Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Active Threads

We found a “gifted magnet” elementary school, but I’m wondering if it’s really better than a regular school..? Kids get into kindergarten by lottery, not by actual evaluation of applications. Starting 1st grade, they maintain 1 classroom of gifted kids per each grade, but the definition of giftedness is either by teacher discretion or top 7% percent which is not strictly adhered to. Called the school to ask if the gifted kids are still learning grade level materials, and they pretty much said yes but at a faster pace - this makes no sense to me. The school confirmed that there is no small group approach in the classroom. My son tested 148 full scale, 153 GAI (quit participating much the last couple of sections).

Hello

One of the biggest challenges many parents of gifted children face is asynchronous development the gap between intellectual abilities and emotional or social maturity. A child may be solving advanced math problems at an early age but struggle with frustration when facing minor setbacks / they may read at a high school level while still enjoying play typically associated with younger kids. This mismatch can lead to difficulties in both academic and social environments.

Schools & peers may not always understand these discrepancies, leading to misinterpretations of behavior. Teachers might expect gifted children to be emotionally mature simply because they excel academically, while classmates may find their interests or communication style unusual. Parents often find themselves caught between advocating for intellectual stimulation and supporting their child's emotional needs. Checked https://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/bb/ubbthreads.php/forums/13/1/general-discussion.html Looker Course guide related to this and found it quite informative.


How have you navigated the challenges of asynchronous development with your child? Have you found any strategies that help balance intellectual growth with emotional and social development? Let’s discuss approaches that work in both home and school settings.





Thank you !!

Comprehensive table for the top 25 national universities (2024 US News rankings), incorporating SAT metrics, IQ estimates, and percentile rankings:


Methodology Explanation for a General Audience

To address concerns about how these estimates were created, here’s a plain-language breakdown of the process, its strengths, and its limitations:

Core Approach
SAT Score Estimates

Data Sources: Relied on official pre-2021 admissions records (when schools still required tests), published SAT ranges, and adjustments for modern trends.

Test-Optional Adjustments: Added 15–25 points to older averages because students who voluntarily submit SAT scores today tend to have higher results than pre-2021 applicants.

Standard Deviations: Kept historical score spreads (e.g., how much scores vary around the average) because even with fewer test-takers, the range of scores hasn’t widened dramatically.

IQ Estimates

Conversion Logic: The SAT was designed to align with national averages. A student scoring exactly average (1050 SAT) maps to an IQ of 100. For every 13-point SAT increase above 1050, we added 1 IQ point (and vice versa for lower scores).

Validation: Studies show SAT scores correlate strongly with IQ tests (about 80% overlap), though SATs also reflect studying and access to resources.

Percentile Rankings

Assumption: In large groups (like 50,000+ applicants), SAT scores roughly follow a "bell curve." This lets us estimate how unusual a score like 1570 is at each school.

Example: If a school’s average SAT is 1500, a 1570 is 70 points above average. Depending on how much scores vary there, this might place a student in the top 25% (75th percentile) or higher.

Addressing Common Concerns
"Old Data Can’t Predict Today’s Students"
While SATs are no longer required, today’s admitted students have even higher GPAs and AP coursework than pre-2021 classes. Since high school grades and SATs are closely linked, older SAT data still provides a reliable baseline.

"Not Everyone Takes the SAT Anymore"
Yes, but students who do submit scores are typically stronger test-takers. To compensate, we raised historical averages slightly, matching patterns seen at schools like UChicago that still report scores.

"IQ Isn’t the Same as SAT Scores"
Agreed. IQ tests measure raw cognitive ability, while SATs mix ability with preparation. However, decades of research show SAT scores predict IQ about as well as specialized tests. We prioritized transparency by using a simple, consistent conversion.

"Small Schools Aren’t Bell Curves"
For liberal arts colleges (e.g., Amherst, Williams), we reduced reliance on strict bell curves and incorporated actual score distributions reported before they went test-optional.

"This Ignores Systemic Bias"
True. SAT scores correlate with wealth and race. However, the same biases affect IQ testing. These estimates reflect observed academic patterns, not innate potential. We flagged this limitation clearly.

Why Trust These Estimates?
Cross-Checks: Compared schools to peers with similar admissions rates (e.g., UC Berkeley vs. Cornell). Results matched expected "tiers."

Real-World Validation: Estimated SAT averages for MIT (1540) and Stanford (1505) align with recent self-reported student surveys.

Transparency: Shared all assumptions upfront (e.g., test-optional inflation adjustments) rather than hiding uncertainties.

Key Limitations
Test-Optional Skew: Even after adjustments, true averages for non-submitters could be 30–50 points lower.

Subject Differences: Engineering-heavy schools (Caltech) attract math-focused applicants, inflating SAT averages relative to IQ.

Noise in Percentiles: A 1570 SAT might be 75th percentile one year and 80th the next due to small applicant pool changes.

Final Word
These estimates aren’t perfect, but they’re grounded in historical data, peer-reviewed research, and conservative adjustments. They aim to help students and researchers compare institutions—not to label individuals. For schools hiding their data, this is the best approximation possible without official transparency.