<p>
[quote]
faculty had complaints about students lacking in creativity in the classroom.
[/quote]
Well that may very well be, from the perspective of those faculty members, but s hasn't experienced that. And in any case, I find it hard to believe that changing the level of SAT scores would make a difference in creativity.</p>
<p>Feeling the need to defend myself here.</p>
<p>My comment, “I wonder if MIT would find more creative students if it started looking closer at kids who score in the 600s rather than the 700s,” was in reaction to the study quoted by calmom in her post #612 and in light of the comments by Jones about her concerns about the MIT applicants and students.</p>
<p>I am not at all suggesting that MIT or other elite schools start accepting kids scoring in the 600s instead of kids who score in the 700s, or that they should dramatically change their level of SAT scores. However, what I do think happens is that elite schools immediately reject a lot of kids who score below a certain level, and that level keeps rising (look at the increasing average scores at these schools). No the schools don’t have a minimum score, but it is almost impossible to get in without a 700+ (unless you have a hook.) </p>
<p>I see some amazing kids here on CC in the chances threads who are told flat out – ‘raise your SATs above 700 or 750 or you don’t have a chance to get into xx school.’ Or told, ‘with scores like those (in the 600s) you aren’t Ivy material.’ So I’m partly reacting to that, because I know a fair number of Ivy graduates from the past who did not have stratospheric SATs. All I'm putting on the table is the idea that the process could be less numbers driven because I'm sure some great kids are being overlooked. (Of course, many great kids with 700+ scores are overlooked too.) </p>
<p>And no, I don’t have any studies to support that kids scoring in the 600s are more creative – although that study mentioned by calmom does say that “Studies of chess masters and highly successful artists, scientists and musicians usually find their IQs to be above average, typically in the 115 to 130 range, where some 14 per cent of the population reside - impressive enough, but hardly as rarefied as their achievements and abilities.”</p>
<p>The people who tell kids to raise their SATs above 700 are not adcoms. Marilee Jones herself says 650. So I don't see why colleges are taking the heat for CC posters.</p>
<p>Trotting out people who have IQ is the 115 to 130 range to discuss SAT scores is comparing apples and oranges. Do we know what people in that IQ range typically score on the SAT? Remember that the SAT has a huge ceiling effect, so that people who are "gifted"(defined as having IQ over 130) would easily reach that ceiling. Indeed, some do before age 13. </p>
<p>Now I can see that artists and musicians have talents that are not captured by a test that focuses on math and verbal skills. They may or may not do poorly on the SAT. But HYPSM are not Julliard, RISD, NEC, Pratt, etc... </p>
<p>And yet, they have not done badly by the arts, or other creative fields.
Harvard had William Christie (who also studied at Yale); Peter Sellars; Mira Nair, John Lithgow, Mira Sorvino; Nathalie Portman; Rivers Cuomo; Conan O'Brien, a whole slew of Saturday Night Live writers, and even more authors (one whose novel is reviewed in this week NYT Book review section). Not a bad result for a school whose admitted students have "stratospheric SATs."</p>
<p>MIT's students' creativity is equally impressive. Much of it is playful, and a lot of it results in extremely useful new designs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(Just so everybody knows - this is a question. I'm not making a point. I don't understand so I am asking a question.) marite, what does this mean?</p>
<p>Marilee Jones may say 650 is good enough, but that is clearly not the case.</p>
<p>Cur:</p>
<p>First, let me say that I do not think the SAT is a very good gauge of an individual's abilities to do well in college. For me, its best use is as a way of comparing GPAs from very different schools and very different curricula, given that so many other components of an applicant's dossier can be manipulated or be highly subjective (ECs, teachers' recs, essays),</p>
<p>That said, a "stratospheric SAT" (not my term) is not a sign of very high IQ. Indeed, I have come to the conclusion that its best use is in the Talent Searches, for which it was not orginally designed. Talent Searches seek to differentiate among students who score in the 97% or above at their-grade level tests. Many students hit the ceiling of such tests. But how high above grade level are they? The SAT, when administered to 7th and 8th graders shows a huge range of scores from 400s all the way to 800 in each subject test (that was before the introduction of the Writing section--I don't know what's happened with the new SAT). This is because, when the ceiling is lifted, it becomes clear that some students can perform at higher levels than others. For 11th and 12th graders, for whom the test was originally conceived, the ceiling effect is well in place. An 800 on the SAT math cannot help differentiate between a student who has covered Algebra II and some geometry and a student who has done MV-Calc and Linear Algebra, for example. </p>
<p>I have no idea what correlation there may be between SAT scores and IQ, though I am well aware of the origins of the SAT in IQ tests. My S took the SAT in order to qualify for CTY, not to find out how smart he was. </p>
<p>Does that clarify things?</p>
<p>edad:</p>
<p>I did not hear her say it's good enough. She says that SATs of 650 will earn consideration. That's because SAT scores are not the only bases of judgment.</p>
<p>Looking at the middle 50 for admitted students, some kids probably do get in with CR and Writing scores of 650. I doubt that many get in with math below 650.</p>
<p>
Yep. Well, sort of. </p>
<p>While I agree with most of what you said, I'm still having trouble reconciling </p>
<p>so that people who are "gifted"(defined as having IQ over 130) would easily reach that ceiling. </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>I have no idea what correlation there may be between SAT scores and IQ</p>
<p>The bottom 25% is 690 verbal and 740 math. Needless to say the odds are very poor for someone in the bottom 25%. They better have something going for them that is at least close to qualifying as a hook.</p>
<p>edad, (responding to your last post) if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck , and quacks like a duck - chances are it's a duck. And that holds true whether anyone else in the room recognizes it as a duck or not. ;)</p>
<p>Cur:</p>
<p>Yes, I contradicted myself.<br>
The problem is that the SAT does not test pure intelligence or potential. There is a certain amount of knowledge base involved.<br>
But the IQ (not that I am an expert on it), I believe, does not test for creativity. So given an adequate education, someone who had an IQ of 115-30 should, in my opinion, be able to score high on the SAT. And someone who had an IQ above that should have little problem reaching the ceiling, especially in math which is essentially 10th grade math. But that's just a hunch. I know what my S got on his SATs in 7th grade when he took it for CTY and again in 10th grade, when he took it for college admissions. I don't know what his IQ is supposed to be; I just know that it's not "stratospheric."</p>
<p>I have read that the "old" SAT correlated an IQ of about 130 with scores in the 600's for verbal and math. That is probably why Jones mentions the 650 number. A person with a 130 IQ (common "gifted" cutoff) would not be expected to "hit the ceiling" of the SAT (score 800). I'm pretty sure the "new" SAT does not correlate to IQ at all,since it is more curriculum- based.</p>
<p>hereshoping:</p>
<p>Thanks for the information, which I did not know. I wonder, though, about this correlation. Does it apply to 12th graders who take the SAT? What about 7th graders? I would expect that the SAT scores of 7th graders would rise as they age (provided that they did not achieve perfect scores as 7th graders, as is the case for some). Does that mean that their IQ changes?<br>
Very confusing.</p>
<p>If a kid shows extraordinary potential for something...then I believe good stats will be fine. If there is no "spark" one needs to compensate with higher stats. The usual suspects will need high grades and scores, but I trust the adcoms to identify those special kids who may surpass the usual suspects in some sort of manner, even though they did not score as high and may not have as high a GPA.</p>
<p>When you say a test has a low ceiling you mean that the test isn't hard enough to distiguish scores at the upper levels. In particular your IQ doesn't have to be astronomic to get perfect scores on the SAT. Here's some info showing correlations between IQ scores and SAT scores <a href="http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002360.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002360.html</a></p>
<p>"Having him taught by gifted teachers in the exclusive company of other gifteds would not help him navigate a world in which there are a variety of people, some on them nice, some mean, some heinous and some stupid"</p>
<p>Well, at least that may explain why you didn't respond to my post, days ago, of the perfect school -- which just happened to be a private school for the gifted! I'm not sure my son will ever have to deal with unintelligent people -- he went straight from that school, to a prestigious high school where, by taking accelerated classes and APs, he's surrounded himself with other smart people. He plans to go to an academically demanding four year college, then grad school, then a profession. He knows there are a lot of different people out there, but he likes his insulated ivory tower of smart people. Don't we all hang out with people with whom we feel more comfortable? Can't smart kids do that too? This reminds me of the argument against all girls schools -- girls have to learn to deal with boys don't they? Yet others say that having a supportive, nurturing environment where they can shine will actually build self esteem for when they have to deal with boys "in the outside world."</p>
<p>Well, and there's nothing to say that kids can't be exposed to a variety of people outside of school hours. Many parents of gifted children don't have the option to have effective academic enrichment in a mainstream class--they end up having to choose between having their child's intellectual needs met during the school day and having their social needs met.</p>
<p>Either way, parents have to make up the deficit. Scouting, recreation league sports teams, church youth groups, and playing with kids in the neighborhood all are pretty well-established ways to get your child's social development needs met outside of the school day. It's a little harder to meet your child's academic needs outside of the school day--especially if your child has already been conditioned to associate learning with boredom.</p>
<p>If the middle 50% range has a lower bound of 690 V and 740 M, that means that in a class of 1,000 students, 250 of them have scores below those points. That's a pretty good hunk of students, and clearly some with scores in the 650 range <em>DO</em> have a chance. I would agree that it would be less likely for an applicant to be successful with a 650 M than for 650 V, but still not impossible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. This way of thinking is very foreign to me. I must say that our family's approach to dealing with a kid of "gifted" status by every measure was the exact opposite in many ways. Yes, our choices made her have to struggle to find challenges (college courses, dual cedit, Epgy) but we value what she gained in socialization and her personal view of the world far more than what little she lost ( a little on the upper end of writing skills, but she's fast making that up). Her ability to tutor and more importantly her experiences tutoring are priceless and will serve her well as an adult. In fact , the empathy and understanding she has gained have already paid great dividends. </p>
<p>I respect that y'all made such a decision and your right to make such a decision, as I expect you to respect ours. It's just a decision I can't see myself making for my particular kid unless my child for some reason wasn't capable of handling a more IQ-diverse life.</p>
<p>Let's rememberthat a profession , in the traditional sense of the word, requires much more than intellect.</p>