<p>QUOTE:
"The problem is that standardized tests measure a very superficial type of knowledge and skill set. I understand why colleges that are flooded with thousands of applications each year use those tests as a short-cut way to assess the strength of their applicants --- but it dismays me to see people on boards like this equating scores with intellectual ability -- or to be so accepting of the validity of the test."</p>
<p>calmom, we could have used yours & other voices on the Admissions thread with the one-note lyric about the SAT laughably being "an IQ test." (Right.) (i.e., the thread about the Harvard admit & the ensuing outrage --the old song-and-dance -- about non-perfect scorers being "less qualified," etc.) Nothing new, just more irritating than usual because of the mythical claims about HYP being "nonacademic," the intolerance for imperfection, the rejection of all subjective factors (as if that's possible for human beings judging other human beings), & the manifold ignorance of the way admissions works & what is & is not important.</p>
<p>Well, this whole thread is all speculation anyway. We don't actually know anything about the school and how rigorous it is except for some vague statements from the OP....it could be very rigorous, or it could not. A 4.05 GPA could be a very high GPA at this school, or it could be more moderately high. The OP's daughter could be highly intelligent and a poor tester, or she could be a grind who is testing closer to her level than her grades would indicate. </p>
<p>I acknowledge the reality that the poor tester exists...but that doesn't mean that I can't also acknowledge the fact that these other cases exist as well. I stand by my statement--that I wonder whether there are really as many poor tester cases as it would seem from what people say. It is an honest question! I would like to know! It would influence my opinion of the SAT. </p>
<p>Practically, however, I don't see anyway to get rid of the SAT on a large scale (and not because I couldn't have been admitted on the strength of my academics, class rank, recommendations, and essays--I believe that all of these backed up my high scores), and I don't see a better way to do things. Sure, smaller schools have been able to spurn the SAT with little issue, but I don't see a way to translate that into a large scale operation to process thousands of applications.</p>
<p>Oh bleck, yuck, I'm kinda with Advantagious on this one. Have the OP's child take the ACTs and the SATs again. If the kid continue to score just above the median, then find an appropriate college, college acceptances are all about a combination of factors so who is to say where this child of the poster will end up. It could be a top 10 school or not. As a parent of a now graduated senior I've grown weary of the why, why , why syndrome. Bottom line....as many have said here, find a college appropriate and fitting for the OPs child. There are many to choose from. Quite frankly the non-Ivy league friends of mine have done "better" if you judge life by your brokerage account. When I look at my husband's and my close circle of friends we have prep schooll grads and not prep school grades, Ivy leage grads, top 10 LAC grads, the "new" Ivy's and public school grads...it has so little bearing on future success that fortunately it has released me from the shackles that bind so many. Interesting or maybe not, that the OP has long disappeared from this chain of comments. Blame everything on poor test taking or blame the disparity on whatever rocks your boat....we're talking to ourselves folks.</p>
<p>advantagious, I appreciate your usual thoughtful posts, as this one. I don't have objections to standardized measurements in general, including tests, but I think it's important to recognize that some tests may measure college potential better than other tests. And many of the country's top Universities are ambivalent about the SAT in particular, as an indicator. Since there is no immediate replacement in sight, I agree that they will continue to use it until such a time. But replacements are possible, as are cross-checks against those tests (such as the supporting factors in your own application, as you just indicated, but additional factors not yet included, which some of us have mentioned).</p>
<p>The Elites have discovered that the carry-over for college potential is strongest for the first year (there will be outliers in that; that's a generalization), but falls off after that. The problem is that the variability and the lack of correlation (with the supporting factors) is so high that the SAT is not reliable as a stand-alone qualifer OR eliminator, & that is precisely why SAT is always contextualized. (One of the tests of the reliability of a measurement is its consistency.) SAT data is highly inconsistent when measured against 4-yr college performance. That is, high-scorers in one area of the SAT can nevertheless perform equally well (often) in the area they tested less well in; the high-score area similarly does not always equate to parallel excellent performance in college; one finds "low"-scoring students (a cautious descriptor if ever there was one) who perform exquisitely in college, and the reverse: 2400's (or 1600's previously) who grossly underperform in college.</p>
<p>Well, maybe I can offer a tiny bit of context. My D is a junior and she also scored a 24 on her ACT this Feb., which translates to about the 75% nationwide and 70% in California. She also attends an excellent public magnet high school, which is ranked within the top 20 schools in the state, according to the state's API index (a state standardized test score index). She has a weighted 3.6 gpa and is ranked just above 50% in her class. She is a B student and this ACT score did not surprise us at all. She is comfortable with standardized tests, but not talented at them the way her older brother is (1550 SAT and a couple of 800 SATIIs). She is going to retake it in the fall, after some study, and we are hoping she scores a few points higher. (By the way, I consider her a semi-hard worker, but not a serious student. She does enjoy her social life quite a bit!) Even though competition for her class (the peak of the Baby Bounce boomlet according to Census figures) we are not sweating it, maybe because this is the second time around and we've learned that a good fit is what really matters.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree with post 29. Not a single test or final exam I ever took in undergraduate or graduate school was even vaguely like the SAT I, not in format, not in timing, and <em>certainly</em> not in the bizarre alternation between subject areas within short succession. No respected professor would ever have been interested in mimicking any aspect of the SAT in his or her own area. And as for the SAT II's, my University exams were a lot more demanding than those: in scope of knowledge, in application of knowledge, in expression of knowledge. (I realize SAT II's are newish, but I'm well acquainted with their content.) </p>
<p>I did well on the SAT's, but that is neither here nor there. I found them, and find them, irrelevant to college work. I agree with the poster who said that in 10 years we will look back in amazement at the amount of energy that (had) been spent on this exercise, not to mention money, preparation, marketing. The people so interested in staking claims to "qualification" based on SAT scores are i.m.o. representing a last desperate gasp to find something they can control in admissions, if this is an area in which they believe they excel. </p>
<p>And just btw, the students in my highly rigorous private h.s. who were 92's or below, but had near-perfect SAT's <em>all</em> performed less spectacularly in college than the 99's with 700 (or below) SAT's. I know because I followed these people (LOL, not stalking: we met up often, and have since then, through alumni events, etc., and we're all good friends). Some of them attended the same U I did, and admitted to difficulty with the conceptualization that came more easily for those who succeeded at an advanced level in the h.s. course work. Just anecdotal, obviously, but the pattern was consistent. The classroom is where the rubber meets the road. And that's why colleges look more closely at the h.s. record & value it more highly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I stand by my statement--that I wonder whether there are really as many poor tester cases as it would seem from what people say. It is an honest question! I would like to know! It would influence my opinion of the SAT.
[/quote]
I think if you researched the SAT in depth, as the UC Regents did a few years ago, you would find that it is very inconsistent and that there are major problems with the predictive validity.</p>
<p>Whenever there is a mismatch between SAT scores and actual academic performance, with the academic performance being significantly higher, then you know that the test is not a valid indicator of potential. It really doesn't matter what the percentages are. If it is only 2% of test-takers, the instrument would still lack validity for that 2%. </p>
<p>Look at it this way: suppose you had a serious illness --say TB -and there was an antibiotic treatment that cured 90% of the people who took it. But there were some people who had strains of the infection that did not respond to the antibiotic. Would you simply deny that those people could possibly be sick? They took their medicine, they must be cured, even though their symptoms tell you otherwise? Or would you be open to the idea of alternative treatments whenever there was a clear indication that the person was not responding to the standard treatment? </p>
<p>The OP never said she was looking for Ivy league colleges for her daughter. There were some snide comments along the way about the daughter's capabilities -- a conclusion by many posters that her test scores were that low then either there was something wrong with the kid's high school (grade inflation, lack of rigorous grading standards, etc.) -- or there was something wrong with the kid (cheating, or a grind of a student whose endless drudgery somehow caused her to consistently perform far above her abilities).</p>
<p>I honestly don't understand why it is that people think test scores are valid for kids who prep extensively for standardized exams and retake them again and again.... but a sustained level of high performance over 4 years of high school must somehow be suspect if the test scores aren't really high.</p>
<p>The fact is (OP aside, since I don't know her, her D or her school) there IS grade inflation, and an "A is an A" is a fallacy. Comparing high schools is comparing apples and oranges, since that A in one school may be a B or less at another. There are kids with 4.0 averages at one school who may have been 3.0 GPA kids elsewhere. Curriculums, teaching styles and grading aren't even vaguely consistent within states, much less across state lines.</p>
<p>The fact is that there are kids who are not just "poor test takers" but simply do not have the aptitude to score well on the SAT. I don't see why it is such a crime to state this. Calmom and OP, perhaps your Ds were simply poor test takers, but I see loads of kids who study themselves blind, at the cost of thousands of dollars, to try to up their scores, and the fact is that they don't have the intellectual capacity to do any better than average, even if they had low A, high B averages in high school. No amount of study or money changes this fact.</p>
<p>Now, in all these cases, the kids went to college anyway, and most did fine. They ended up at less competitive schools, and these were good choices. </p>
<p>I don't think the SAT is a perfect test, not by a long shot. However, I do think that low test scores FOR SOME KIDS are predictive of overall intelligence and capacity for work at certain colleges. And yes, some kids are hard working drudges who persevere and do well, despite their low scores, and some high scorers don't work as hard. These are givens. </p>
<p>But I always think it is funny that people are so quick to try to do away with intellectual differences, and blame them on bad tests, fewer experiences, etc. There simply ARE intellectual differences. So what?</p>
<p>(PS, I have no dog in this fight, since my kid is applying to conservatories, which could care less about his scores. I am more about finding a good fit, and that includes an intellectual fit.)</p>
<p>I am a high scorer on tests. So is my son. We are both very smart. My daughter is just as smart as we are, but she tends to process things in a very different way. On Myers Brigg she is the opposite end of the scale -- my son and I are INTP, she's ESFJ. </p>
<p>An important starting point: 83% of National Merit Finalists are "N's" (Intuitive vs. Sensing). So right there you can see why it is that my son and I do so much better on the test than my daughter. (The majority of college students are "S - Sensing" - making the strong showing of N's in the high-test category even more significant). </p>
<p>Then you have the P vs. J part (Perceptive vs. Judging). My son & I are P's, and just like the article says, we "start many tasks, want to know everything about each task, and often find it difficult to complete a task. Deadlines are meant to be stretched." My son came pretty darn close to flunking out of college. </p>
<p>So why does my Judging daughter with the lousy test scores have straight A's at an Ivy-affiliated college? Maybe it has something to do with these habits: "Judging people are decisive, planful and self-regimented. They focus on completing the task, only want to know the essentials, and take action quickly .... They plan their work and work their plan. Deadlines are sacred." </p>
<p>Anyway, the point is that smart kids don't necessarily test well. Maybe colleges would do better to develop different forms of assessment for different types of learners.</p>
<p>Calmom, thank you for the article link. I haven't done the Myers Brigg in a long time but believe I was INTJ. Anyway, your article contained interesting insights that I hadn't heard before.</p>
<p>Calmom, are you MBTI qualified or certified?</p>
<p>The data you post linking the success of NT's with SAT scores is OLD - it utilizes information from the old SAT. At that time, the SAT did "favor" NT's - but, only when comparing all test takers - the majority of whom were "unprepped". There have been other studies that more deeply address this topic. N's were naturally better at the analogies section. However, among "studied" or "prepped" students, sensors actually did better at the analogies - their type allows them to focus on the "details" - and they can store vast amount of details - like vocabulary words. But, that section is no longer on the SAT. </p>
<p>Similarly, the "critical reading" essays are much more likely to favor Feelers. Ask anyone whose done an analysis of topics from such reading and they will say that the new SAT is much more likely to feature excerpts concerning "emotional topics", "coming of age experiences", and "social justice" articles. Feelers typically to better with these topics. There are few articles from more objective science journals or texts. </p>
<p>Similarly, J's are much more likely to "prepare" or "study" for SAT's than P's. </p>
<p>Among studies where MBTI and IQ were compared with SAT scores - unprepped SAT scores were more highly correlated with IQ scores than personality type. Now, I acknowledge, there has always been a question of what defines IQ - but that is obviously a topic for another thread.</p>
<p>As to the issue of why your low SAT scoring daughter has high grades - that would depend on many factors, her school, her major, her courseload, her work ethics, etc. But, most would agree - that her J is one of the most important factors in "high grades".</p>
<p>However, here's the double edged sword of personality - while J's are typically the "most accomplished" they are also typically the least "inquiring". That's the P/J tradeoff - J's want the "job done". P's want to learn more - at the cost of closure.</p>
<p>See, Perciever is used to describe those whose preference is perceiving - (sensing or intuitive). There was once a time when this was the preferred mode of academics - the great ponderers. But, that was before the academic setting became focused on patents, publishing, etc. </p>
<p>Judgers, especially sensors, generally leave college after their undergrad and/or MBA. They are eager to get out in the world and begin doing. They are not energized by "the life of the mind" - in fact, they often ridicule those who "research and teach" - they are the ones who created the slogan - "those who can do, those who can't teach".</p>
<p>To continue the above, there is a need for all types in the quest for knowledge - but each play different roles. For example, our current knowledge of astrophysics required the person (probably dominant sensor) willing to painstakingly chart the position of the stars night after night for years. For him to do this, it required someone who "tinkered" and built telescopes (probably dominant thinker who love to work with his hands) and finally it took the person who studied all this data and put it together (probaby dominant N) into the theories we now all learn. </p>
<p>No one type is better than another. What is important is finding the best educational environment for one's type. The engineering school with a more applied focus may be better for some types where the deeply theoretical program may be better for others. </p>
<p>Socratic dialog may be the best environment for some learners, great texts and time to read for others, and so on.</p>
<p>My D is fresh off the SAT from yesterday and I'd like to add these observations:</p>
<p>In our small, rural district it is very rare for students to take any of the standardized testing until Junior year other than the PLAN (practice ACT) and sometimes the PSAT (practice SAT). Our state testing gives you all the time you need, so many students have time issues because they are not used to the timed test environment. After you've taken the timed testing most kids get a better handle on this.</p>
<p>Most of the kids in our area do not have the money for the prep materials--even just the software or books, not to mention the classes--and there is no prep work done in school. They also do not own graphing calculators. The school loans them out during the school year, but if you take a June test after they've been turned in you are out of luck as far as borrowing goes. Ditto if you are not in a class where they are assigned during the school year--everyone must turn them in during the week of the PSAT to have enough to go around.</p>
<p>Then of course there is the rigor of the classes and experiential knowledge--we have fewer AP level classes and there are many students who do not have home computers, have not traveled, who have parents that have minimal education etc...</p>
<p>This is not to say any of these obstacles are insurmountable and there are some students that can still receive a decent score, however I do feel these things contribute to the lower scores you see at our school. We might have one or two commended every year, and a NMF or NMSF about every two to three years.</p>
<p>But this goes back to seeking out a college or university that can look at your application holistically. If scores aren't your strong suit, then don't weight your applications towards schools that need to use the SAT/ACT cut offs.</p>
<p>I'm responsive to several posts here , but I think I am pretty far OT from the OP and for that I apologize. But I'm going to post it anyway. LOL. </p>
<p>
<p>Judgers, especially sensors, generally leave college after their undergrad and/or MBA. They are eager to get out in the world and begin doing. They are not energized by "the life of the mind" - in fact, they often ridicule those who "research and teach" - they are the ones who created the slogan - "those who can do, those who can't teach".
Jack, I am not being critical but I did want to point out that there are several times on cc , and here is another one, that "life of the mind" kids are pigeonholed into one category or another. As if "life of the mind" or its close neighbor "intellectual" automatically prohibits membership by those that also strive to be the best at what they do. That somehow being goal oriented is automatically at odds with "pondering the great questions". That being career or professional school oriented is oil to the intellectual's water. that it is an "either or" choice and "both" is not an allowed answer. I know some on cc believe this to be true and many , many arguments, if we were honest with ourselves, come down to these beliefs (or similar). Value of Valedictorian (ranking) . SAT over GPA. For two easy ones. ;) </p>
<p>There seems to be some amount of judging going on in the way you describe these types in the highlighted quote. I believe you are precise enough in your writing to have intended that result. ;) It seems clear which you value more.</p>
<p>I am not picking at it, or you, or anybody else. I just have never understood it. I am trying to be respectful of differing opinions and nobody should equate me with Keillor's lake people either. LOL. I am sincere about trying to find out why some believe that a hard-worker has always got to be a grinder. Can't a person of superior intelligence be a hardworker, too? And I don't care about generalized stats because all the kids we are discussing, well - they ARE at the top of the ladder in intelligence, even as that is measured crudely by the GPA or SAT. calmom's kid had a fantastic score on the SAT compared to the national average . Someone's else kid with a 1590, who was ranked #23 out of 200 , was an exceptional honor roll student . I just don't see why some people at the upper limits of our ability to test can't combine large elements of each within their personality. </p>
<p>Additionally, I think it is possible that some kids have a different "personality " in different settings . In an environment where future outcome (promotion, standing, honors, admission) is determined by work at that time the student focuses with laservision on that goal . While at other times the same student is like a butterfly floating from flower to flower and pondering the great questions. </p>
<p>Some would say it was the difference between work and life. That some students view the pursuit of knowledge as their job while others view it as their oxygen. It is my posit that a student can and sometimes does have both. </p>
<p>I know attorneys who can get absolutely lost in philosophical circles while, when need be, they can show their mastery of the very practical Rules of Procedure in a courtroom battle with real winners and losers. Love to study in silence and alone , and in the ancient tongue, writings on pottery or papyrus while still working diligently to get their AV rating as a lawyer from M-H and their Board Certification in Estate Planning and Probate.</p>
<p>In my experience , these people exist but to some on cc their existance would upset the apple cart. And I don't see why that has to be. Any thoughts anyone? And remember we are playing nice.;) </p>
<p>I have met some of these people and they are truly impressive.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, I believe you were directing your questions to me not jack.</p>
<p>The entire topic of personality type, which the MBTI attempts to help one to define, is based on an individual's preferences. That's it - the topic shouldn't threaten anyone - it's only about helping individual's identify their preferences. And, everyone does have preferences - with the right questions and examples most people recognize theirs. And, I might add, only the individual truly nows his/her own preferences. </p>
<p>Being a perceiver, does not preclude one from attaining success - being the valedictorian, Nobel prize winner, etc. Nor does being a judger preclude one from the search for knowledge. I never said it did - perhaps your preferences influenced your reading of the above. </p>
<p>However, judgers are much more interested in closure - deadlines, etc. - than perceivers. They are willing to limit or cut off the research, rainstorming, questioning, etc. in order to meet such deadlines. Perceivers are much more willing to "take the hit" on missing a deadline in order to more completely understand a topic. </p>
<p>Perceivers may be planners extraordinaire, but it is the judgers who stick to the plan and get the job done. I'm talking "internal" modes of operation here. The judgers manage themselves, perceivers are more likely to need "reminders" and external management.</p>
<p>If a dominant perceiver and dominant judger work together on a project - THEY will see the difference! If a dominant judger and dominant perceiver get married, trust me, they will definitely notice the difference. If the two are extraverts - everyone will notice the difference <grin>.</grin></p>
<p>Obviously, on a brief post to a listserve, there is not sufficient time to completely explain the Jung's theory. But, for your daughter, who I believe is headed to medical school, she would really benefit from identifying her preferences. There has probably been more research done on MBTI and physicians, medical students, medical school applicants, etc. than any other group of people. Their choice of medical specialty, their success in various clinical rotations, their approach to board finals, etc. are all related to their "type". One's preferences also has have a definite impact on the selection of one's specialty and one's satisfaction with style of practice/research.</p>
<p>Oh, I'm not threatened. I've never sat for one . I'm afraid the examiner would quit in frustration and disgust. ;) (I'd probably ask for more complete information on the circumstances before I'd answer any question on what my preference would be. LOL. )</p>
<p>Has any study been done that I can have access to that speaks to my question/topic/posit/rambling here:
[quote]
** Additionally, I think it is possible that some kids have a different "preference" or "personality " in different settings .** In an environment where future outcome (promotion, standing, honors, admission) is determined by work at that time the student focuses with laservision on that goal . While at other times the same student is like a butterfly floating from flower to flower and pondering the great questions. </p>
<p>Some would say it was the difference between work and life. That some students view the pursuit of knowledge as their job while others view it as their oxygen. It is my posit that a student can and sometimes does have both. </p>
<p>I know attorneys who can get absolutely lost in philosophical circles while, when need be, they can show their mastery of the very practical Rules of Procedure in a courtroom battle with real winners and losers. Love to study in silence and alone , and in the ancient tongue, writings on pottery or papyrus while still working diligently to get their AV rating as a lawyer from M-H and their Board Certification in Estate Planning and Probate.
Sorry for the possible (probable?) misuse of terms. I'm sure they are "words of art" that I have mangled.</p>
<p>How ironic that Meyer-Briggs came up because I was wondering myself if anyone had ever studied personality types relative to the types of things that are being discussed here. I am an INTJ and have always wondered what S1 is because I do think it impacts how kids approach the whole high school process and it must affect to some degree how they also tackle and approach standardized tests, the shear difference in the ACT where you are not "punished" for guessing vs. the SAT where you have to make very thoughtful decisions about to guess or not.</p>
<p>Cur, your post doesn't apply to personality type or one's preferences - except to illustrate a lack of understanding of the topic. One's "true" preferences do not change based on environment or working conditions. </p>
<p>That does not mean that one cannot "harness" one's preferences or exert self-discipline when the need arises. It just means that one will be happier, more fulfilled, more energized, etc. when there is match between type and work. I am no longer naive enough to believe that there is such a thing as a "perfect match" - but I certainly believe in trying for a near match. </p>
<p>Those who live their lives in conflict with their preferences are much more likely to suffer from depression and other medical issues which result from having to "falsify type" on a daily basis. </p>
<p>I've met attorneys who specialized in patent law who absolutely hated their jobs until they took a leave of absence to raise their children. Through volunteer work, they became involved in family law and child advocacy and suddenly the practice of law had meaning and life. </p>
<p>I've seen physicians who were exhausted and depressed by their "elite" research appointments but came alive on their "doctor's without borders" vacations - so much that they went into private practice on an indian reservation and became new people. I've also seen the opposite, physicians burdened by dealing with patients deciding to take administrative positions - with insurance companies no less - and finding fulfillment managing practices - they often say they should have gone to business school rather than medical school.</p>
<p>The important thing is finding/understanding your preferences. I think that is what we all want for our kids. But, too often, we don't understand the very real differences in personality type - it's particularly difficult for parents who are completely different from their children.</p>
<p>and it must affect to some degree how they also tackle and approach standardized tests, the shear difference in the ACT where you are not "punished" for guessing vs. the SAT where you have to make very thoughtful decisions about to guess or not.</p>
<p>^^^^ are their any studies on this?^^^^^^^</p>
<p>(This harkens back to a a post I made several years ago now, that my D's GC had a game she'd play where she would predict -to herself- which test a student would perform better on if they took both. She said that she had a remarkably high percentage of correct "guesses". I questioned at the time , was it merely a guess or was she picking up on something.</p>