<p>^it at least measures the willingness to be careful, the willingness to grid correctly. GREs on the computer work much better for this type student. OTOH measuring the willingness to conform, at least enough to grid an answer sheet, may be a useful measure for colleges. Maybe not. Kids who don’t like to waste time on answer grids may not look at colleges with too many requirements. At the far extreme, though, they don’t even go to college, or leave pretty quickly. That is where it gets really interesting to me. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the only way in which scientists’ climate change predictions are inaccurate is that the CO2 levels are rising even faster than predicted. Oceans are heating up and sea levels are rising even faster than predicted. I can provide you with plenty of sources on this but I won’t hijack this thread. </p>
<p>@LucieTheLakie, that’s very interesting. The question of whether music serves an evolutionary purpose is different, I think, from whether there’s a musical intelligence that’s valuable and relevant to our lives today. I don’t suppose there’s any evolutionary purpose in being able to score highly on standardized tests either. I think Sacks’ comments on how even babies recognize the difference between harmony and whatever the opposite is (disharmony? cacophony?) are right on. But I’d have to read Pinker’s explanation of his own position.</p>
<p>“the gold standard for admissions used to be a very good command of the Greek and Latin languages…Many who score very high on the SAT wouldn’t hit this standard.”</p>
<p>They would if that’s what middle and high school were all about. The high scorers today would be perfectly capable of learning that curriculum if they were expected to.</p>
<p>When textile mills first became extremely successful in Massachusetts, it was not uncommon for the daughters of New England farmers to work in them while their wages paid their brothers’ tuition at Harvard. </p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls</a></p>
<p>Later, things changed and more immigrants were employed.</p>
<p>Regarding admissions requirements, let us not forget that Harvard’s original mission was to train ministers. (Of course, Harvard is not alone in this regard: far from it.) If I am not mistaken, all of the 17th, 18th, and 19th (at least early 19th) century ministers of my church were Harvard graduates, and one of them was actually the former president of the college. </p>
<p>If Greek and Latin were required for Harvard admissions these days, Harvard would be enrolling mostly kids who understood Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Talent at languages exists independently of aptitude in math. The really high achievers in a classical-languages based curriculum wouldn’t be a perfect overlap with quant-talented students. Many students claim they “can’t” be good at languages, just as many students claim they “can’t” be good at math. But I’ve noticed that they are certainly not the same students. Our current system does reward certain types of academic talent over others.</p>
<p>“Many students claim they “can’t” be good at languages, just as many students claim they “can’t” be good at math”</p>
<p>Yeah, but most of those students are full of crap. Both groups. It’s the adults’ fault for letting our kids off the hook when they say, “I’m no good at that!” Any subject is easier for some and harder for others, but with good teaching, the vast majority of kids can be competent in whatever society says is important. Observe math proficiency in Singapore and Japan and language proficiency in Scandinavia. The farmers and dishwashers in Norway who speak such good English aren’t any smarter than our kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny part is if classical languages and lit/philosophy were prioritized for Ivy/elite peer admissions, one older college classmate would have been admitted to more Ivies than the one he was admitted to as a legacy of sorts through his grandparent who donated a sizable sum to the ones he was admitted. </p>
<p>More importantly, if they were the main/sole parts of the college curriculum, he would have had a much easier time academically in that environment whereas I would have been the one floundering with an academic suspension on my record…assuming I was even admitted at all. </p>
<p>Granted, my exposure to those languages was limited to what little I picked up from Catholic elementary school Catholic religion classes and reading some classics* in class/on my own time. </p>
<ul>
<li>In English translation with some discussion of Greek/Latin terms in the footnotes.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d expect people who were good at learning languages would be good at the critical reading portion of the SAT.</p>
<p>@I’d expect people who were good at learning languages would be good at the critical reading portion of the SAT."</p>
<p>No, I think language aptitude is very different. I’m one of those who has strong foreign language aptitude and it’s just different and somewhat unexplainable. I have an intuitive feel for how other languages are structured and can get into that mindset that people who are far smarter than I don’t have. </p>
<p>Agreed. I am the opposite (not smarter–just much better at critical reading in English than at mastering foreign languages). </p>
<p>
Not based on my experience. I remember being amazed in high school at how easily my smart but slacker friend picked up French, while it was difficult for me, even though I studied much more than he did. I crushed the SAT, though.</p>
<p>My son was unable to pull his French grade up above the B range. Thankfully, that did not keep him out of his first-choice school (let’s hear it for holistic admissions!!). When he tested for level as a freshman, he was told that his grammar was excellent but that his comprehension was “terrible.” He rocked all of his SATs, other subjects, independent research, etc., so I am with Hunt on this.</p>
<p>It appears though, that the quality of teaching might also be a factor. His teacher now is far better than his HS teachers, and my son reports that he made an ad lib French joke the other day that the teacher and class laughed at. </p>
<p>
Both my kids aced the CR. One could do Latin in his sleep. The other one scraped by with a B- that was a gift. The real secret to the SAT is being an avid reader. They both read 50-100 novels a year - mostly sci fi and fantasy on top of whatever was required by school.</p>
<p>I was also a dunce at languages until I spent a year in France. Interestingly after I finally learned to speak one language fairly fluently the others (German and a bit of Italian) came much more easily. I still was a dunce at Chinese, not because I couldn’t deal with the grammar or vocabulary, but because I just couldn’t hear the tones well enough. (I’m a dunce at music too.)</p>
<p>My kids are both very good with foreign languages-my daughter is better she picks them up with ease she is a real natural-but my son is a much higher scorer on the CR section-in fact on all three he is significantly higher. </p>
<p>@mathmom I agree being an avid reader is the difference here-she isn’t a reader and he is and always has been a voracious one.</p>