There are many ways for capable students to “prove” themselves that don’t involve tests or competitions.
Calmom, there are amazing programs for gifted or creative students that use alternate admissions processes. The SHSAT schools really aren’t the be all and end all. As I said earlier, my kid, who tested into stuyvesant refused to attend because it wasn’t her best option. She’s not alone. I personally know several low income young black men who were truly brilliant and chose to do Prep for Prep because that is life changing. Many of the truly bright lights bring their gifts to Laguardia. There are also many scholarships to private schools. My son went to a fancy prep school on scholarship and the school is a fundraising behemoth. His class had a cohort of black and Hispanic students, many on scholarship, far exceeding population ratios. Some of those kids were off the hook brilliant and ended up in Ivy League schools. They never considered test schools because the private schools got them first for a better education and a much better experience. We have so many options here and I think a lot of the outrage is stoked for personal and political reasons.
^A fair way to get hard working and capable students, for an elite science-focused high school, without testing or competition?
Like I said upthread, the cramming is raising the cutoff bar. This doesn’t mean the other bright kids were sitting around waiting to be discovered. They were at school learning. It also well might not mean they were under-taught, though I imagine some were. But if they were taught well, but other kids were scoring higher because of “prep,” that doesn’t mean they were not ready.
That means we’ve turned this into a horse race. Not an education.
It can depend on the person. Going back to fluid intelligence (solving novel problems) versus crystallized intelligence (applying known information), someone with high fluid intelligence in the subject being tested may be able to solve unseen problems on the fly during the test (which may be the intent of the test). But someone with lesser fluid intelligence could, through studying for the test by doing large numbers of possible problem types, build up crystallized intelligence that can substitute for fluid intelligence for the purpose of the test. More test preparation would benefit the latter more than the former (and probably hides the differences between the two, if the goal of the test was to find the former).
I am not even sure that a meritocracy or diversity are essential missions for ALL colleges in the purest sense. Until we return to a mindset that there really are thousands of colleges in this country instead of 20 I think people will be unhappy no matter what mission a College chooses or how it achieves it’s mission. While public unis tend to tilt stronger toward merit based admissions they cannot achieve diversity utilizing gpa and test scores solely. Pick your evil. I really believe rankings caused myopia, cheating and malcontent within a subset of parents and students.
I disagree on this.
Our family has a lot of experience with high ceiling tests through the MAA math contests. The MAA is the organization that selects the USA team for the International Math Olympiad. It does this through a set of increasingly higher ceiling math exams. The first level is open to all, and successive levels are invitational based upon performance of the previous level.
I first realized that my son had exceptional math talent when in first grade he mentioned that he taught himself algebra. I was first amused, and then shocked, when he showed me he could solve problems with multiple equations and multiple unknowns. We actually had him participate in many other activities to avoid a pure focus on math, but he keeps coming back to it.
He is strong enough on the MAA exams that he interacts with some of the nation’s best. And in seeing their abilities, he realized that he will never get to the top. I have said elsewhere that at the very top, the talent spread doesn’t shrink, it widens, and used the example of the typical NBA player and LeBron James. It’s only when you get close to the top that you really see up close how large that talent spread really is. My son fully understands every concept that exists on those exams, but will still take minutes to determine the approach to a difficult problem, whereas for the very best, the approach seems to come to them almost intuitively .
There is no amount of extra preparation that will bridge that talent gap. This is why high ceiling tests are far less preppable, and why I feel most people who are cramming continuously are wasting their time.
For the sake of bashing stereotypes- not all Asians study extensively for aptitude tests and in the case of SAT & ACT tests, take them multiple times. Some Asians do well without doing all that.
My half Asian d took the ACT and SAT once in middle school as part of gifted identification program. She scored 33 on the ACT in 8th grade and only reviewed the math for a couple of hours before taking the test. No other prep was involved. In high school she did not take the ACT at all and took the SAT one time and got a 1580. She spent about 4 hours reviewing how test questions are asked and reviewing the math. The reason that she only took the test once was because she was a member of a very competitive dance team and if she missed Saturday rehearsals, she might lose her front row position or the special parts she was in. She danced 25-35 hours/ week between studio and high school dance team. The reason we put her in dance was because she was not challenged in school. She was always in the top 1% and frequently received scores with an asterisk stating that she had scored the maximum on the test. Even though she was in the higher ability program at her high school, she still was not challenged and usually had between 98%- 104% in any given class (over 100% due to extra credit questions on exams). Dance challenged her and taught her a good work ethic.
Just thought I would mention this because I feel like she/ we have had to make a concerted effort to bring to people’s attention that not all Asians are the same and please do not stereotype… Some students do well without extensive test prep and also pursue extra-curricular activities, investing their time heavily in the activities.
You picked the perfect username.
@hebegebe I agree. It’s interesting how high ceiling tests (generally math and logic) are used extensively in the UK both for top college admissions (Oxford MAT, Cambridge STEP), school entrance exams and even in pre-employment tests, and is fairly uncontroversial. I posted an article about how these admissions work in another thread http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/united-kingdom/2131394-oxbridge-admissions-criteria.html
My company used to do these tests as a matter of course (even for senior level hires), the standard test had 32 questions to do in 30 minutes, the “passing” score was 18 out of 32,which was supposed to represent the top 5% of college graduates.
My nephew has just taken his 11+ (which still exists in a few places in the UK and is taken in the equivalent of 5th grade). A top 10% score is ~100 out of 150. Kids do prep for it, because it gets you into the better schools, often 1-2 times per week for 12-18 months leading up to the test, but the high ceiling means that exceptional talent won’t be missed, only borderline kids are impacted.
@Twoin18
I also agree with what you have said. Although the scores can be “gamed” by those who are borderline, they clearly identify those who belong in the program. It avoids discrimination that I think comes with holistic admissions. We approached holistics admissions with some level of skepticism in our school district. In the state where we live, a large pharmaceutical company has set up a full tuition scholarship fund for two students from each high school to attend any private or public university tuition. Anyone who gets the scholarship will usually be offered room & board by the university to accompany the scholarship. The criteria to be nominated by the school is vague and I think it usually becomes a popularity contest- with weight given to students whose families are prominent in the community or the parents have ties to the school. With my d being Asian and with us being middle class and not connected to the school, combined with the fact that we don’t have ties to a strong religious community in a very religious state- that put us at a distinct disadvantage. And, then there is the matter of getting teacher recommendations. My d was not the favorite because she was always watching videos in class and not paying much attention because she understood the subject matter the first time it was discussed and then tuned out after that. Teachers prefer students who have to pay close attention to what they are saying in order to learn. She was NMF and went after the more academic scholarships.
Generally speaking, I do not agree with holistic admissions, think that admissions should be like what they have in the UK, and furthermore think holistic admissions is discriminatory. Holistic admissions is political in nature and can leave out some highly talented and strong academic achievers.
Also of note is that in our school district the higher ability program included the top 10% based mainly on test scores; good grades were required but excellent grades were not required to be admitted to the program. There was a lot of difference in academic ability to someone who tested at the 8-10 percentile vs. someone who tested in the top 1-2%. Those at the bottom of the program really struggled and many would drop accelerated classes or drop out of the program altogether. I don’t think anyone is doing any student a favor by letting them in the advanced, accelerated programs when their chance of excelling in those programs is negligible.
This is all so depressing. I have followed the controversies regarding admissions to exam schools in NY and Boston with great interest, though I have never been a resident of either. Look at the number of comments here, most of which are very insightful. They truly reflect the deep interest and concern over these processes. Viewed in tandem with the college admissions scandal this month. both stories reveal something deeply unsettling about the way things are now. Elite schools are viewed almost as lifeboats from a sinking ship, and with limited seats, not everyone is going to survive. Hence an every-man-for-himself scramble for the lifeboats. Some people will follow the orders of the crew, get in line and wait their turn (ie, study hard, prep for exams and generally follow the rules) while others will stop at nothing to gain a seat by any means necessary (game the system, get a false medical diagnosis, hire a ringer to take the test, bribe an Ivy League coach).
The people who don’t get the seat at (fill in the blank…Harvard, Stuyvesant, Boston Latin) feel cheated and embittered, and the Admissions Scandal now validates their worst suspicions. Mayor DiBlasio’s support for revision of admissions processes for the NY exam schools has likewise created a lot of anxiety. The issue to be addressed shouldn’t be how to make the admissions process at all these schools fairer, it should be why can’t we have an economy where more of our citizens can thrive? Why are all us anxious parents, and our children, of various ethnicities, placed into this competitive, soul-crushing snake pit? So your kid can get into Harvard, get a consulting job at McKinsey, and have another all-consuming, but highly remunerative, position there? No decent values transmitted or learned through this whole ugly race. And these are our elite, the best of the best.
I’m not Asian but it troubles me that so many Chinese-Americans are subjecting their young children to years of test prep…I wasn’t aware of the extent of this before reading the prior comments. Obviously they don’t view America as a land of opportunity without putting in extraordinary effort, this is really disturbing.
When I was coming of age in the 80s there wasn’t this undercurrent of foreboding and desperation there is now which seems to be driving the admissions frenzy at all levels. I think this calls for some real out-of-the-box thinking on how we create more career opportunities for more people.
So why do so many students at Stuyvesant feel like they need to cheat? (See http://nymag.com/news/features/cheating-2012-9/ (from 2012), and https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/cheating-still-rampant-at-disgraced-stuyvesant-school/ (from 2018) ) Does the test-only based admissions system play a role? - either because students have been conditioned to value test scores over actual learning, or because the cram system results in admission of students who are not fully prepared for the actual curriculum or expectations of the school? or is it simply the overall school culture once they get there? Or both?
And is Stuy different from the others? or is it just a matter of whether or not students have been caught at it? (“It’s not academic dishonesty if you don’t get caught" – quote attributed to a student in the NY Post article above).
And would the situation be any different with a different, broader system of admissions? Either more holistic across the board, or multiple paths to admission (with different blocks of seats reserved for the different paths). Would a more heterogeneous student body change the school culture in a significant way – or is all that cheating just tied to the nature of the schools themselves? (Very interesting, but long, article by Alfie Kohn exploring why kids cheat here - https://www.alfiekohn.org/article/whos-cheating/ )
@CTDadof2 I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. We live in Canada so for the most part this is less of an issue for us since we don’t have schools here of the calibre of the top 20 in the US and poverty here is at least somewhat mitigated by our social safety net. As a result admissions tend to be less fraught, but even I’ve found with my 2 kids that the competitive atmosphere is much greater than it was when I was a kid. DS19 tested into a regional program for high school. His designated high school is excellent in it’s own right, but we still entered the rat race that is optional programming for high school. As it turns out the program he ended up attending is actually at his designated high school (which now with the program in place draws high performing students from all over the city which boosts their profile even higher) but he had other alternatives as well. DS21 applied to the same program and didn’t even make the first cut as it was based in large part on standardized test scores and marks as early as grade 6 (and he didn’t care about school in grade 6). He would have done fine in the regular program at our designated school but he too had alternative options. While the majority of our high schools are at a minimum good and many I would rate as excellent, I’m still grateful that my kids have had the opportunity to attend the specialized programs that they have though at the time I found the process stressful (for me, not them).
DS19 has applied to university this year and again I was taken aback by how competitive the process has become (and remember we have no schools equivalent to the Ivy League). He will have excellent choices but I’m starting to worry about his brother who, though bright in his own right, is less inclined to strive for the kinds of grades it now appears he is going to need to get into a similar calibre of school that his brother will attend. What I have found startling during this process that what is fueling the competitiveness is a great degree of anxiety with regards to economic uncertainty and increasing levels of income inequality. My kids have been fortunate in their upbringing due to our socioeconomic status and because dh and I are educated and involved parents, but even they have no guarantees of being able to maintain the standard of living to which they have been accustomed (and we don’t live a lavish lifestyle, just solidly comfortable). For others the stakes are even higher.
However, the usual college entrance exams in the US (SAT, ACT, SAT subject) are not that high ceiling, and test prep for those may be quite worthwhile for those with good but not superstar talent in the tested areas, particularly if their crystallized intelligence is stronger than their fluid intelligence, and/or their prior subject matter knowledge was weak (due to inferior schools or whatever).
Of course, not all of those who study for the test do so effectively. Some may be wasting a lot of time because of ineffective study methods, not because they have little potential to gain.
@zoosermom – thank you for sharing that information – I’m glad to know that there are good alternative options for students in NYC. But it sounds like private schools are stepping up to fill a role that I think should be filled by the public schools.
Whatever the process, I think it is a problem within a school district when educational policies lead to increased racial segregation within the system. That’s a separate question from whether the educational policies would make sense or be workable in a vacuum. There may be policies that are perfectly sound and workable in one setting but have a serious discriminatory effect in another. For example, maybe an exam-only system would make a lot of sense in a more homogenous school district, where students came in on a more equal footing.
I do think that the NYC public system has an obligation to the 66% of its students who are black & hispanic (data from https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/reports/doe-data-at-a-glance ) to supply them with a quality education. The parents of those kids are paying taxes in NYC, either directly or indirectly. (Even if they are poor, they are paying sales taxes directly, and property taxes indirectly through their rent). Maybe the point of failure is a lot earlier than the age of high school entry --but my point is that I think it’s a problem that needs to be addressed by the public school system. I don’t think a public agency can get around its obligation to provide equal opportunity for all in a racially integrated system by relying so-called objectivity of a single test administered in a competitive setting. After all, it is the job of the school system to provide those kids with the proper educational foundation to at least score at whatever the expected median would be for that test.
Perhaps not too surprising given increasing inequality and declining opportunity leading to trends toward a society with a tiny elite, a large lower class, and a small unstable middle class whose members are more likely to fall down than climb up, or even remain where they are.
The demographics of these forums also contributes to the anxiety, since the upper edge of the middle class and the lower edge of the upper class see much more potential for downward mobility for their kids than upward mobility. In terms of rule following versus cheating, they may also see scandals in the news that plutocrats and powerful politicians get into without losing their money or power.
You can study for MAA math contests and lots of kids do. Results on those tests are mostly just a great predictor of race and gender and thus the tests are disfavored by many. AOPS makes a fortune catering to the group studying for these tests. It is interested that the instructors listed on their web site does not include any under represented minorities.
Only admitting 7 black students to next years Stuyvesant class is in reality a disgrace.
@momofsmartdancer — I have a similar history to you – my daughter was a precocious early reader & tested as highly gifted at age 6, also topping out on tests of reading ability at that age. Like you, I opted to look laterally rather than vertically, and my daughter became a dancer. But unlike your daughter, my daughter did not do well on standardized tests. Maybe if she had really put her mind to it and crammed extensively she could have upped her score — but what would have been the point? She had better things to do with her time – things that expanded her horizons in multiple ways. It wasn’t that her scores were bad — they just weren’t crazy high.
“Holistic” doesn’t mean that everything is based on a teacher recommendation or a fuzzy process like essays – but it means that multiple factors can and will be considered. “Holistic” meant that my daughter could attend an elite college despite test scores that put her in the bottom quartile. - and when she got there she excelled, because all those holistic factors reflected abilities not measured on tests, which made her a better student from the get-go. Her classmates had higher scores, but she was by far the better student than most (college GPA put her in the top 5% at graduation).
I also have a son who tested well with a single sitting, and was an NM Finalist – and came darn close to flunking out of college. College turns out to expect a lot more from students than spending 3 hours on a Saturday morning bubbling in answers to multiple choice questions. I also always tested very well but was more of a B+ student in college & law school, largely because I wasn’t willing to put in more than minimalist effort most of the time. So part of my distrust of standardized tests come from a personal history of doing far too well on them – and as a parent, seeing the importance of other qualities that aren’t measured by the tests.
As to LOR’s - you wrote that your daughter watched videos in class & tuned out, and that teachers “prefer students who have to pay close attention to what they are saying in order to learn” My experience is that teachers prefer students who are engaged and participate --and certainly that is what colleges are looking for. My daughter challenged her teachers and took the lead in class discussions, and her LOR’s reflected that. So if holistic admissions might have hurt your daughter (and I think you are right, she would have had a hard time getting good recs if the behavior you describe was consistent) — it benefits the college, and would be a benefit for elite-level specialty high schools, to have that sort of information. (My daughter attended an audition-based arts magnet public high school, which required LOR’s from her 8th grade teacher & a dance teacher, as well as consideration of grades.). “Holistic” is defined as “the idea that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts, in theory or practice” – so it doesn’t mean that consideration of any one thing to the exclusion of others.
It’s very easy for people to support a system simply because it has worked well for them or their kids. But that doesn’t mean that the system is right or good. To the extent that the existing system produces the lifeboat mentality cited by @CTDadof2 — then I think it is a very bad thing. Because in the end it shouldn’t be about me and mine – it should be about “all of us” (with “us” being the community at large) – especially when it comes to publicly funded and administered schools. (Private schools, I don’t care, they can do whatever they want).
@calmom
I am glad that your daughter did well. However, the situation for my d in high school is different from how you interpreted what I said. (I find it is much harder to communicate precisely in writing than in person when there are nuances). To clarify what I was saying- I just meant that I think the favorites would have received tippy-top recommendations for the scholarship that involved nominating two students from each school. My d was an excellent student and received very good recommendations. They were good enough to result in her receiving a full ride+ scholarship to a Big Ten university.
As for college, she has a double major and a minor, two years on the dance team, volunteers in medical field, sorority and professional fraternity, paid research job, internship at a top 30 medical school, etc. All this while maintaining a 4.0 GPA. From what she has told me, she participates alot in class, talks to her professors during office hours, and is a leader in discussions. She has earned three more scholarships above and beyond her full-ride scholarship for her research.
It is my opinion that she was ready for advanced college-level material in high school and her tests scores and grades throughout support this. While your daughter may have benefitted from holistic admissions in college, I think that can be true for someone who is not an exceptional test taker when they are challenged at the age when they can meet that challenge. I still think it is difficult for above average students in high school to keep up with gifted students and I don’t think it is a good idea to put them in a situation where achieving success would not be that likely. I have seen students at the lower end of the higher ability program struggle and drop out. I would never dream of putting my above average son (who was on the borderline of the required test score for the program) in a higher ability alongside gifted students in high school school. I can tell you that as a parent, the thing I have focused on most to help my kids is providing the best environment for them to succeed. Putting students in these advanced, accelerated program in the NYC high schools for the sake of diversity is a disservice to them, IMO. As many New Yorkers have posted, there are good alternatives. If there are not enough charter high schools, they should consider converting more of them to specialize in subjects that would better help the student population.
Again, I firmly believe that children will do best if the parents are able to set-up the environment that best allows them to achieve and succeed. The degree of the challenge of the curriculum should be matched to the readiness and ability of the student to master the curriculum.