I recall reading some post(s) which said lower number of people qualified for SET via the Critical Reading route.
So I was wondering, if you were qualified in one area, how far off were you in the other area.
And if you were also a ‘double SET’, between the two areas, which one did you score more and more by how many points?
Thanks!
Our child is double SET, with 60 points higher in math. I don’t think I’ve ever seen real statistics, but in speaking with our SET counselor a few years ago, I am sure that the large majority (at least 75%) of SET qualifiers make the cut based on the math score, and there is certainly a great range of verbal scores in that group. I have also seen a few other double SET kids, all of whom outperformed on the the math section.
There are a number of other parents on here with SET kids, perhaps someone else has the actual statistics? Anyway, I hope that helps.
I would love to know this too. Double SET kiddo. Verbal score higher by 10 points ( which surprised me as there was zero prep involved in this area. In math kiddo has done extra curricular stuff for years.
I do know a student who qualified for some Duke TIP recognition with a 36 on each of English and reading on the ACT at 12 years old, but “only” low 30s in math and science, so she would definitely have been SET for verbal only had she gone the SAT/CTY route.
Not surprised to hear @Happytimes2001 experience regarding prep. I’m sure it goes on, but preparation really isn’t going to be a big factor imo at these ages (11-13).
@SatchelSF Now kiddo#2 wants to “prepare” whatever that means. I think it actually just entails sibling rivalry. But hey call me crazy. I’m dying to see results for kiddo #2 just to see if scores will also be so close.
@Happytimes2001 - For sure, kids do - and should do - some preparation. But when you look at the range of skills involved in a task like EBRW on the SAT, from comprehension and inference to vocabulary and absorption of grammar rules - almost none of which will have been presented in any formal classwork - it’s pretty obvious that no amount of preparation that, say, an 11 year old can reasonably undertake is going to be definitive. A kid who is capable of scoring a 750 at 12 years old, for instance, can do it with 10-15 hours of formal preparation imo. A kid whose top score is never going to be higher than, say, 95% even in later high school could spend 100-150 hours in preparation and not break the 700 SET barrier (and no kid at 11 or 12 is going to do that).
Math is a little different. The math situation in the country today - with all the online options and extreme interest in the subject - really changes up the original intent of things like SET. All the original research took place at a time when the SATM was more a test of intrinsic reasoning ability, and the ability of students to accelerate was much more proscribed. Therefore, I question whether the math scores - which traditionally have been most closely correlated with general intellectual ability - are as meaningful anymore. Terence Tao - a world class mathematician and true “genius” - only scored a 760 on the SATM when he was SET. All right, he was just 9 years old. But today, I bet there are dozens of 9 year olds who either do score or are capable of scoring that high, and yet I am certain that there are not dozens of Terence Taos waiting in the wings! Anecdotally, SET for verbal seems to carry more “signal” value.
Best wishes for kiddo #2. Sibling rivalry can sometimes be a good thing!
Reading, for years, is my way of prep, and, in my opinion, a fun way and the best prep for the young children.
@Heading2HS Yep, that’s what I gathered with my oldest. Reading in our house is constant. We can all be found in some corner curled up with a book.
I think the local Public school has not served us well so I was expecting lower scores. But I have to say there have been some really great teachers there too. I expected that exposure to something was more important than native ability since it was the regular SAT. All said, it’s good to know so you can offer particular opportunities to kids.
There’s an article on Davidson Gifted that has data on SET qualifiers from 1989-1992. Demographics have likely changed since then, but here’s a snippet:
Of this group, 76.1 percent (N = 861) are male and 23.9 percent (N= 271) are female; 76.0 percent (N= 860) qualified on the SAT-M, 11.3 percent (N = 128) on the SAT-V, and 12.7 percent (N = 144) on both. Females are more heavily represented among the verbal qualifiers, with 55.5 percent of verbal qualifiers being female, compared to only 18.9 percent of the math qualifiers and 25.7 percent of the double qualifiers.”
Anecdotally, my son is the only male verbal SET qualifier we know, but we’ve met a lot of math qualifiers (mostly boys). My son’s math score was 150 points lower than his verbal score. He did no prep for either portion of the exam, unless you consider years of voracious reading “prep.”
^^^the data is from 1980-1992, not ‘89 - typing too fast!
That’s useful information, @momof3nyc. I can’t find any aggregated recent statistics, but I did find the program from the CTY 2016 Grand Award Ceremony. I believe that the criteria for Grand Honors was the same as SET (700 or greater on one section of the SAT before age 13). While there were roughly 1100 qualifiers over 1980-1992, in 2016 alone there were approximately 900 students if I am reading this right!
My suspicion is that demographics have skewed more male and towards the quantitative side since that earlier data. The 2016 names are overwhelmingly Indian and Asian - honestly it looks just like a list of AIME qualifiers - and the huge majority appear to be male (although I am no expert on Asian and Indian given names). There is so much advanced math talent out there in the younger cohorts that it really bodes well for the US if we can figure out how to use all of it.
Originally, all the correlation studies mapped SET to 145+ IQ (basically, the top 0.1%), but as I said I am a little suspicious that the correlations would hold if rigorously explored today, due to widespread acceleration in math and less sensitivity in the SATM at the top end, in both cases as compared with earlier. In any event, again @Happytimes2001’s observation about quality of school rings true. At this level, school or teachers are practically irrelevant, on average. I could even imagine some highly rigorous school environments to be a net negative for these kids, as they will expend a lot of time and effort doing work that is below their true levels.
Thanks. If the standards and population are the same for SET and for Grand Honors… It would seem easier to refer the group by the same name. And in that regard, Grand Honors would sound better thane being a SET.
What is the proper/best way to self-mention the SET achievement - a member of the Study of Exceptional Talents?
The SAT is not what it used to be and I don’t think all the old data is all that helpful for understanding current scores. All the guesses for IQ correlation are really just guesses anyway, but the SAT is now much more an achievement test than any kind of aptitude test.
@momof3nyc – I’m aware of other male verbal SET qualifiers, including one with an 800 verbal who was close to 800 in math as well, so double SET with higher verbal. When I was growing up, taking this exam early was very much not something one did. It seems that more people take it early now, but I suspect that depends on culture and financial resources and interest in academics and whether the child has access to appropriate schooling. I suspect there are many kids who would score very well who do not know about talent searches or have access to the costs of these exams who are more like I was many years ago. But even for those who do take it, there seems to be so many kids scoring at extremely high levels.
@SatchelSF – I totally agree that sometimes even a rigorous school can have negatives for kids like these. One might imagine a kid who scored 800 on the verbal SAT in 6th or 7th grade having the dubious honor of taking 9th grade English a few years later at a boarding school (hypothetically of course!). It should not be surprising that he or she may not find this class to be an appropriate level.
@Heading2HS - I’m almost certain that the criteria for Grand Honors and SET are the same; for some reason it’s hard to pin this question down from the website because I can’t seem to locate the Grand Honors criteria. But, technically they are not the same thing. If I recall correctly, you needed to apply for SET membership (or accept the invitation) and I think it cost maybe $50 or $100? SET members are also supposed to update their profiles throughout their education to provide the raw data for the studies that have been going on for decades with these kids, although I question how high the response rate truly is… .
Technically, although it sounds pedantic, I think you refer to someone as a “participant” in SET, or if you are really feeling pompous, “The Julian C. Stanley Study of Exceptional Talent”…
@gungablue - Exactly, about the 800 kid taking English in boarding school. The problem can be compounded because many boarding schools - particularly the most selective - adhere to the idea that there is no need for differentiation in the “soft” subjects. Less of a problem in math or science, obviously.
On the new SAT, in the last two years, the highest verbal/reading score reported by Duke and JHU is 770/790… not saying the 800 can’t be from the “outside”.
The Grand Honors Ceremony does not have the age restriction so SET is a subset of this group.
There are lots of talent searches besides Duke and JHU! Not to mention tons of kids going outside of these. One of my complaints about JHU and Duke was the limitation on taking it prior to 7th grade. I have one friend whose child took the SAT outside JHU but wanted the ceremony and so submitted scores and ended up being invited to the grand awards. Not everyone is so inclined 
I think one can take multiple times, but for the purpose of level play field, JHU and Duke only consider the 7th grade scores.
I took once but knew of people who have done more, which I don’t mind. But in spirit, that would not be level play field, isn’t it?
Daughters qualified for verbal and math SETs. Both daughters are excellent analytical writers but they can not write emotionally charged funny or sobbing stories. They suck at it and will fail the class. They have won scholarships in essay competition. They score As (One A minus) in all subject’s including math, science, arts, foreign laguage and history in prep school.
@Heading2HS, I confess to LOL at your last comment. My guess is that most kids maxing out the SAT by 7th grade aren’t practicing by taking it early. If you have a kid capable of maxed scores and are using the SAT to try to plan for placement and academic resources, you may need to do that planning before 7th grade and the child may have those scores before 7th grade. So my concern was waiting until 7th grade, not any kind of practice that would prevent a “level play field.” I’m aware of kids who have maxed out scores in elementary school. There are a lot of very smart kids in the world and some of them use the SAT as an out of level test before 7th grade and have no interest in awards from JHU or Duke TIP.