<p>Making news in the UK : "Why Kids' Fingers Are Key To Academic Success"
[quote]
"We're not suggesting that finger length measurements could replace SAT tests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who knows, maybe the CB will come up with a new index for our SAT.</p>
<p>"Fingers 'a clue to exam success'"</p>
<p>Best of luck for exam success (regardless of finger length) to all of you, parents and students, waiting for SAT scores tomorrow.</p>
<p>I don't need callipers to see that my ring finger is much shorter than my index finger. I was an English major who never took any math past a year of calc in college. So I fit right in with the study. I'll have to check H & the kids later. Very interesting.</p>
<p>Interesting story indeed and even more so if it turns out there might be some kind of correlation with SAT performance - we could take a poll. I plan to whip out the calipers and pounce on a few unsuspecting victims. In any case Yahoo has picked up the story. Of course, I may be wrong, but when I read the BBC and other British articles, I got the distinct impression that the SAT mentioned in the study is not the CB's SAT at all but " 'key stage' English and maths tests" with the same acronym - standardized assessment test - given to British elementary students. </p>
<p>I couldn't resist making the leap (and a bad pun) to the college board's exam and it looks like I am not the only one to make that leap. </p>
<p>
[quote]
To test the link to children's scores on the College Board's Scholastic Assessment Test (for which the name has changed a number of times in the past 100 years), Brosnan and his colleagues made photocopies of children's palms and measured the length of their index and ring fingers using calipers accurate to 0.01 millimeters. They used the finger-length ratios as a proxy for the levels of testosterone and estrogen exposure....</p>
<p>"Finger ratio provides us with an interesting insight into our innate abilities in key cognitive areas," Brosnan said, in a prepared statement. The results will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the British Journal of Psychology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I definitely have a longer ring finger than index finger and I'm more verbal than mathematically inclined.... and I happen to have a photo of my daughter holding both hands up, fingers splayed, palms out -- and her ring finger is clearly longer than the index finger.... she is the one with the 580 on the SAT math --- leans very strong toward languages, borders on inept with math. Oh, and we are both very definitely heterosexual. </p>
<p>So basically I figure that study belongs in the pseudoscience trash bin..... I think that the shape of our hands has a lot more to do with genes than in utero testosterone levels. I have long tapering fingers, as does my son, daughter, & brother. The boys are more inclined toward math, we girls are more caught up in a world of words. None of us are physically aggressive and none of us are gay. </p>
<p>Oh, and I've got better science for my theory:
[quote]
Lead researcher Professor Tim Spector said: "The reasons for these findings are unclear.</p>
<p>"Previous studies have suggested the change in finger length was due to changes in testosterone levels in the womb but we also found that finger length was 70% heritable with little influence of the womb environment.</p>
<p>"This suggests that genes are the main factor and that finger length is a marker of your genes."</p>
<p>The ratio between the two fingers is fixed before birth and remains constant during life.</p>
<p>As this is the case, the researchers suggest that examining finger length may help to identify talented individuals at an early, pre-competitive stage.</p>
<p>No specific genes have yet been identified that control finger length.</p>
<p>Experts believe it is likely that multiple genes are responsible
[/quote]
Quoting Prof. Tim Spector of King's College -
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5382814.stm%5B/url%5D">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5382814.stm</a></p>
<p>See also: Variation and inheritance of relative length of index finger in man, Annals of Human Biology, Volume 4, Issue 5 September 1977 , pages 479 - 484 - <a href="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Econtent=a739350490%7Edb=all%5B/url%5D">http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a739350490~db=all</a></p>
<p>and:
[quote]
The gene for short second finger, S', is also sex-influenced (chapter 5, p.135) in its expression (like baldness). It is dominant in males and recessive in females. That is, while all S'S' individuals have short second fingers, S'S'' males show short second fingers and S'S'' females do not. The gene for long second finger, S'', is dominant in females.
[/quote]
<p>So, my finger analysis shows that I am better at English than math (true, but I think I am pretty good at math too!), infertile (hmm), and a lesbian (hee!). All in all, very amusing study...I wonder what it means that I have short stubby fingers and index and middle fingers that curve somewhat? Maybe that can tell me what religion I am and how long I have to live...</p>
<p>Well, there goes my idea for admissions offices to hire palmists. Of greater interest when it comes to the CB's SAT: according to a new study coordinated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), children appear to approach adult levels of performance on basic cognitive and motor skills around the age of 11 or 12. This biomedical research on the brain and nervous system:</p>
<p>
[quote]
hints of much-cited differences in verbal and spatial ability between boys and girls, but these differences were not as sharp as those described in previous reports. In fact, there were no sex differences in verbal fluency. There were also no differences in calculation ability, suggesting that boys and girls have an equal aptitude for math.</p>
<p>Regardless of income or sex, children appeared to improve rapidly on many tasks between ages 6 and 10, with much less dramatic cognitive growth in adolescence. This result fits with previous research suggesting that in adolescence, there is a shift toward integrating what one knows rather than learning new basic skills.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NIH Study Tracks Brain Development in Some 500 Children across U.S.
First Report Looks at Intelligence, Behaviors from Ages 6-18
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2007, Vol. 13, pp. 1-18.</p>
<p>All that shows is that the tests only measure cognitive skills that are developed through age 12 .... which any one who had raised kids or taught various ages would figure out for themselves. At age 12 the kids hit what Piaget called the level of formal operations, which means they can think abstractly and logically and probably do well with whatever form of testing is used to assess basic cognitive skill levels. The brain growth that continues to take place through adolescence and into the 20's has more to do with the prefrontal cortex, which is involved with executive function, impulse control, and basically exercising good judgment and making appropriate decisions. </p>
<p>Which is why we don't give driver's licensed to 12 year olds, even though they are perfectly capable of learning to steer the thing and use the brakes & accelerator (assuming they are tall enough to see over the steering wheel). But managing all the rest is tough even for 15 year olds with learner's permits. It's one thing to pass a skills test which requires a person to do simple tasks, one at a time.... it is quite another thing to navigate the constant multitasking and decision-making required for real life.</p>
<p>That indeed is probably the whole point of the study in the context of exam success and more specifically literacy and numeracy- which is the OP topic - and that certainly does include performance on college assessments such as the SATs, ACT, and AP exams. The point that "in adolescence, there is a shift toward integrating what one knows rather than learning new basic skills" speaks volumes when it comes to the dynamics of learning. This study strongly suggests that the gender gap for both verbal and numerical aptitude is not as hard and fast or sharp as other studies and approaches suggest. So, in terms of academic performance - consolidating and integrating what is known and then acquiring the skills to process and multi-task on an abstract level is just as a critical a component of learning as impulse control, exercising good judgment, and making appropriate decisions because, alongside academics, isn't this what most kids are supposed to grapple with during their years in high school? Colleges look for maturity and the ability to improve. Students push themselves to excel and improve:</p>
<p>
[quote]
We dont know whether every childs performance slows during adolescence, or whether some children continue to improve, while others do not," Dr. Waber said. "It's also possible that our standard tests dont measure what really changes in adolescence. As we follow these children over time, we will have a better understanding of whats happening.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The booming college entrance test prep business is testimony to the view that improvement on exams such as the SAT is just as much a social skill as a measure of scholastic achievement. In most cases, these tests blur the lines between IQ, motor dexterity, language, and computation and all of these factors are called on when it comes to exam success.</p>
<p>Which does lead me to a different but related question which I have asked before on another thread - that of the new SAT and diminishing returns. The perennial question of when and then how many times should a student take and re-take the darn thing pops up constantly. Some kids in my S's class are going to get the result for their fourth try today- up till now, for the most part, it has been what I can only call a futile exercise in diminishing returns.</p>
<p>The SAT was never designed to measure changes in adolescence. The test is geared to 15 year olds in terms of content. Keep in mind that for a norm referenced test, the idea is that the test-taker should be able to score ~500. I'm not saying that every 15 year old ought to be able to score 800 - I'm saying that there is no reason to expect, based on test content, that in the absence of test prep and study that the test score will improve between administrations at age 15-18. </p>
<p>I mean, you can't even begin to draw conclusions about cognitive growth unless you first develop a test aimed at more advanced concepts.</p>
<p>Calmom, of course the SAT was not and is not designed to measure changes or abnormalities in adolescence. As it stands at present, the SAT is a reasoning test that gives a snapshot of student test-taking performance on a given day - that of the test. Nonetheless, some of the biggest issues and problems associated with the exam has to do with exam success and what are often perceived to be inherent SES and gender biases. The NIH study is of interest in this context, albeit in a limited way, because conclusions can and are extrapolated from the study when it comes to creating metrics designed to assess performance on IQ (which the SAT is not) and achievement tests (which the SAT is). Measures of basic cognitive functions, like memory and verbal fluency are connected to exam success. I don't think any of the above cited studies suggest or even hint that the SAT would ever be or ought to become a metric that would allow us "to peer into the normal developing brain". Even though quite a few researchers have given it a go on that score. Exam success taps into a range of issues connected to stereotypes concerning intellectual ability and that includes a wide range of factors that might impede academic performance. In the context of the SAT we are dealing with adolescents, of whatever score range, (and I do know many kids who are greatly concerned about how to get their scores up from the 400s into that average 500 range and for them it is a big deal) who aspire to a degree of academic success and for whom exam success is important.</p>