<p>The profs are complaining that they are getting a narrower range of intellect. They are not complaining about the SAT specifically. It is putting words in their mouth to do so. It is very likely that this narrow range of intellect is a product of a narrow curriculum: 4 years of math through AP-Calc; 3-4 years of lab sciences, again most likely through AP. And so on. I do not see the SAT as enforcing rigidity or sameness of orientation. But the curriculum certainly does. </p>
<p>Nor is it neceesarily true that the SAT acts alone as a weed-out tool although only SAT ranges are published. There's a good reason for that. GPAs range wildly as an indication of achievement. But GPAs are often considered the most important criteria and it makes sense to use them as the most important weedout factor as well. </p>
<p>Again, while I have no love for the SAT, I do not understand this fixation on the SAT.</p>
<p>Perhaps outside of high tech, brains matter less? </p>
<p>Ok, I have to tell you, that did make me grin. I think that you've got your smart founders, your smart CEOs, your smart marketing folks, your smart lawyers, hopefully some smart docs along the way....I don't think there is only one form of brilliance..</p>
<p>Marite- I can sort of see the fixation...GPA reflects years of efforts and you get to see trends...what sorts of classes a kid did well in and how he progressed through the years. An occasional blip can be chalked up to a bad teacher or some such factor. The SATs are high stakes and if one doesn't do well in these kinds of tests it can affect what school you can go to...There are no blips or trends. It's one test and that's it. There are brilliant people who just can't score well on this test who will go on to discover the next Google or artificial heart. I think adcoms can find these people, because they tend to declare themselves in other ways, so I"m less concerned with the test. It's just not a great test. There is no doubt about that. I think it's sort of seen as a make or break factor in college admissions...which I'm not sure is correct.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are brilliant people who just can't score well on this test who will go on to discover the next Google or artificial heart. I think adcoms can find these people, because they tend to declare themselves in other ways, so I"m less concerned with the test. It's just not a great test. There is no doubt about that. I think it's sort of seen as a make or break factor in college admissions...which I'm not sure is correct.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My feelings exactly.
The funny thing is that there are so many other threads by posters I would describe as "stats absolutists," as an antidote to all sorts of subjectivity and various forms of nepotism and favoritism; and this thread seems to imply to elite schools care only about the SAT and thus can't seem to find the future world-shakers.</p>
<p>On another note entirely -- the issue of inclusion vs. segregation of gifted students.
[...]
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>Great post. It's always nice to see how people view this situation when they're older.</p>
<p>However, I would like to offer a different perspective as a current 14 year old who has also been/is accelerated several years in school. I fully realize that I haven't had the years of experience that you have had, calmom. My apologies in advance to any of you parents out there (including possibly my own?) if I come off as argumentative, stubborn, short-sighted, disrespectful, etc.</p>
<p>I firmly believe that grade skipping depends strongly on the individual child. My peers are, and have been consistently at least two to three years older than myself ever since I was six. Unlike calmom however, I am quite happy and content with my current situation. (Okay, so maybe not having to deal with college applications this semester would have been nice but really, how many of you have 18 year old kids who love writing college essays?) I have a number of close friends who stick up for me as well as numerous who are less close. Most of them are at least two years older. Peers have been generally accepting and I've experienced little to none of the cruelty and "social isolation and pain" mentioned by calmom. </p>
<p>Honestly, age up to this point has never really been a big deal for me. I get along with older kids and they seem to enjoy my company as an equal. Few people guess that I am younger. While I won't lie if confronted by the question in casual conversation, I've never really gone out of my way to reveal or discuss my age either. The fact that I look older, (due largely to my relative tallness considering my gender, and ethnicity) and act more mature (supposedly) than my age probably helps. In fact, it wasn't until after the school newspaper did a feature on me recently, which mentioned my age, and the response that followed, that I realized many, including my teachers, had no idea I was three years younger. </p>
<p>Yes, I have met with opposition adults around me - counselors, teachers, parents - have been concerned and have tried to hold me back but I've persevered in my choices and am glad that I have been able to make my own decisions - graduating high school in three years for example. My classes, though advanced, are enjoyable and represent subject I like. Oh and at this point, wouldnt going back three years to be a freshman be a little more socially awkward than simply going on to college? Not to mention the fact that Im a good half-foot taller than most freshmen. People who keep telling me to spend a few more years in high school really ought to consider that. Plus, Im out of classes to take. </p>
<p>There are those who would pity me and say that Ive missed out on a huge chunk of my childhood. Is this true? Well, maybe. Maybe I did miss out on a lot of fun by skipping those wonderful finger-painting years. But then neither am I an extreme introvert whos missed out on life by being holed up in my room studying 24/7. Although I do tend to avoid sports avidly, Ive had the time and opportunity to pursue what I love - music, learning three instruments, wasting boatloads of time collecting knowledge about metal, founding my own Mathcamp, writing poetry, hanging out with my friends, etc. At this point in life, I honestly have no regrets concerning this matter. Will I by the time Im calmoms age? Perhaps. Until then, Im comfortable at being who I am, doing what I am doing. (minus those pesky college essays) </p>
<p>Then there are those who blatantly, and quite vocally, criticize my parents for pushing me and pressuring me in an attempt to create a child genius. Untrue. Most definitely untrue. <em>sigh</em> Please, let me at least take responsibility for my own actions and dont blame my dear parents. </p>
<p>Im sorry that you had such a bad experience as a kid, calmom, as well as for others who may have shared your experience but I guess the point of this long, rambling post, written while I should really be working on my NMS essay, is to say that whats suitable for one, is not suitable for all. Not all of us who have been accelerated in school are social pariahs; I would hardly describe my own life as lonely and miserable. Also, give your kids a chance to decide their goals and trust them to find path to fulfill them. But then of course, this is all coming from a little kid. </p>
<p>Nevermore, I am not trying to say that a child should never be accellerated - I am just saying that parents need to pay attention to the social and emotional development of their kids. Somewhere along the line in this very long thread, issues like teasing/bullying/difficulty getting along with peers were mentioned, along with the opinion that it was better for the kid to be among like-minded kids with similar abilities. And then someone made a comment that their very bright kid would never have to deal with the less intelligent sort, so the social skills didn't really matter. That's the part that troubles me. </p>
<p>If a kid has very good social skills and is emotionally mature, then it doesn't matter what the age is -- then you have a "well-rounded gifted" kid everything is easy. And if the kid is physically big for their age, that is just one more factor in favor of accelleration. </p>
<p>But very often gifted kids don't follow that pattern, and parents of gifted kids often speak of "asyncronous development". I think its a parent's responsiblity to make sure the kid's needs are met on all levels of growth: social, emotional & intellectual. So I get worried when parents cite social difficulties as a reason for favoring segregation of gifted kids into different classrooms or accelleration -- because denying or running away from a problem doesn't solve it. So if you were the type of kid who had difficulty forming friendships, or if you were very introverted -- I would think that your parents would need to pay attention to that. That doesn't mean that you couldn't be grade advanced -- but it does mean that your parents would need to see to it that you had opportunities to develop that part of your life. Now it doesn't sound like that is an issue for you at all, so in your case it doesn't apply. </p>
<p>However, without getting personal.... I'd like to raise another that parents should think about: You are 14, going to school with 17 year olds, and you are tall enough to "pass" for 17. Great. You didn't say whether you are male or female, but I know from my own experience that a 14 year old girl attending school with 17 and 18 year old guys is going to want to date those guys. And if you are in college at age 15, then you might end up dating college guys who are even older than that. Maybe you are comfortable with this or it isn't an issue for you, and maybe your parents are comfortable with this. When I was a teenager I thought it was perfectly o.k. too. But now that I'm a mom..... well, I just would not be so comfortable with the idea. </p>
<p>Also -- there just are certain things that young people can do legally at age 18 that they can't do at 17.... just as there are things that can be done at 21. For example, there are certain employment/internship opportunities that may be available only to people who qualify due to certain age factors -- for example, if a job requires a driver's license and you are too young to drive, then someone else will get that job. It isn't everything, and you can get by without it.... but it does mean that certain opportunities along the way are missed. The problem is that you don't always think about these issues at the time -- it's years later, looking back, that you start dwelling on missed opportunities. My own kids were 18 when they started college and both had good work experience, at the kind of jobs that usualy go only to people who are 18 or over.... and I can see this playing out for both of them in terms of better work or internship opprortunities on their respective campuses.</p>
<p>I don't know anything about the corelation between IQ and SAT...except to say that if you repeat your IQ test within 6 months that score often goes up too(practice effect)! Also, IQ tests done in earlier childhood might not reflect scores achieved later on. What is being assessed at a younger age is an even narrower range of intellect than is looked at in older kids or adolescents.</p>
<p>As to the 'a given IQ or SAT score is needed to be successful at MIT' question-- I really think that there is more to it than that. I think there probably is the need for a generous minimum on the IQ and SAT both--- but what really is needed, that neither test measures, is fortitude and the ability to really and truly work hard- and on some level enjoy doing so. </p>
<p>Virtually everyone I know who graduated with me from MIT is 'successful' as an adult- by most conventional measures. Someone had to be in the bottom quarter of the class, but that does not mean they will not be a 'success.' The 'greatest success' probably does not correlate with either SAT or IQ... The people from my class and classes near mine who are now 'household names' or 'creative and very successful entrepreneurs' or 'nobel worthy scientists' had much more than just the ability to do well in their classwork. Again, what they have is something that no test, not even the MBTI- measures!!</p>
<p>I personally think that the 'narrower range of intellect' to which Marite refers is a product of a life spent making safe choices and not being willing to risk not doing well on something. True creativity and spontaneity of thought is not something you learn as an 18 year old, but it is something that is pounded out of you by years of grinding and narrow definitions of what is 'right.' I think MIT is still looking for kids with that spark, with the ability to work at a higher level in HS than they did in college. Kids who have done IB and happily are still finding college life a challenge- who don't do IB so that college will be easy for them-- that's who should go to a school like MIT. At least that's who I would be looking for if I were them!!</p>
<p>I went the way of calmom with my son, keeping him at grade level, advocating for him at school and enriching at home and with travels. In his case, he needed time to grow into his brain. His motor and social skills were low even for grade level, so grade skipping would have been tough, though that may work well for others. He has had to deal with being called The Brain, The Dictionary and The Encyclopedia and is avidly looking forward to college, needless to say.</p>
<p>I've given IQ tests for years and wouldn't say they involve no measure of creativity. Some subtests require a certain mental flexibility, and it's fun to see kids' brains light up when they figure those things out. Some IQ tests also have a pretty low ceiling. For example, I've seen kids as young as 6 come close to maxing out on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, which is supposed to be good up to age 16.5. I'm told the Stanford Binet is better in this regard, but schools around here wanted the WISC.</p>
<p>What has worked well for us is a series of full-day public school programs for highly gifted kids, starting in 4th grade. These have always been part of the larger school environment, so the kids are not totally isolated. It gets a critical mass of kids together so that accelerated teaching can take place.<br>
These programs are shooting for kids who are already working two+ grades above level. By the time kids are selected, it's a top-notch group. </p>
<p>DS1 was able to get a three-year math acceleration at the elementary HG program without a word of advocacy from us. DS came home one day and announced he was in 7th grade math. The cool part was that he was in a group of nine kids who were in the same boat -- some had taken CTY, some had local schools that saw the need and gave the kids more, some were stuck previously in schools that would not accommodate. It was the first time DS1 felt like he belonged. He's now a junior at one of these programs and every year gets better and better socially. The program he's in does math well beyond AP Calc, so we have not had to deal with hauling him to the local flagship for math and CS classes.</p>
<p>For my DS2, one of the best parts of the program was that the teachers knew these kids are asynchronous, and automatically made accommodations without 504s, IEPs, etc. Again, he was not the only one, which was a VERY big deal for this child. He has been able to fly despite some LD issues. </p>
<p>My husband went to Bx Sci in the 70s and has always held that as the benchmark for an outstanding public education. Our expectations have been more than exceeded in their programs!</p>
<p>684 and 686 -- great posts, these. Nevermore, it's quite obvious why you've skipped. It was a joy to read your post. You remind me of the boy of whom I spoke earlier, who incidently skipped several grades, who proceeded early without encumbrance into the musical career for which he seemed destined, & who shortly thereafter became a very young musical pioneer in his own right. We should all be thanking the enlightened adults in his school & district who did not hold him back due to envy, misguided social concerns (which for him were not important -- depends on the individual), or bureaucratic permissions. Different strokes for diff. folks. I am just grateful that there continue to some schools & situations like CountingDown's which support acceleration & grouping where this does work. It worked for our cohort also when I was in elem. school. And who was especially responsible for supporting this? As I alluded to earlier, adults who were themselves gifted.</p>
<p>"It was the first time DS1 felt like he belonged." Bingo. My earlier point exactly. That identity process is in fact a critical factor in the social maturity about which several posters express concern.</p>
<p>anitaw, an imp. point you make about early IQ tests. And I like your last paragraph especially, & I do think it applies to college admissions, yes.</p>
<p>Nevermore--you might want to look at my post (680) in which I describe my son--who ended up at MIT at 16. You use many of the same arguments he gave me when I suggested he might be better off with his age-peers rather than his intellect-peers; in the end, he chose his intellect-peers. The biggest problem he has had at college--and like you, he does look older than he is--is that he can't drink and can't go to bars with his friends. And since his friends are 25 or more, it simply never occurs to them that my son is underage.</p>
<p>I graduated from MIT at 19 as well, back in the days when the drinking age was 18, and the problem I had was simply a lack of life experiences. When I started working, and thus was expecting myself to have an adult life, I simply wasn't an adult. I didn't know enough about what I wanted. I made some astonishingly stupid mistakes as a result--oh well.</p>
<p>"Calmom, I also didn't like being the youngest..."</p>
<p>Okay, I have to speak up. I LOVED being the youngest. It always made me feel smart - and except for 7th grade I never had issues with other kids. I only skipped a year (because of starting off in a school system where five year olds were in first grade). The school badgered my parents into having me taught to read over the summer so I could go right to second grade. With a September birthday I was always at least a year sometimes closer to two years younger than anyone in a US school system. I still ended up taking a lot of AP courses. I took a year off before going to college which made me the same age as my college friends - that was actually surprising hard to get used to.</p>
<p>I don't advocate grade skipping as the best solution, but many school systems won't consider it at all, and I think that is a mistake. I think we need schools that can be flexible. For my older son subject acceleration took care of most of his needs and my only regret is that he didn't get accelerated even more in math. There's no way though that he belongs in college this year.</p>
<p>Tying this back to the issue of college admissions stress, we've seen a lot of media articles on what a competitive year 2006 was for admissions. Statistics on the elite schools report very high percentages of their incoming class (around 50%) as having been valedictorians, and of those who weren't Val's, many were Sal's. I haven't been on that thread about the characteristics of Val's and Sal's in a while, but one point being made was that Val's and Sal's tend to avoid risks, take the safer classes, and generally play the GPA game. Obviously, that is a generalization to which there are many exceptions. But a kernel of truth is there also. If the top schools are taking such a high number of these kids, could it be that this is one cause for what anitaw is talking about : "the 'narrower range of intellect' to which Marite refers is a product of a life spent making safe choices and not being willing to risk not doing well on something."</p>
<p>My S had enough "spark" to take what was notoriously the hardest class in the HS because he wanted to learn that material. He was well aware it might ruin his rank and simply didn't care. Many other kids, some of whom were better at the subject than he, steered clear in order to protect their GPA. When students are overly concerned about GPA they will not explore new areas of study in which they suspect they may lack knowledge or ability, or subjects for which they can't earn honors or AP weighting. At our HS, that would mean they wouldn't take many art, music, or "specialty" classes as few of them carry weighting.</p>
<p>"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>Agreed. Though I did use my younger son's high math subtest scores to suggest that he's better at math than his classroom performance implies. As it happens, as soon as he got to algebra math became an easy subject. Quite amusing to observe.</p>
<p>It's still I think an open question as to whether IQ or SAT tests measure anything terribly useful. I think SAT tests (especially before the recent changes) did correlate pretty well with the math and verbal parts of the SAT. Obviously alot of the pattern recognition and spatial tests are missing. (No doubt part of the reason why CTY now has the Spatial Test Battery as an alternate way to qualify for their programs.) </p>
<p>I'd guess that the 7th grade tests are a more accurate measure. At that stage you get kids who intuite answers even though they haven't officially been taught the material in their schools. But at the same time, most kids who scored around 1200 as 7th graders will probably score around 1500 as 11th graders. There are some threads here on CC where kids share the two scores. Most go up substantially, but there's only so far you can go up if you scored well in 7th grade.</p>
<p>Not to be the wet blanket, but I too was somewhat accelerated (graduating college at 19, law school at 22) and at the time, I thought it was great. School was boring, my age mates were boring, how great that I got to skip all that high school garbage and go to college. I also wasn't lonely and miserable -- I was having a great time dating guys ten, fifteen years older and hanging out with their friends. Who needed high school boys? Twenty plus years later, I regret that decision. I feel now that I shouldn't have raced through adolescence and been so quick to get to the finish line. I burned out at 30! I learned a bit too late that the journey is more important than the destination and I regret not being able to fully experience the "normal" teen years. For my son, I was determined not to have him grade accelerate but also make sure that he was in an intellectually stimulating environment. I would strongly suggest you slow down and enjoy these years -- there's plenty of time to be an adult but not nearly enough time to be a kid. I'm not blaming your parents for "pushing" you -- had I not had the experience of grade skipping of course I would have done the same thing with my son. But I did have that experience, as have others on this board, so please don't just ignore us out of hand. We've been there, you haven't yet been here.</p>
<p>GFG, possibly true of some vals & sals. Sometimes it's the opposite -- & I've been wanting to bring up this topic; almost did earlier. Being high profile at a school often subjects one to tremendous pressure from administrators & even to manipulation for purposes of the school's image, school's admissions results, etc. This can be esp. true at a small h.school. It was true of my older D, & she was Val. Administration tried to pressure her to take a couple of AP's not in her field of interest in sr. yr. She wanted to take one AP and one non-AP in her field of interest. Admin. told her they were concerned about "how that would look to the colleges." D came home & reported the remark to me. I told D to arm herself with quite the opposite argument: that "it would look to colleges" that she was being true to herself, that her stated interests in her college apps. matched her actual h.s. program, etc. -- in other words that it would <em>strengthen</em> her app to pursue her genuine academic passions.
Admissions results verified her choices, & my support of those.</p>
<p>BurnThis...hey, me too:) Ain't it great...we got to work several years before everyone else...whee. </p>
<p>Nevermore-you sound exceptionally mature...and I wish you the best. Consider doing some fascinating programs (maybe overseas) before or after college...there are wonderful things you can do while you are young which will be easier to do before you enter the workforce. THERE'S NO RUSH. I'm not suggesting you hang with kids your own age or stop accelerating..just seek out programs that interest you and GO!!! Being so young and talented gives you lots of wonderful choices and opportunities.</p>
<p>Some of us are beyond the decisions of high school acceleration that we are discussing but maybe some aren't or there maybe some lurkers with younger kids facing these issues, so I'll wade in. I'll leave the detailed discussions of educational theory to those of you who know the buzz words. I'd need a map with a very long legend to travel with you down that road. I will say that "social concerns" is a very narrow way to describe my concerns with serious acceleration (meaning for me advancing two or more years above age level in all classes). </p>
<p>Yep. I was a kid who was in the group pulled from elementary to high school for 1/2 days for classes taught 4 to 5 years ahead. No problem. We still went back to the elementary school for PE, music, art and I never once felt like I was missing something socially. As a military brat we moved 3 more times before I left high school. (Now that was socially difficult. LOL.) I did graduate high school early but I was 6'3" and could buy liquor since I was 15. I was never physically intimidated. Smallest and youngest? Well, I was always the youngest and (one of the) biggest.;)</p>
<p>My acceleration , as it were, occurred in college and law school. I used CLEP, some bizarre transfer anomalies that worked in my favor, summer school, ridiculous schedules that had to be approved by the Dean, and I found myself graduated from law school at 22. Not my best decision. (Edit: My Gosh. We are all here. BurnThis and Symphonymom, LOL. That's really funny.)</p>
<p>I understand everyone's experience is different but mine had long term implications. There is a difference between a 19 year old and a 22 year old that in my case felt like far more than 3 years. </p>
<p>I'd wager as parents we all brought some amount of our own experiences into our decisions to accelerate our kids or not.</p>
<p>D spent pre-school up through grade 4 in a Montessori classroom with mixed learners, each traveling at their own pace. She transferred to her rural public in the 5th grade when the fallout from health considerations required we move full-time to the ranch. In each grade of public school she was accelerated in math and the school was very accomodating although the programs were limited. (One year they sent a bus to take her to high school. Just her. I told them that was unnecessary. Just give her the book and some access to a teacher. The principal said " If I have to provide services to those at the lower end , I'm certainly going to accomodate your daughter even if I have to drive her myself." And from time to time -he did. LOL.)</p>
<p>In 9th grade the school wanted her to jump to 11th. To their surprise we declined. Later that year they offered up either State boarding school (Math + Science, or Humanities -her choice) as an option. Nope. </p>
<p>Basketball. Learning to drive. Growing in her faith. Understanding issues of being a smart woman. Understanding how to live as an attractive woman. Self-reliance. Self-defense. Competition (I know it's a dirty word but if you've been to Law School, you'll understand ;) And so many other things). </p>
<p>Did my D have to deal with issues by remaining in her grade? Sure. I think she always felt a little out of place. Her brain worked differently and she felt that. She was "the girl who was smarter than the teachers". She was also 5'9 in the 8th grade. That was probably more of a problem. LOL. Ms. Shaq was her 5-6th grade school name when she was literally a head taller. She was very mature acting and sounding. I will always remember the kids a grade or two behind telling me years later that when D first came to school they thought she was a student teacher. </p>
<p>Has she felt her college is Wonderland? Absolutely. She feels like she has found her people. Her tribe. When she visited Hamilton for a weekend she first noticed "Dad. Even the dumb kids here are smart."</p>
<p>What worked for your kid might not have worked for mine. If I had been in your shoes , I might have made the same decisions you did. One size fits all parenting is just "bad parenting". Listen to the kid. Observe the kid. Check out the options. Then go with your gut. That's really all we can do.</p>
<p>"Statistics on the elite schools report very high percentages of their incoming class (around 50%) as having been valedictorians, and of those who weren't Val's, many were Sal's."</p>
<p>Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of "elite" is -- but no; let's not exaggerate an already tough enough reality. </p>
<p>WesDad. I think earlier on this thread I mentioned that MIT's numbers were "high 30's" for val. I remember 38% but I don't remember if that was accepted or enrolled, or if that was "of students submitting rank". Still not 50% but a remarkably large number and I commented earlier that MIT loved vals (or at least they loved THESE vals).</p>
<p>And count me in the camp that says generalizations about vals not being risk-takers are just not borne out in my experience (although I know it can happen). At our school the val and sal WERE the riskiest of the risk-takers by a rather large measure (taking courses well above grade level, that were not given extra weight beyond AP or Honors, and that had never been attempted before in the history of the school. And in the Val's case - courses that she knew would NOT be credited as college courses where the much lower difficulty AP would have been).</p>