Plenty of kids take the SAT in 5th, 6th and 7th grades to qualify for places like Davidson Academy in Reno (plus online option), so the talent search option - whether CTY or TIP - is not the only route taken. After scores are received, kids can always submit them directly if they want to be part of SET, and this will automatically confer the Grand Honors award for those kids. High SATM scores can also help students negotiate with their public middle schools to allow them to take more advanced courses at the LPS, and so are another motivation.
In our experience public middle schools are just not geared up for these sorts of kids (which is why I wrote above that school quality and teachers are basically not relevant imo). One of the great ironies we discovered from SET gatherings and friends is that exceptional kids might actually be better off at a lower rated public middle school than a top rated one, because the lower rated schools often have “School Within a School” or similar programs to group kids, while at the most highly rated ones the parents - who are likely to be highly accomplished and capable themselves - agitate furiously to prevent that type of sorting by ability.
I can’t remember where I saw this, but I think approximately 20-25k students take the SAT and/or ACT for each of the major talent searches every year, and as there are plenty of kids who take the tests outside of the searches, I bet there might be more under 13 kids taking the actual SAT/ACT than at least the upper level SSAT in any given year!
My older kiddo had zero interest in the recognition and still does not believe that the stats are correct ( in terms of %). That might be good. Arrogance leads nowhere. Kiddo knows that maybe not all have the same skills. At this point s/he thinks it based as much on effort as skill but starting to realize some are just not as academic.
We were told about CTY by a teacher outside of school. They insisted a few time that SAT would be good to take in 7th grade. Though initially opposed. I came around. Glad I did as I would have placed my kids at a lower level then they belong.
As to demographics, there are many folks who teach their kids advanced mathematics from a young age. While it may not be the definitive shaper of results, it has impact. Also, some cultures put boys before girls. More money and effort is spent to educate men. Enough said. The girls get the message. And it effects the results. We also have an entire class of American girls with American born parents who have zero exposure to math. That’s a shame and puts us being as a nation. Again you can see the results on SET. If exceptional academics are not recognized in a family it is the rare child who will perform to that level. @infinityprep1234 LOL. I have one like that. Thinks poetry is for losers as s/he just cannot grasp the emotional ties. Though has tapped into the human condition in social studies so there’s hope at least.
(1) Qualifying for JHU/CTY SET required either an SAT EBRW or Math score of 700 up until age 12, then then an additional 10 points for each month of age after age 12. Kids older then 13 years, 10 months age out of qualifying.
(2) Qualifying for a JHU/CTY Grand Ceremony award required either SAT EBRW or Math score of 700 in 7th grade (regardless of age) or SAT EBRW or Math score of 750 in 8th grade (regardless of age.) Kids could also qualify with various other tests, unlike for SET. The general intent, as I understand it, is to identify the top 1%> in each grade.
(3) Qualifying for a Duke/TIP 7th Grade Talent Search Grand Award required either SAT EBRW of 640 or Math of 690 (nominally top 1%>.) Kids could also qualify with the ACT. Since it is called the “7th Grade Talent Search,” naturally, no other grades qualify.
If it is true that larger numbers of kids at these ages are qualifying for SET because of (1) changes in the profile of the SAT Math section and (2) superior preparation for the skill, rather than aptitude, aspects of the test, one would expect that the 1%> thresholds for JHU/CTY and DukeTIP “grand” awards would have shifted upward over time. As far I can see, they have not. So, if there has been an increase in the number of SET inductees recently, it could be something as simple as more kids taking tests and submitting scores to the program to qualify.
@Happytimes2001: it is true some kids and especially the very smart ones have no interest in measuring up themselves against the others, at least not against a pool of faceless numbers and empty statistics.
On the other hand, it has been at least 30 or 40 years since JHU started running the SET. If there are 100-300 of SET kids each year in the earlier years, there would be several thousands of grown-up prime age adults who once were the SET kids.
I hope to know where are they and to hear their stories.
Smart kids need role models and need emotional appeals - just as much if not more.
@SatchelSF and @Happytimes2001: it is true some kids and especially the very smart ones have no interest in measuring up themselves against the others, at least not against a pool of faceless numbers and empty statistics.
On the other hand, it has been at least 30 or 40 years since JHU started running the SET. If there were 100~300 SET kids each year in the earlier years, there would have been several thousands of grown-up/prime-age adults who once were the SET kids.
I hope to know where they are and to hear some of their statistics and better still, their stories.
Smart kids need role models and need emotional appeals - just as much if not more.
There is a huge literature out there on this. One takeaway has been that there are meaningful distinctions between outcomes of the very top (top 25% of SET) versus the lower levels. The corrollary is that there is much more variation in ability within the top 1% than in the next 16% of ability. This of course makes intuitive sense, once you consider that plenty of the kids you will meet are in the “top 1%” - the same group that includes von Neumann and Einstein, lol. If you are a bright kid as you appear to be (I think you said you are 12?), it’s never too early to start learning basic statistics and the concepts of variation and distribution (maybe you already know these concepts well?).
Also, as you have probably seen, the Imagine magazine that JHU puts out is fun reading, and less dense than most of the above. That should keep you busy for a while!
The Grand Ceremony cuts for when my son qualified back in 2010 or so were grade based only. You needed 700 in either area for 7th grade, and 750 in either area for 8th grade. I’m not certain it’s the same today. SET was age based. For kids that aren’t grade skipped, the Grand Ceremony would typically include kids testing in the 12-14 range.
Edited to add that I see @tamenund already shared this, sorry!
@tamenund While I am not sure about every test and every score, I am fairly certain the SET is based on a score of 700 of better before the age of 13. ( I know this because my kiddo was over 12 and not 13). Also, this does not represent the top 1% which is a score far lower ( you’d have to look it up as SAT scores are always moving). A top 1% score would like by many many points lower. I think SET is specifically to identify the highly gifted as opposed to the gifted. Highly gifted often starts with an IQ of 145.
There’s a wide range of kids in each group. You can look up the programs to see where your kid fits or just take the test and once you have the score you’ll know.
I don’t believe there are more SET kids as a % of population than previously. If in fact there are, it might be true that it is due to more people testing. Previously, they were out there but no tests were ever given so no one could identify them.
I agree, SET is looking for highly gifted. I read a quote from the SET staff years ago that said math SET was 1:10,000 and verbal SET 1:100,000, but it wasn’t quantified in any way, and of course begs the question about kids who qualify at 9 versus kids who qualify at 12. That said, it has probably always been easier to qualify on the math portion. I am most familiar with the 2000 math SAT and the newer 1600 math SAT. (I took the SAT back in the 1980’s, but don’t know that test and anything before the 2000 test like I know the tests today.) I tutor the math, but not the verbal (and lack the patience to even get through the verbal sections to be honest). I may have a touch of ADHD. I do have strong opinions though on the recent changes. The 2000 SAT allowed for actual math talent to prevail, and earn younger students higher scores. The current test really favors being taught algebra skills, and is fairly verbal in that respect. But it’s very canned in how the questions are asked. I’m disappointed that it’s lost its ability to really find early math talent, as I don’t think young creative students stand much of a chance with the “teach to the algebra test” wording, if that makes any sense. I’m also terribly familiar here in PA with our state Keystone test, and the newer SAT really aligns well with that (to its detriment, in my opinion).
I agree with you about the nature of the new SAT, which extends a trend that has accelerated since the mid-90s changes, through those of the mid 2000s, and now the latest revisions: the test has increasingly moved away from the identification of innate reasoning ability and more towards an achievement task that favors the well-heeled and well-schooled.
But don’t worry about the math kids. There are so many avenues online now for talented math kids to find and interact with each other (and so many free resources for learning), that the SAT changes are not going to trip them up. SAT math is not challenging for these kids.
For the SET kids, the math is a slam dunk. Same for the verbal kids. But the sad thing about using the SAT as the metric is that they are not identifying these kids early enough they know about all of the programs out there. I would love to see a breakdown by income, educational level and region for SET kids. I would guess most children come from West Coast or East Coast, are in high income families with two highly educated parents. That’s not good because many potential SET kids are outside these areas.
At a minimum, kids need to have had exposure to the Math to some degree and exposure to lots of reading and analytical thought.
SAT is rote. So many test prep centers and the test makers repeat too often so abstract thinking isn’t really present in the test.
We need to find the SET kids. They are out there.
@Happytimes2001 I agree with you that West Coast and East Coast are likely producing more SET kids. I don’t know if this is directly driven by the higher family income and higher parental education. They probably co-exist but not sure which factor is the original driver - just another chicken and egg theme.
But it is safe to say that with the higher percentage of population on the West/East Coasts, it is entirely normal to have higher number of SET kids come out of West/East Coasts.
I also agree with your 2nd point. There is not enough societal support (neither push nor pull) at identifying the talented young kids and also at further developing the identified talents. It seems that the families were left largely on their own, whereas it would make a lot of sense for them to receive public/expert/structured supports. This is not to say SET kids get no support. This is to say SET kids get insufficient societal support.
Something new for today. I read elsewhere there are arguably 3 categories for the gifted. Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted or HG, EG, and PG, although CTY does not use those terms.
Anyone has insights between CTY-SET and HG-PG? Different names for the same thing or related but different?
@Heading2HS Yes, there are categories and there are also variations/disagreement regarding where the scores lie. There are many experts on this matter and they write many papers. I’m not one of them but you can look it up online. The basis of all of the categories lies in %. Since the SAT cannot test any of these categories except to a very simple degree, SET is fairly simplistic. While a 3rd grader who gets 1600 is very different than a 12 year old on the SAT, both are exceptional when compared to the total population. SET is looking to identify those children who are gifted enough (for lack of a better term) to do things which many cannot( even with heavy studying). This early, natural ability is a gift and they want to ensure kids have access to the resources they need to build this thinking in their childhood and early adulthood.
I’ve always heard PG started at 145. With the average IQ being 100. But this may have changed. The Stephen Hawkings of this world may only have an IQ that is 30 point higher than another person who is PG, but that is very meaningful when compared to the total population.
Since many parents of SET kids don’t read things like CC, they likely aren’t aware of all of the opportunities available. For example, a parent might not realize that grades can be skipped, work done online, college courses taken at a young age, scholarships for highly specialized programs, etc. They also might not realize how many Summer programs are available.
They don’t pay for the programs, but they have the resources to make them known. Many programs have FA so money isn’t always the issue. The program isn’t perfect but some of the tools they offer can change the trajectory of a kids life. For my kiddo one program in particular has created a deep interest that would not have been available in our school, or area. I’d imagine that many SET parents have already tapped into some of these resources out of necessity in educating their kids but not all have. Also, it’s great for a kid who may not have other kids around like him/her to see that there are similar people. I think it is a particularly good program if you live in a rural area or the school does not have a GT program or has a staff that thinks there is no such thing as gifted and talented kids. Yet will recognize there are gifted and talented athletes. Hmm.
I hear you loud and clear! My son was a SET member from age 11. We weren’t poor enough for the FA, nor rich enough to afford the camps. But fortunately we had other free resources at our disposal and a hive of like minded families, so he turned out okay. I have to chuckle though when CTY sends me their yearly fundraiser to help these kids.