns as she goes along.

Also, I take great care to read through the school's curriculum and try not to teach anything that will be taught in school, to prevent her from becoming extremely bored in school when the teacher starts teaching the same thing. Or if I do, I'll teach it in as different a way as I can think of. Very rarely have I had to teach her something that I knew would be taught in school.

I was going to start a thread, but this is similar enough I'll ask here.

My 7yo son (in 1st grade, but doing 4th grade Math) hasn't done any of these tests yet (and he'll first start with SCAT and EXPLORE when possible), but the JHU CTY SET Math SAT 700 is in our eventual sights. I also saw online a higher target http://www.tip.duke.edu/node/1347 (seventh graders earning a perfect score on one or more sections of the ACT or SAT) which is another tempting target.

My question is this. How prepared for the Math SAT (or ACT) are you after having completed each of the standard courses Prealgebra, Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra 2? (Is it true that no further courses are needed to cover the topics?) I'm not sure how to quantify that, but hopefully the question makes sense. I've never taken any American tests myself, but we live here now.

Is there something to be said for completing these courses first before attempting Math SAT/ACT? Or is it better to have a couple of attempts, say once a year, before that, as a warm-up and to see where you are? (He would complete the courses while still young enough to qualify for the awards.)

Have a look at some past tests, but the maths content of the SAT is truly paltry. For geometry I don't remember anything beyond "angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees" ever being required. As a repeated test of progress, it's surely worthless; it's a speed and accuracy test. If SET gives someone something they want, then sure; but tbh, it's a bit "do you want to be a member of a club for which that's the entry test?". Maybe 700 on the SAT once meant being exceptionally talented, but I don't believe it does now; it means being fast and accurate with easy questions, and don't they get enough of that in school?

ColinsMum, revealing her cynicism ;-)

ETA Here is a thread I made when my DS was 7 and this briefly seemed like a good idea.

According to http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/equivalence/sat-individual
a 700 on the current SAT math is equivalent to a 710 on the older SAT math. The College Board is saying that it has not become easier to get a 700.

I haven't looked at older SATs, but there's no inconsistency between the hypotheses:
a) High scores on SAT-M are as rare now as formerly;
b) High score on SAT-M is no longer as good an indicator of mathematical talent as it used to be.

You can make it hard to score high by it requiring insight or by it requiring speed; a shift from the former to the latter would allow both a and b to be true.

Thanks for this perspective, ColinsMum! The SAT seems like a perfectly servicable device for finding out who's got good fluency with mathematical thinking, for purposes of college admission. But for determining who's truly exceptional, not so much.

I suppose SET's reasoning is that they're looking for kids who reach this level of achievement extremely young, and are hoping that's a reasonable proxy for being able to go much much further in the ensuing years.

Bostonian, it's not a question of whether it's "easier" or "harder," as measured by the percentage of people who achieve a particular score. ColinsMum's point is about what is being measured.

Not sure the age of these, but I had found these sample questions:


They seem like they do require some thought and fluency.

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.

It's wonderful that you have that kind of relatinship with your DD. Unfortunately, DS rarely lets me teach him anything. However, he will accept an explanation of why something is wrong if I can manage to cough it up in 60 seconds or so.

You are absolutely correct that "teaching to the SAT" would skipped way too much essential background knowledge for higher math. That's part of the reasoning why I agreed with DS that he should repeat Pre-Algebra at school this year even though he was able to get 100% on the ALEKS Pre-algebra over 3-4 weeks in the summer.

Well, if a very bright kid without exceptionalities completes Algebra I and II and Geometry before taking the SAT, I imagine that he would likely get over 700. Even if he had documented exceptionalities, I believe that the College Board does grant extra time up to double time. At the time that I took the SAT in my junior year, I was already taking Calculus but I don't recall needing anything beyond Geometry.

I am not an academic so my perspective may be a tad different. I have found that in the professional context, the ability to quickly identify and solve a problem have come in handy many times. I believe that ability is tested when a very young child takes the SAT without the benefit of the presumed formal instructions.

My cynicism is probably greater than yours. One of the reasons why I am considering SET membership is to have one additional ammunition in my arsenal in case I need it for advocacy down the road. That was also the same reason why I had DS join DYS. It was nice to have that in my back pocket when I requested the last acceleration at the beginning of the school year.

I actually think that the current SAT is easier than it was 25-30 years ago. However, statistically it may be equally hard for a given student to get that 700. Of course, you also need to consider that the demographics of SAT takers have changed a lot. Being top 1% of "college prep" kids in the old days is not the same as being top 1% of the general school population today. I also think that extensive prep is so rampant now that a 700 today after substantial prepping does not equal the same 700 with minimal prepping from a quarter century ago.

Some of the math competition questions are really easy but you are correct that at least the difficult questions are more challenging and more indicative of math talent. However, I think that fluency is also a big factor for the AMC8. In any case, the math compentitions are not standardized and for someone like my DS, they are pretty much worthless as a measure of progress. I had DS take about a half dozen of the recent actual AMC8 tests and his scores fluctuate a lot.

DS is not anything close to a math genius. I agree that the SAT would not be a good measure of that in any case. I also tend to think that SET is also premised on the idea that if a kid can score 700 without all that formal instruction (Algebra I and II and Geomerty) that a college Junior is presumed to have had, then he might have some measure of talent.

As for the length of the test, it is grueling even with the breaks and downtime, but the actual test is well under 4 hours (70 minutes math, 70 minutes reading, and 60 minutes writing with a 20-25 minute expermental section thrown in).

Thanks. Those are very helpful anecdotes. Clearly, two to four years of additional math exposure made a huge difference. I would only consider prepping DS if he were to take the SAT within the next year or so. Alternatively, it may make more sense to have just him learn some algebra and geometry.

Thanks. Your experience confirms my gut feelings. Most of the test does look fairly easy when you have the algebra and geometry background. That's also an excellent point about unfamiliar terminology, which would not be an issue if you have taken the courses. I think that timing becomes more of an issue when you need to figure out a problem without the expected tools.

Yes, that's Dottie's point. If you have to score higher to reach the 99th percentile, that means more kids are attaining higher scores. Which means the test is easier. Think of it as "an 800 ain't what it used to be."

To answer the general question in this thread, part of the standardized conditions for administration of the SAT or ACT is that each test-taker receives a full sample test when registering for the test, so that each test-taker can in principle prepare in the same way by working through the sample test with actual test-taking time limits. That's ONE sample test. Not doing that is to be a chump. I know a human intelligence researcher who argues that testing under that kind of condition, in which item content and format is disclosed to all test-takers, is actually a better test of intelligence than attempting to surprise all test-takers with items that may in fact be innocently familiar to some test-takers from their home environment (as is done with what are labeled IQ tests). In terms of construct validity, IQ tests are largely indistinguishable from the SAT or ACT, as has been argued in several peer-reviewed papers published in the journal Intelligence and other journals.

Taking SAT scores as an informative correlate (proxy) of what psychologists call "general intelligence" is a procedure often found in the professional literature of psychology, with the warrant of studies specifically on that issue. Note that it is standard usage among psychologists to treat "general intelligence" as a term that basically equates with "scoring well on IQ tests and good proxies of IQ tests."

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/koening2008.pdf

"Frey and Detterman (2004) showed that the SAT was correlated with measures of general intelligence .82 (.87 when corrected for nonlinearity)"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144549/

"Indeed, research suggests that SAT scores load highly on the first principal factor of a factor analysis of cognitive measures; a finding that strongly suggests that the SAT is g loaded (Frey & Detterman, 2004)."

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...tter/the-sat-is-a-good-intelligence-test

"Furthermore, the SAT is largely a measure of general intelligence. Scores on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on standardized tests of intelligence, and like IQ scores, are stable across time and not easily increased through training, coaching or practice."

http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/p...sion_The_role_of_numeracy_in_J_and_D.pdf

"Numeracy’s effects can be examined when controlling for other proxies of general intelligence (e.g., SAT scores; Stanovich & West, 2008)."

As I have heard the issue discussed in the local "journal club" I participate in with professors and graduate students of psychology who focus on human behavioral genetics (including the genetics of IQ), one thing that makes the SAT a very good proxy of general intelligence is that its item content is disclosed (in released previous tests that can be used as practice tests), so that almost the only difference between one test-taker and another in performance on the SAT is generally and consistently getting all of the various items correct, which certainly takes cognitive strengths.

By contrast (I have another Gifted Issues thread in mind as I type this), the expectation of IQ test norming is that the item content of the test will be a surprise to the test-taker. Yes, there are definitely examples in various places (not just New York City in the United States) where children can become familiar with the test items either through formal prep courses or through playing various kinds of games. Of course, a vocabulary subtest is a part of almost all IQ batteries, and some children will have life experience of using the vocabulary that happens to be sampled on a particular test and some will not. Mental arithmetic items are part of some IQ tests, and those will also reflect how well a child has been taught arithmetic.

my DS took the SAT last year after he taught himself high school math. first in November without prep(only read the small booklet collegeboard sent us to get the idea what the test format is), then read the collegeboard prep materials(skill insight, a couple prep exams), but his December score only went up 40 points. so from our experience, prep does not make too much difference. maybe extensive one or years of school math matters

Just got reply from Davidson. They want IQ score. I am wondering which IQ test is a better gauge of his true ability. His primary language is not English. He is 8 and in 2nd grade. So if a test involves too much western social knowledge, that might adversely affect him. He is really good at understanding difficult concepts, but not particularly good at following steps. Has a broad interest, no observed social issues. He is good at math. Got 660 in SAT math, but I don't see him a future mathematician. He is more interested in music(want to be a composer) or geography, history(want to be a professor in a good college) than in math. Can anyone suggest a suitable IQ test? and where to take these tests?

Thanks for the great references. I believe that SAT scores can and do increase through training, coachinng and practice. It's a big business. At one time, I considered teaching SAT and LSAT courses part-time so did a bit of research. That is not to say that I would want to coach DS specifically to get a high score.

That is impressive. I think it is more beneficial to actually learn the math behind the SAT questions, which would presumably take more than a month.

Congratualations! That is an impressive score for an 8-year-old. DYS only accepts a few IQ tests so look under the qualifications section, then google to get a better sense. I am guessing here, but perhaps DYS may have gotten the impression that he is only strong in math. Perhaps his SAT verbal score was low because he did not focus his energy on it and/or the portfolio did not suggest advance verbal abilities? Even if his primary language is not English, might he not do well on verbal tests given his interest in geography and history? There will likely be a cultural disadvantage but he should still do well. From the limited amount that I know, the SB-V may be more suitable than the WISC-IV given his mathematical abilities.

you are right. the portfolio only focused on math as I don't know how to present a portfolio showing him reading 2~3 grade level above history/geography materials. but I did include award certificates of a few state level piano competitions. He is also good at chess and go game, play a few team sports at recreation level as he is not tall for his age.

Quantum2003, if you click Quote instead of just Reply it's easier to see what you're talking about.

Seriously? Wow, that's what I got and I've never considered myself very good at math. Although an acquaintance of mine who's an aerospace engineer once mentioned her score and it was about 100 points lower which made me go .

DS (5th grader) never took the tests, but his friends on AoPS told him that SAT/ACT math was extremely easy compared to the middle school math competitions such as CML, AMC8, AMC10, and mathcounts. While DS took those contests in the last two years, so he is not afraid of "hard" tests. Last week, he challenge himself with the ACT online test without any prep and no knowledge of geometry and trig (he is in an Algebra 1 class).
He scored Math+Reading+English+Science = 35+29+24+24. Composite score was 28. His math score was converted to SAT 780 with only two careless mistakes.

Your DS sounds really talented in math and should be a good DYS candidate. Short of one of the accepted IQ tests, do you have other test scores that would support extreme high intelligence? That may make a difference if there are multiple sources of confirmation of intelligenece and achievement. Again, just my two cents, but I don't think reading 2-3 grade levels ahead will impress anyone, particularly given his current age. If you get an opportunity to supplement your portfolio, what you should provide is written output in his own handwriting without any editing or scaffolding by you. For example, can he write the next chapter for a well-regarded classic novel that is 2-3 grade level above? Of course, it is not expected to be "great," but it can demonstrate how well he internalized and applied the themes and conventions to his own writing. Regarding an interest in history, focus on what he can do with the imformation rather than the fact that he can read it. In answer to one of the questions on DS' application, I illustrated his interest/ability in history/government at age 7 by describing how well he was able to speedily applied the Constitutional Amendments to factual scenarios in an educational program designed to teach high school students the Amendments. I don't rememeber where I read it, but Davisons is not looking for art, music or athletic abilities. I also don't believe ability to play chess or go will help him on admissions.

Thanks W'sMama. I can acted technologically challenged at times!

I never took the ACT, only the SAT. In the old days, I was told that ACT was move "achievement" oriented whereas SAT was more "ability" oriented. I was never exactly sure what that meant. Now that you mention it, the ACT would be a better way to track DS' progress since it is in the same format as the Explore so you can easily see the "growth". I was/am leaning towards the SAT only because SET only accpets the SAT and because that is the only test with which I am familiar. Are you planning on having your DS take the actual ACT at some point?