<p>So, are we suppose to believe that son went from below 1200 on the SAT to above 2150 in four years because of genetics or because of social change that occured when he changed schools? That is, when he went from 90 minority/ 70%+ eco disadvantaged middle school to a 30% minority / 10% or less eco. disadvantaged high school. Personally, I believe nurture / social change had a major role in his improvement.</p>
<p>OrangeMellow and perazziman,</p>
<p>There isn’t anything contradictory in what either of you relate with the idea that people have inherent intellectual capacities.</p>
<p>In the case of OrangeMellow, I might speculate that perhaps the poster was a late bloomer, or that there was some previous environmental factor constraining his/her performance, or even just that the poster got a little more mature and buckled down and worked harder, making much better use of his/her inherent abilities.</p>
<p>Perazziman, although it’s just speculation, one might say that your son went from having the intellectual capacity but being held back by a bad environment to having both the intellectual capacity AND a favorable environment. Or, your son might have been something of a late bloomer, or… Heck, there are any number of reasons why someone with significant intellectual inherent ability might suddenly burst from mediocrity to academic excellence.</p>
<p>Myself, upon graduating from Kindergarten, my teacher noted that I was intellectually “slow…”</p>
<p>…Okay, okay, maybe she had a point, there. ;-)</p>
<p>It isn’t an either/or phenomenon. Both inherent ability and environment are necessary, but neither is, on its own, sufficient. This is part of the reason why, while only around 1% of American households enjoy a household income of $200K or greater, over 40% of Harvard undergrads come from such families - because 1) they are the children of high-achieving folks who are likely quite bright, themselves, and since intelligence is thought by most researchers to be partly inherited, these children are more likely to have higher inherent ability and 2) because they come from wealthier families, they are likely to enjoy significant environmental circumstances, such as excellent schools, enrichment programs, lots of books and periodicals in the home, interaction with high-achieving adults (their parents), excellent nutrition, excellent, appropriate and timely health care, wider range of life experiences (travel, more diverse non-academic activities, etc.)…</p>
<p>Nature and nurture don’t act on the individual in exclusive, non-interacting ways, but rather work together to help form the potential and possibilities available to a person.</p>
<p>FWIW: [Most</a> Impressive Harvard Students - Business Insider](<a href=“Most Impressive Harvard Students”>Most Impressive Harvard Students)</p>
<p>“there was some previous environmental factor constraining his/her performance”</p>
<p>Actually, notjoe might even be “literally” correct in that there is a growing body of evidence to support the premise that schools that have environmental biotoxins such as black mold can negatively affect the 25%+ of the student population who are genetically susceptible to it. Many kids are diagnosed with learning disabilities or ADHD that suddenly disappear when they are removed from exposure to mold. By changing middle schools or going to a different high school, some students experience a marked increase in physical and/or cognitive health.</p>
<p>^^ They get smarter or healthier without ever knowing why. They are often labeled “late bloomers”.</p>
<p>That’s really interesting, Falcon1.</p>
<p>Just to (kind of) piggy-back on what netjoe and falcon are saying, your brain is just like a muscle, and with studying and memorizing your brain can experience something that athletes are all familiar with called “muscle memory.” That is, your brain gets used to the work you are putting it through, and you can therefore put in less time to learn, or memorize useful information. Also something I’ve recently been noticing as well as experiencing in my later years of high school, intelligence, in many cases does not “show up” right away just like different people’s bodies develop at different rates so do people’s minds. I’ll be the first to admit that as recent as 8th grade to end of freshman year I was a complete and utter imbecile, and as I grew up and matured slowly-but-surely I noticed and so did many others that I had gotten “smarter.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what were your imbecile level SAT or PSAT scores in 7th, 8th or 9th grades?</p>
<p>By the way, if everyone would think like you, do you think H would be giving admission to the lowest scoring students and providing them exercises for their brain? Then, we could measure success of H by how much muscle memory H was able to create and H would issue diplomas of the improvement in SAT scores at the end of the four years. :)</p>
<p>Then, there would be thousands of examples of people who scored in the bottom -1 SD who decided to exercise their brains and scored in the +2 SD range. For that matter some of them would also be winning Intel, Siemens and Chess Championships etc. </p>
<p>Alas, that is not how it seems to be. High Schools seem to have designed Tracks for students who score in certain ranges because they say improvement takes place in a narrow predictable band. None the less, it was a nice thought (and one I liked).</p>
<p>“In the case of OrangeMellow, I might speculate that perhaps the poster was a late bloomer, or that there was some previous environmental factor constraining his/her performance, or even just that the poster got a little more mature and buckled down and worked harder, making much better use of his/her inherent abilities.”</p>
<p>notjoe, how the heck do you distinguish between getting smarter and making “better use” of inherent intellectual capacity? Clearly OrangeMellow was able to improve his (her) critical thinking skills and memory by conscientiously targeting his weaknesses for many hours over many months. If he had instead maintained his old habits he would surely not have enjoyed the academic success he did. </p>
<p>The point is, hard work can elevate your SAT score from 1600 to 2350. More generally you can improve at any mental tasks by leaps and bounds no matter your genes. Are you saying that, depending on your inborn intellectual capacity, there is some hard limit on your academic achievement? So that a freshman with an SAT score of 1500 might be able to do 2100 but cannot go beyond that?</p>
<p>An SAT cannot generally improve a whole bunch given a limited time frame to prepare.</p>
<p>Intelligence differences at the upper end are not seen in the quantity of academic teaching one learns so that student A knows more than student B. it’s seen in the rate or speed of learning. </p>
<p>My S is a brilliant artist. It would take me years to learn to do what he learns in days, weeks and months but I could learn it with years of hard work. And because he is constantly learning, I would not likely ever catch up to him.</p>
<p>Academically, I know more than my D. But she is super intelligent, she know far more I did when I was at her age.</p>
<p>Another thing I see is very intelligent kids don’t show an upper limit in ability as early as other kids. I know kids that struggle in different math classes. They are beginning to show an upper limit to their intellect and are not as likely to do well as they progress another level or two. On the other hand, I see my D and her classmates in AP calc BC, breezing through the class with minimal effort showing know sign of an upper limit to the level of math learning they are able to attain.</p>
<p>Therefore, because the SATs are taken in high school, its very hard to attain huge jumps in your score by sheer effort if your first attempt was a sincere effort on the test. The limitation of time and rate of learning begin to factor in to ones ability to raise scores significantly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not know if notjoe is arguing that, but this seems to be the general belief of many experts, including those at our school district and the basis of “tracking” in most schools in the USA. </p>
<p>According to Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor in their recent book, Mismatch, an intellectual gap exists by the age of 6 that continues thru life and this gap is hard to close. According to them, most intellectual/ cognitive development has been achieved by age 13 and very little can occur after that. According to the studies they cite, one can expect one SD improvement between 13 and 17 and another SD in college. So, basically a 2 SD improvement after age 13. This is the basis for why they argue kids with low SAT scores should not be admitted to competitive universities, because they cannnot mentally catch up to kids with higher scores. In fact, according to them the inablity to catch up demoralizes / frustrates them and prevents them from achieveing what they should. Therefore, they argue Blacks and minorities should be encouraged by admissions and counselors to attend colleges where students have similar SAT scores as them, so they do not experience MISMATCH. They advocate improvement in preK and elementary/ middle school education. They do not think remedial education works. I am speculating this is possibly why Obama administration is pushing so hard for high quality preK education for all children.</p>
<p>Of course, I think this is all baloney, because my son’s example demonstrates it is possible to improve several SDs after 7th grade. He went from being an imbecile (bottom 15%?) to top 2% (borderline genius) between 13 and 17.</p>
<p>illicit, perazziman, others,</p>
<p>“So that a freshman with an SAT score of 1500 might be able to do 2100 but cannot go beyond that?”</p>
<p>“I do not know if notjoe is arguing that,…”</p>
<p>It’s a little simplistically-put, but of course that’s what I’m arguing! ;-)</p>
<p>At this point, we’re wandering very far afield, into the topics of cognitive development, intelligence versus achievement testing, developmental psychology, etc. It’s an interesting discussion, but I could readily write thousands of words answering each and every issue brought up here. I’m not really sure that’s the point of CC.</p>
<p>I’m just going to touch on some of the issues raised, and try to keep my answer to under book-length. But truly, these are great questions, and I cannot do them justice in this format without hijacking this thread.</p>
<p>The fundamental question comes down to, does anyone have any limit to his or her intellectual ability? It’s almost as much a philosophical question as a scientific question. </p>
<p>Ask the question, do you believe that no human has any intellectual limit? There is no one who couldn’t master the intricacies of quantum physics, string theory? No one incapable of writing a symphony or a great novel? If you believe that any human has an intellectual limit, then why would you think only some have limits and others don’t?</p>
<p>“Just to (kind of) piggy-back on what netjoe and falcon are saying, your brain is just like a muscle, and with studying and memorizing your brain can experience something that athletes are all familiar with called ‘muscle memory.’”</p>
<p>The comparison here is apt. No amount of hard work would have made me, at 5’ 9 - 3/4", legs built for endurance not speed, modest skeletal frame, and thus little muscle mass on my arms, into an NBA player. Just as one’s physique limits one’s athletic ability, so does one’s intellectual “physique” limit one’s intellectual abilities. </p>
<p>As to rates of development and references to work cited by perazziman, the problem here is that the authors of the cited book are talking statistically. They’re talking about what’s typical. They’re talking about what you’re going to generally find in a large population. They cannot talk about each, individual human being.</p>
<p>The SAT is a little bit of an intelligence test and a good bit of an achievement test. It is designed in a way that folks can improve their scores. Improvements of more than around 300 points over the course of a year or two (especially, as perizziman points out, after the age of about 13) are unusual. That’s the intelligence testing part of the SAT coming into play. But large gains are hardly unheard-of. That’s the achievement testing part of the SAT interacting with who-knows-what (delayed development kicking in, a decision to quit goofing off in school and buckle down and study harder, an increase in maturity, a better home or school environment, better nutrition, resolution of psychological or emotional problems in the test-taker’s life, etc., etc.).</p>
<p>Finally, concerning the performance of any individual, we’re only guessing as to what’s going on. Guesses about a single individual may be educated, they may actually turn out to be pretty accurate, or they may be way off. What we know about cognitive development, intelligence, etc., we know statistically, we know by looking at aggregate results of large populations. We can use what we know to help guide us in our guesses about what’s happening with each individual, but a little humility is in order. Yes, each person has an upper limit to intellectual ability. Yes, we can make educated guesses about those upper limits, typically by the age of six. No, we don’t know with certainty what those limits might be.</p>
<p>This is in part why when I see students here asking whether they should apply to Harvard and other Ivy League schools, I’m usually inclined to say, “yes.” The downside - loss of $70 or $75, getting a rejection letter - is low. The upside - who knows? maybe you ARE that capable! - is high. Always aim for the stars, always try to be a better you today than you were yesterday.</p>
<p>But remember that the person with an SAT of 2400 who attends an Ivy League school is not morally superior to someone with a 1600 IQ who graduates from State U, or someone who is developmentally-disabled and for whom college isn’t really an issue. It’s great to do your best, but you are not what you do. You are who you are, you do what you do, and hopefully, you try to do your best. And if you do, that’s all anyone could ever ask.</p>
<p>The reason I am angry, upset, bothered and obsessed with this issue is because of the damage tracking has done to my child’s prospects and I suspect to numerous others like him. </p>
<p>For example,</p>
<ol>
<li><p>He was told he was not ready for AP and Honors level courses. </p></li>
<li><p>He was told he was stubborn and incapable of taking advice for not accepting Alternative Schooling. </p></li>
<li><p>He was then assigned a low scale GPA that made it impossible for him to compete with regular track kids. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>(A lower scale GPA in a state where class rank determines college admission under the 10% rule is an automatic killer of opportunity to attend a competitive college). </p>
<ol>
<li>By refusing to attend an alternative school, he was now at a high school where it was in the school’s interest to have him perform poorly to justify why he was assigned a lower scale GPA and recommended for transfer to Alternative Schooling.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>The only reason my son has any chance of admission is because he reached National Merit Semifinalist status on the PSAT and did well on the SAt and so many AP Tests and SAT Subject Tests scores that defy his GPA.</p>
<p>perazziman,</p>
<p>I can readily understand why you’re upset, angry, even obsessed. I don’t blame you at all. It’s the right response.</p>
<p>The problem is that the results of research like what you cite are picked up by folks who teach in and administer schools, but aren’t necessarily experts in fields of cognitive development, developmental psychology, testing, etc. Often, their understanding of the material that underlies the academic structures that they put in place is limited. Very limited. And winds up being misused. </p>
<p>I guess the folks who set up the academic structures in your son’s school or school system didn’t believe anything like this:</p>
<p>“We can use what we know to help guide us in our guesses about what’s happening with each individual, but a little humility is in order. Yes, each person has an upper limit to intellectual ability. Yes, we can make educated guesses about those upper limits, typically by the age of six. No, we don’t know with certainty what those limits might be.”</p>
<p>Something similar (though not as catastrophic) happened to my younger son when he started high school. His advancement in math was temporarily thwarted by a math department head who, by dint of her attendance at a three-day conference on brain development, didn’t believe that anyone could do calculus in his or her junior year of high school.</p>
<p>Yes, attendance at a three-day conference on brain development made her an expert, with sufficient detailed knowledge about each and every student who came through the school to know that it was just impossible for any of them to thrive taking calculus before the age of 17 or 18. Especially my son, she told us, because he’d skipped a grade and thus would only be a 15 year-old junior.</p>
<p>My son is now a 15 year-old junior happily doing well in AP Calculus BC. The [now former] head of the math department won’t even acknowledge my existence when I see her.</p>
<p>I’m really sorry that this happened to your son. It appears that maybe he’s getting back on track. I hope that he’s offered great opportunities at great schools.</p>
<p>notjoe, that was an excellent post. Unfortunately, administrators are doing exactly what you are saying they should not- searching for general (policy) rules that they can apply to the individual. For example, once a GPA has been lowered and a kid is recommended for alternative schooling, it is no longer just a guess. The decision has real serious consequences- a kid is no longer going to a competitive college, with a scholarship and honors and AP courses that another kid with the exact same scores in high school would because he is on another GPA scale.</p>
<p>edit: I just saw your other post and once again, another excellent post. Thanks for empathizing. I believe you are spot on about school administrators. My son’s experience with math is similar to yours too.</p>
<p>perazziman - thanks. The very best for your son.</p>
<p>My W works with kids in elementary school. It frustrates her to take in a child who is lagging in math or reading skills then get them up to grade level then she has them taken away. </p>
<p>They usually give her low performing troublemakers. She works on their behavior and their academics. The problem is once they show improvement they take the kids away and put them back with everyone else. Most often she ends up believing that many of her low performing troublemakers are really bored gifted kids in disguise.</p>
<p>She retained one kid for as long as she could and that kid starting getting straight As then she couldn’t hide anymore and got pulled. That girl went from below grade level reading to several grades above within a school year. The administration couldn’t have that so they removed her.</p>
<p>Frustrating.</p>
<p>Educational trends are all over the map these days. I think it very much depends on the school system, specifically the principal of each school and the resources made available to them. At my children’s schools – all of them public schools – starting in elementary school and going through middle school, one math specialist pulled out the lower performing kids and another pulled out the higher performing kids. The teacher was left with the middle group. And all 3 groups were fluid. A child could, in the course of a year, spend time in every group depending on their abilities and how fast “they got it.” The same thing happened with reading. I even know of one ten-year old (now a sophomore at Harvard) who started taking Calc BC with high schoolers when he was 10-years old. Unfortunately, there isn’t any standardization across a city or a state, let alone all 50 states.</p>
<p>^^ my son also took Calc BC at a VERY early age but I am trying to leave my kids out of my posts.</p>
<p>Sort of off the beaten path but related to notjoe’s point about upper limits. It is often said here on CC that there is really no difference in someone scoring say a 780 in Math and an 800. That may or may not be true. That 780 may represent the upper limit of the student’s ability (which we could determine if the test was taken enough times). Whereas, we don’t really know what the upper limit of the person scoring 800 is. If the test was much, much more difficult, perhaps that person could still score a perfect score of 800 where the first person only gets a 580. By the same token a 2400 person could be far superior to a 2350 but there is no way to know. Just wanted to put that out there because people are always claiming equivalence.</p>
<p>Tests are a one-day window. That’s why Admissions Directors rank a student’s transcript as more important than test scores because it is a three-year window into a student’s scholastic ability. And I believe the difference between a 780 and an 800 comes down one wrong answer, which can be chalked up to if kid was really “focused” on a particular day. I don’t know of one Admissions Director who thinks a 780 and an 800 are not equal.</p>