<p>Sorry to be such a blowhard. I want to try to take a similar look at the percentage of applicants with even a SINGLE subtest in the 99th percentile. This, too, should be quite low for any given grade at any given school, especially a single-sex school. Here’s why: </p>
<p>Suppose 45,000 kids take the test. And suppose the “99th” percentile on a subtest is really achieved by those who score in the top 1.499% on that subtest. And further suppose (as an intentional exaggeration to make a point) that anyone who achieves the 99th on a subtest only does so on ONE subtest, so that 45,000 x .01499 x 4 = the # of kids with a subscore in the 99th. That leaves us with 2,698 kids nationally (across all grades) with a 99 on a subtest. If 2/3 of those kids are male (another intentional exaggeration), and 1/2 of those are in 6th grade (ditto on the exaggeration), then there are 899 6th-grade boys nationally with a subscore in the 99th. If 20% live in Boston (ditto), and 90% of those apply to Roxbury Latin (ditto), then 162 apply to that school with a 99. </p>
<p>But of course I have grossly exaggerated the numbers at every step. Some percentage of kids with a 99 have more than one 99; fewer than 2/3 of those with at least one 99 are male; fewer than 1/2 of ISEE takers are in 6th grade; fewer than 20% of high scorers live in Boston; and fewer than 90% of those apply to Roxbury Latin (or any particular school). If 7,000 6th-graders take the ISEE, at most 420 get a 99 on one subtest (using the 1.499% heuristic), but really fewer do because some kids get more than one 99. Of those 420, perhaps 210 are male. Of those, a realistically tiny number (maybe 15 or fewer?) live in Boston and apply to any given school (maybe 10 or fewer?). If 15,000 6th-graders take the ISEE, the final number with a single 99 who are also male, living in Boston, and applying to a given school rises to only about 24, and that still assumes no more than one 99 per kid, a generous interpretation of 99, and a (possibly) generous % of test-takers (7%) in Boston.</p>
<p>I agree that it’s an exaggeration to say applicants with 99% ISEE or SSAT are turned down “all the time”. I can imagine that they may turn down someone who has invested heavily in the test (time, money, tutoring, etc.) and manages to get a 99% in the standardized tests but have lousy grades, which I don’t think can happen “all the time”. If the 99% ISEE/SSAT scorers have good grades too, they should be quite competitive. Then of course, academic qualifications don’t always get one in, but I am doubtful about the notion that standardized tests are the least important. At least in terms of academic qualifications, are a higher percentage of students with all A’s or a higher percentage of students with perfect ISEE/SSAT get turned down?</p>
<p>Point well taken, DAndrew. What I really think is that a one-time, high-stakes test evoking massive anxiety is a poorer indicator of quality than years of good grades and stellar letters of recommendation. But I do understand the rationale behind testing since not all A’s are created equal. Also, I am doubtful that anyone at all achieves zero errors on the ISEE given the true rarity of even four 99th-percentile subscores (which does not require making no errors). I do think any school should look very seriously at a kid who scores in the 99th percentile, especially on the ISEE, which tends to be taken no more than once in a year.</p>
<p>I agree that 99% scores are not common. However, I interpreted the post that indicated that boys with 99 % scores are turned down all the time a little differently. Stanine scores are not thought of as highly as the percentage score by many on CC, which is something I disagree with. I think the ISEE and SSAT can give you a valuable read on the ability of the student, but I also think it is better to see the test in more general ranges as opposed to exact percentages. There may be only a few boys with 99% scores but there are a lot more with scores over 85%. And in the Boston area, many of the top boys are applying to RL. Also, Massachusetts students are testng better than other states which will skew the
above analysis</p>
<p>Anecdotally, I have two friends with boys who scored high on the ISEE (each boy with at least one 99% score) that were not accepted to RL. Both boys are really bright and good kids. Each boy is doing very well now at different schools. My point is that RL gets plenty of applicants with excellent scores and the school can chose a kid with a 90% score over a boy with 99% score if they believe the 90% is a better fit. We are lucky that there are many options for a first class education in the Boston area.</p>
<p>25 years ago when I met Tony Jarvis at RL as a 7th grade applicant he shook my hand and introduced me to my AO, who promptly sat me down in a room with an IQ test and walked out. After I took the test and they graded it, THEN I interviewed with the AO and then remet the Headmaster.</p>
<p>Although I applied & was accepted, I was so turned off by this assessment method at the interview that I chose Nobles over RL, and eventually moved on to Andover.</p>
<p>I’d like to think that the school is less obsessive about IQ now, but the feeling remains that that school had something to learn about the value of social and emotional intelligences, and not just raw IQ.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are put that they included IQ in their assessment? It’s my experience from DS’s admissions process that the selection criteria require much more than just IQ. Anecdotally, the “other kid” from DS’ 6th grade class had higher ISEE scores (we know because he told DS how great he did and that DS had no chance ) but was rejected there in large part - I believe = because he was a bit of a blowhard. </p>
<p>I’d say poster #26 is factually incorrect about the role of “smarts tests” in RL’s process . . . at least in this century :-)</p>
<p>My son applied to RL this year and he, along with all applicants, was required to take an IQ test after his interview with the AO. My understanding is that this is a longstanding practice at RL and, as stated by the AO, “another piece of the puzzle in the admissions process.”</p>
<p>From another thread, but a propos of my previous post #26:</p>
<p>Winterset posts:</p>
<p>After boarding school and college I decided to get an MBA. I applied to 3, was admitted to 3 and went to Dartmouth. 1st year, over a beer (ironically), I was takling to the Director of Admissions. The discussion went as follows (all true):</p>
<p>Admissions Director Roger: “You know I almost didn’t admit you.”
Me: " I’m shocked. Why?"
Roger: “Because you had the highest math score of anyone applying”
Me: <what? high=“” is=“” good.=“” highest=“” best=“”> “Roger I thought the goal was to get the best possible grades and board scores? Why would you reject me for that?”
Roger: “I had a mental picture of a nerd with a pocket protector and a calculator.”
Me: “So?”
Roger: “There is not only no correlation between scores and success as a business executive, there is actually an inverse correlation”
Me: “Come off it. You are kidding. The dumb are more successful?”
Roger: “Not quite. But while we can train any reasonably bright person to analyze numbers, learn operations, understand accounting, and taxes we CANNOT give someone the interpersonal skills they need to succeed. They either have those or they don’t. In some ways the social chairman of a fraternity would be the ideal CEO. The extremely high scoring student may make a great staff person, but will never make CEO without a range of interpersonal skills.”
Me: “So why was I admitted?”
Roger: " I met you and you were so outgoing I realized you had the skills. So I admitted you DESPITE your board scores."
<i then=“” admitted=“” i=“” had=“” been=“” on=“” campus=“” for=“” 5=“” hours=“” and=“” taught=“” to=“” play=“” ‘beer=“” pong’=“” at=“” a=“” fraternity=“” that=“” morning=“” by=“” fellow=“” sps=“” grad.=“” he=“” said=“” ‘that=“” proves=“” my=“” point!’=“” do=“” not=“” suggest=“” approach=“” admissions.=“”></i></what?></p><i then=“” admitted=“” i=“” had=“” been=“” on=“” campus=“” for=“” 5=“” hours=“” and=“” taught=“” to=“” play=“” ‘beer=“” pong’=“” at=“” a=“” fraternity=“” that=“” morning=“” by=“” fellow=“” sps=“” grad.=“” he=“” said=“” ‘that=“” proves=“” my=“” point!’=“” do=“” not=“” suggest=“” approach=“” admissions.=“”>
<p>So… when finished analyzing SSAT’s, SAT’s, grades, AP’s offered, college admissions and endowment stewardship, never forget the individual matters. The whole person, not just the numerical statistics. Some will go to MIT and others will find different paths to success. Find the school that is right for your teen (actually let Them find it), or keep them home if that is right for them.
Good luck with your analysis, decisions and rankings. </p>
<p>Oh, I did okay and retired from Wall Street at 39.</p>
</i>
<p>I have had 2 sons at RL and neither were in the 90th percentile. They were good students who were committed to doing the work. I think it is a common misconception that to be at RL you need to be a brainiac. They really are more interested in helping to mold men of good character with high standards for themselves and others.</p>