MIT Admissions Dean warns About College Entrance Stress

<p>"Does that mean that their IQ changes? "</p>

<p>Of course not. SATs aren't designed to predict IQs, but I do think they reflect them a bit. They used to say (pre recentering) that 10x your V+M SAT score was your IQ score. </p>

<p>You can probably estimate IQ from 7th grade or 11th grade sittings, but the cutoffs would be different, and you have more of a chance of accuracy in 7th grade, because many fewer kids score at the top end. But that's a very, very rough estimate. Probably at least plus or minus 20. My older son scored better than 90% of high school seniors in 7th grade and I am willing to venture that his IQ score is well above the 130 "gifted" threshhold. (He was way over on the right hand side of the bell curve of the CTY cohort.) My younger son who scored in the 130s on IQ (he has some interfering LDs) just squeaked by qualifying for CTY programs and was in the middle of the CTY bell curves.</p>

<p>"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>Good point.</p>

<p>And frankly, though my son is in a big suburban high school with kids at all levels, his friends are the kids in the AP classes with him. Other kids may have a bigger variety of friends if they are in sports, drama, or music. But since my son's ECs are Science Olympiad and Academic Team - it's the same kids as are in his classes for the most part. I don't aspire for him to only have friends just like him, but the reality is that it may be that way for quite some time.</p>

<p>


Could this be a reason why elite schools seem to like kids with ec's in these areas? Or to be more pointed, is it why some elite schools seem to prefer non-academic ec's to primarily academic ec's?</p>

<p>(I don't know but I have my guess ready.;))</p>

<p>mathmom:</p>

<p>I'm being facetious. But which SAT score reflects your IQ anyway? The one you take as a 7th grader or as a 12th grader? Not that it really matters to us. All that we've wanted was to get an appropriate education for our S and testing out of particular classes or units was much better than going by either SAT scores or IQ.</p>

<p>Burn This...I often don't respond to posts because I don't see them...I'm sometimes distracted and not reading all that carefully...so sorry about that...next time you can feel free to call my attention to posts in big letters (I need reading glasses but am holding out...)<br>
No..I see the pitfalls of such an existence with just gifted people. Just like I see obvious pitfalls with hanging with friends who are only the same color or religion as I am. I think we must learn about and appreciate diversity... not just with different skin colors and religions, but also with different levels of intelligence, years of formal education and points of view. Our family friends come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and religions. Some have college educations and some don't. It just doesn't matter to us. My kids have a huge variety of aunties who teach them different things about life..the most important of which is that diversity makes it so much richer. Understanding and interacting with different people (including the heinous) enables us to navigate in a variety of different circumstances.... including in the workplace which is never an ivory tower. It enables us to understand everyone who helps us out...from the janitor working six jobs to support his family to the secretary who might have to leave early because she is a single parent to the penniless client battling mental disease who needs help getting into a shelter. Yes, it's a joy to argue before circuit judges who just get it and engage in fabulous discussions of heady legal issues. But sometimes one must convince twelve quite ordinary people that they should convict a very, very bad man. You can't do that if one has only spoken with inhabitants of an ivory tower. You also will not get your secretary to file your brief on time if you are unsympathetic to her need to pick up her child from daycare (there were a lot of snotty nosed ivory tower kids who made this mistake...just once..because they lacked respect and understanding).
Burn this...I love diversity. That's just me. Well, me and my husband and kids. We are just as comfortable hanging out with folks who never finished high school as we are with folks who did. No, I do not want my kids only surrounding by gifted kids, gifted teachers and gifted parents!! It would not occur to me to have my kids not interact with 99.99% of the world.</p>

<p>Cur:</p>

<p>Am IMO gold medalist is pretty sure to be admitted at most schools, absent any other EC. Except that many do have other ECs. One of Harvard's recently graduated math stars has gone off to do a graduated degree in music. A new math star has just started as a double major in math and music (one of the very few to be accepted at both Harvard and NEC).
Elite schools have a variety of activities they want to keep on supporting, from orchestras to newspapers, to community service to sports. </p>

<p>Most of of my S's friends were from his academic EC teams, but he also had some friends from k-8 with varied interests and some new artsy friends as well.</p>

<p>PS..my son runs his school's chess team...he literally dragged kids of all different shapes, sizes, colors, and sexes to try it. His team will not win championships, but it has become insanely popular at his school...kids who never had a lot of confidence academically now say they are on the chess team. He's having a blast...I think it's more important for him to share his passion for the game with as many as possible than to recruit the most able players (who are there anyway). Just another way of looking at things, I guess.</p>

<p>symphonymom, I tried to pm you and your box is full. More embarrassingly - so was mine. :(</p>

<p>marite, I didn't mean to suggest that some kids with purely academic pursuits wouldn't get into elite schools. Only that there is a general feeling that jocks (recruited or not) , and others engaged in "not purely academic" pursuits have an easier chance than some think they should. I thought this might be a clue as to why. I know that some kids do get in without any social, charitable, or athletic pursuits and if I suggested otherwise , I was wrong.</p>

<p>Cur:</p>

<p>I'm not sure that "having a bigger variety of friends" is why some students with lower academic profiles are admitted over applicants whose ECs are overwhelmingly academic. It's more a case, as I suggested, of the schools wanting to staff a variety of extra-curricular activities.</p>

<p>I would have a hard time figuring out exactly why some students I know got admitted while others were not. When it comes to stars, it's easy to say. But when applicants are excellent in a variety of ways, how can one say it's the academic or the non-academic factors that got the student in? In most cases, it's not an either/or proposition. But I suspect that if a real star comes along who is a loner, that applicant will be admitted, too.</p>

<p>Cur...I made some room...sorry about that!</p>

<p>Yeah, I'm not sure that athletes are over-represented in the "having a wider variety of friends" category. Jocks tend to hang out with jocks, if for no other reason that practices and away games force them to spend a lot of time together.</p>

<p>burnthis wrote:

[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In all the professions I know, the professionals have to deal with people who may not do particularly well on IQ tests. (Though, to be sure, I would not want to equate "not doing well on an IQ test" with being an "unintelligent person." There are lots of ways to be intelligent.)</p>

<p>But leaving that semantic issue aside. I don't know that there is any professional who doesn't have to deal with some people whose measured IQs may be low. </p>

<p>Doctors take care of patients with a wide range of IQs. Lawyers defend and prosecute people with a wide range of IQs. Finance professionals may have clients suffering from varying degrees of incipient dementia. </p>

<p>All professionals have to deal with bureaucrats at the DMV and other government agencies who may well not have a particularly high IQ. </p>

<p>If your son is hospitalized at some point in his life, he may need to deal with a not necessarily high-IQ nurse's aide helping to care for him.</p>

<p>And the list goes on....I think it's a mistake to imagine that there is anyone who will not ever have to "deal with unintelligent people" in his life. </p>

<p>For that matter, none of us can know that our own IQ will stay high for the rest of our lives--an auto accident, a crime of violence, a sudden stroke, or other bolts from the blue could change everything overnight. The same could happen to our close friends and family members, our business partners and our employees.</p>

<p>Cultivating an ability to get along with everyone behooves us all.</p>

<p>I can definitely see the benefit of not allowing gifted kids to live exclusively in their own ivory tower within a school.</p>

<p>I can also remember how much I felt that the elementary/middle school gifted program in my district saved me when I was younger -- in fourth grade, the gifted kids were pulled out for an hour every day to go to a special class where we did logic puzzles and hard math and got to do independent reading. </p>

<p>Fourth grade was a particularly bad year for me socially -- I specifically remember being excited because I'd learned what a Mobius strip was, and I asked the 4th-grade teacher if I could teach the class, and of course nobody was as excited as I was, and I got mocked to no end. It was so good for awkward little me to be with the smart kids for an hour a day (and then all day in fifth grade)... I could be smart and they didn't make fun of me. Strictly speaking, I could be me and they didn't make fun of me.</p>

<p>I'm all for inclusion in the upper years, but I think gifted classes can be fantastic during the years when being smart makes you an outcast and everybody in general is a horrid little snot.</p>

<p>sly_vt,</p>

<p>Actually, CC students are not admissions committees.:) (Thankfully? JK) But then I'm just parroting marite. Seriously, look at the Columbia ED thread from last round. Big controversy there about why all those 4.++++ combined with 2300 scores (etc.) got flat out rejected by C. But (as only one example) a 3.5 with around 2000-ish SAT got in. (Not a URM, btw). Even Ivies are looking for individuality -- not just MIT, although I applaud any college who looks beyond numbers. Students who spend careful time on their apps communicating their distinctiveness & uniqueness (not to be confused with stats) will get noticed by committees, & often get rewarded.</p>

<p>Hey, Mollie, I STILL love mobius strips so much that I have been known to teach them to students when I'm subbing, in those ten-minute periods when you've run out of stuff to do!</p>

<p>SAT scores do not reflect IQ, to the extent "IQ" itself means anything. It may be that uncoached students who score high on the SAT are likely to have high IQ's, but the converse is not true: that is, students with high IQ's do not necessarily score well on the SAT. Coached students -- that is, students who have spent an extensive time prepping or being tutored for the test or who have retaken the test repeatedly, are a different matter altogether - whatever correlation between IQ and score may have existed is completely lost once the extraneous factor of the coaching is brought in. </p>

<p>I happen to know my daughter's IQ, because we there was a need to have her tested in early childhood. It's 140. Her best combined CR/Math score on the SAT was 1210, with 2 administrations. She did somewhat better with the ACT - but the ACT reported percentile is around 93%, which obviously is different than the IQ score. (A 140 would, I think, correlate with top 1-2% of the population, but that's including a broader range than are included in tests of high school students -- that is, the bottom end of the IQ bell curve never makes it to high school so therefore their numbers aren't reflected in ACT or SAT averages). </p>

<p>I have read that there is a correlation between standardized test scores and Myers-Briggs personality type. See <a href="http://www2.gsu.edu/%7Edschjb/wwwmbti.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www2.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>That correlation does seem to hold true of my family. My son and I are INTP and we both tend to do very well on standardized tests, with raw (untutored) scores -- one other characteristic we share is that neither one of us would dream of wasting time studying for one of those tests. My test-challenged daughter is ESFJ -- complete polar opposite in terms of personality and learning style. (Our home life was rather interesting, but that's another story entirely) What the article above says is that 83% of National Merit finalists are Intuitive (N) types. (Of course NM is determined primarily by PSAT, a near proxy for the SAT, and much less likely to be polluted by students who have done extensive tutoring and prep). But the vast majority of college students -- between 56-72% - are Sensing (S) types. </p>

<p>Now everything that article says about personality and learnng styles holds true for my kids in other respects, so I really think that learning style has a lot more to do with how kids approach the SAT and how well they do than IQ. My d. integrates new information very quickly and does very well on content-based tests like the AP exams - so I think her test issues come down to problems with multiple choice tests that are about nothing. </p>

<p>The point I was making before is that if you use an arbitrary standardized test to weed out all but the very highest scorers, you lose diversity of mental styles (or, as shown above, of personality types). It doesn't matter what the test is -- the point is, all people who score above 700 on the SAT think similarly, at least when taking the test -- that's inherent in the fact that they do well on a test that includes many questions that are deliberately designed to be ambiguous and susceptible of more than one interpretation. People who have an analytical or problem-solving style that is not conducive to the pace and structure of the test will simply not do as well, no matter how smart they are. </p>

<p>And it all goes back to the complaint in the opening post, attributed to Jones -- that the profs were complaining that the spark of creativity was gone from the classroom. The profs are getting a narrower range of intellect and personality entering their classes than they did a decade ago when competition was not as keen and test score ranges were broader -- that narrower range may be a very high level of intellect, but it still is narrower. Everyone mentally is on the same page, so discussion doesn't get prompted in the same way as it would with representation of more divergent patterns of thought. </p>

<p>A few years ago a space probe sent to Mars was lost because of miscommunication between two teams of scientists -- one team sent data using metric measurement, and the other team was using English measurements. On either end there were highly trained, highly educated and intelligent scientists. What they were missing was someone able and willing to ask a dumb question: "do you mean miles or kilometers?" (See <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/&lt;/a> ) That is an example of the type of students that are probably being weeded out.... they lost points on the SAT when they paused to wonder about those sorts of details.</p>

<p>On another note entirely -- the issue of inclusion vs. segregation of gifted students.</p>

<p>I was a moderately accellerated student who was tracked all the way through elementary school and high school. I was always the youngest & smallest in my class. Even with being accellerated I was usually bored, and I am grateful for the opportunities that I had to pursue advanced level work or study, particularly for those that were extended to me outside of regular school hours which I remember fondly to this day, and which were a chance for me to meet and work with bright students from other schools in our community. (My town had some sort of Saturday program for gifted or high achieving students at around 6th-8th graded level, as well as special summer school with course taught at a higher level).</p>

<p>However, the one thing I knew as a parent is that I would do everything I could to try to keep my kids on track with their own age group in high school. Socially I was miserable in school, and while as a child I believe that my grade-advancement was a good thing and I attributed my problem to "mean" kids .... as an adult in hindsight I can see where my own social skills were sorely lacking, and I also understand that there was a developmental lag that was not solved or bridged by higher intellect. Especially as a parent I can see that there are some changes that simply happen at around a certain age, so that no matter how brilliant an 11 year old may be, he or she just doesn't have the same social sophistication as a 13 year old. (That sophistication may be negative in many respects -- 13 year olds can be very cruel -- but the point is, it is very real).</p>

<p>In other words, I was lonely and miserable most of the time. I didn't want my kids to be bored, but I would rather they be bored than to endure the social isolation and pain that I went through. </p>

<p>I tried to make sure that my kids would not have to be bored in school, but I looked for ways to anticipate and prevent the boredom without necessarily including academic accelleration. For example, I chose a school that had a hands-on approach to learning and an emphasis on projects and field trips - the kids were always going somewhere interesting or had some sort of project to focus on.</p>

<p>What I have seen is that my two kids simply did much better in terms of peer relationships, and this became especially apparent in high school when their confidence really showed through and leadership qualities started to emerge. </p>

<p>I honestly have no opinion on what other parents should do. For one thing, there are kids who are outgoing and resilient enough that they probably can manage quite well socially with much older kids -- my gregarious daughter is probably one of them. Nevertheless, when given the choice as to whether to skip a grade at age 7, my daughter gave the matter a great deal of thought and decided against it, choosing to stay with her own age mates -- even though she was often frustrated by the inability to really converse with her age peers. But she felt socially intimidated in classroom filled with older, larger kids -- so she was willing to bear with the intellectual limitations of her age-peers and socialize at their level, having fun with activities such as bike riding or roller skating that aren't tied to academic ability. When she wanted a real conversation, she looked for an adult, or talked to her older brother. </p>

<p>But the point is: I can understand why it is that it is the smart-but-not-brilliant IQ range that tends to emerge as leaders or successful business people in our society. Those social skills, and the ability to relate to people functioning on different levels, are really what come into play in most occupations -- successful people are those who can communicate easily at many levels and have strong team-building skills. </p>

<p>So one way or another, I think that parents should recognize the importance of social skills and development, and help to nurture them as well, in whatever way is appropriate to the needs of the child. They don't have to be gained in the classroom -- for example, a kid can be accellerated or attend a special school for gifted students, but still play on a local soccer league with kids his own age from his own neighborhood, or participate in a girl scouts, or whatever the parent finds as a social outlet. It may be that for certain kids, the best environment is mixed-age groupings, where the kid is neither the oldest nor the youngest.</p>

<p>"But sometimes one must convince twelve quite ordinary people that they should convict a very, very bad man. You can't do that if one has only spoken with inhabitants of an ivory tower. You also will not get your secretary to file your brief on time if you are unsympathetic to her need to pick up her child from daycare ."</p>

<p>Point taken! </p>

<p>You'd be interested in knowing that my son's gifted school had more diversity than our white flight public school. I thought he learned more about how not to judge people on superficial characteristics because everyone there was the same in one way -- smart -- yet so different in others -- not just race, religion or socioeconomic status but also athletic, artistic or academic.</p>

<p>Cal Mom...you are leaving me breathless...yes, yes, yes (as one smallest and youngest to another:) I agree with both posts.</p>

<p>BurnThis...You are right..there are distinctions and differences even in gifted schools. I think there's value to keeping kids happy in school as long as we don't lose sight of giving them the skills they'll need to be happy in life. I have absolutely no problem with schools for the gifted, by the way! I just think that somewhere along the line, we need to, as Calmom put it, make sure the kids can communicate and team build with a variety of folks, not just the smart ones.</p>

<p>Calmom, I also didn't like being the youngest... but I was also (a different year) the tallest in my sixth grade class (yes, I was taller than the boys, too, that year) so I've been on both sides of it. I tried desperately to keep my son with his age group, but found that he consistently preferred the company of those who were three to four years older than him, even in high school. Strangely, they liked him back. </p>

<p>Even now that he's at MIT, most of his friends are graduate students, and one of the weirdest things for me this summer was helping him (at age 19) choose a wedding present for one of his closest friends (age 25).</p>

<p>I have to take exception to the idea that the truly brilliant aren't natural leaders. I am well aware of numerous extremely intelligent CEOs and technical leaders. Perhaps outside of high tech, brains matter less?</p>