<p>Wedad,
Don't have time to look up the stats right now, but you may be right about 50% being too high for most schools. I just checked on Dartmouth, though, which some consider a lesser Ivy. Can't imagine it's much different at HYPS. 40.6% of Dartmouth's incoming class were valedictorians. </p>
<p>Here's a pertinent quote from Dart's admissions director:</p>
<p>Although the ever-increasingly selectivity in admission to top colleges has allowed Dartmouth to choose from a larger and stronger pool of students, there are also some downsides to this trend, Furstenberg said. Among these are the increased pressure upon high school students, along with resulting anxiety to gain admission to top colleges, which Furstenberg sees as counterproductive to high school education. </p>
<p>"We've reached a point where the selectivity is getting kind of ridiculous," Furstenberg said.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, around here, Val is meaningless. One school had 22 valedictorians in a class of 400.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's why the schools ask "How many vals", now isn't it? LOL. The selective schools have caught on to that 22 vals trick. Around here it is still the highest award given by a high school , it's to one kid only and it's the award held in the highest esteem by the kids. (And on this one I do have more than my traditional one data point. LOL. This is the way it is at every local public school.)</p>
<p>CTY is also using scores of "advanced" in reading and math on some state tests as a means of qualifying. This pretty much renders the qualification meaningless, especially coupled with the fact that most public schools in our state have done away with nationally norm-referenced tests, such as the Terra Nova. One of our middle school gifted pull-out program teachers no longer forwards CTY info to kids and parents in her program: any above-average kid can pretty easily score advanced on our state tests. Imagine every parent whose kid scores advanced clamoring to enroll him/her in CTY! To add insult to injury, the state changed the cut scores in order to meet their AYP under NCLB. More kids than ever are scoring advanced. I am beginning to wonder about the integrity of the CTY program.</p>
<p>First, a shout out to all those former baby lawyers out there...BurnThis and Cur...what good company we keep:)</p>
<p>Second, an all hail to Furstenberg at Dartmouth...he took two of my friends' kids who didn't think they had a prayer. Terrific, smart kids. Great choices on the part of Dartmouth. I think they walk their talk.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, around here, Val is meaningless. One school had 22 valedictorians in a class of 400.
[/quote]
Not exactly sure why this would be meaningless. 22/400 is, I believe, meaningful.</p>
<p>My two closest friends at Dartmouth were both Vals, 1st in their class (no ties). I also have some experience in this regard—only 1 val from my High.:) I’m from North Jersey and I’ve never even heard of any schools in the area that give Val to more than one student. There was of course the court case in the Philly area (Blair Hornstein?) over who would be Val or Sal. In fact, as many high schools in the area no longer reported “top 10,” the only way to distinguish yourself at the top is with Val or Sal. 1 or 2.</p>
<p>On the val issue: a few months ago I visited a well-regarded public high school in another state, while spouse casually investigated a job offer. I laughed when I read the info sheet that said that every student with a 4.0 or above, weighted, was automatically ranked # 1 (more than 20 last year). Then, I came home to discover that my S public high school, which does not do any weighting, has a dozen students with a 4.0; some are risk-takers, some are not. ALL will be val at graduation. (S got a B in Ancient Greek II in 9th grade, so no val, and no need to worry all the way through high school about an A- messing up the numbers.)</p>
<p>In the old days, that is, when I was a high school senior, there was only one val because there was only one kid with a 4.0. The little creep ensured his perfect record by taking a very easy elective while his only competitor took advanced physics--and got a B.</p>
<p>I do agree here. Being young in high school made me feel like I didn't have to rush through college. I chose to take a year off before attending. I chose not to take sophomore standing even though I was eligible. And I chose to get a travel grant before starting grad. school. Having rushed through the earlier part of school gave me time to enjoy learning when the opportunities were more interesting. (At least more in line with my interests any way.)</p>
<p>"I am beginning to wonder about the integrity of the CTY program."</p>
<p>Why? You still have to score better than 50% of high school seniors on the SAT to qualify for their programs. More kids may qualify to take the SAT because of state tests, but I don't believe CTY's requirements have changed much at all. In fact, I believe the required SAT cut offs have been creeping upward.</p>
<p>mathmom: But why set these kids up for more parental pressure and potential failure? The state test is a criterion-referenced test, so it really is useless at identifying "exceptional" students (hence the huge numbers scoring at "advanced" level). It bears no relation to the old 97%ile qualification of the norm-referenced tests. I suppose it's a good way to possibly identify the few kids who haven't been identified yet, but it seems to me that if the school and the parents have been doing their job, that should have been done years prior. It seems to me that it just creates another Lake Wobegon boondoggle.</p>
<p>You'll get no argument from me. I like norm based tests too, but I can understand the rational for standards based ones. Most parents I know do emphasize to the kids taking the test that they are designed for high school seniors and that taking the test is accomplishment enough. </p>
<p>I was pretty sure my oldest would do well, but my younger son is much more of a mixed bag and we weren't at all sure he would qualify for CTY programs. (The first year he only qualified for non-math and science courses.) But I suppose there are plenty of parents out there who could put a lot of pressure on their kids. </p>
<p>The only practice our kids did was the little practice booklet that comes from the College Board. It was clear from that, that the youngest knew no geometry. Smart kid - he told us in no uncertain terms he wasn't planning on learning it for the test. In the end he got some of thos problems right and lots of them wrong resulting in a pretty accurate assessment of both his abilities and interests. Ironically I believe he'd gotten an "advanced" on the math section of the state tests and just a "meets standards" on the ELA section.</p>
<p>When my S took the SAT in order to qualify for CTY, the state test had only just been introducedand there was no breaking down into percentile; we were not privy to the results of previous tests.` We wrote to CTY asking if the state test could be used anyway. S then took the SAT and qualified. </p>
<p>All the kids we met at CTY loved their time there. At every end of session, there were kids crying because it had ended.</p>
<p>Burnthis, Symphonymom, Curmudgeon..... it's scary. I was a baby lawyer too, representing clients in court at the ripe old age of 23. In hindsight, I really pity our clients. Even at the time I knew I was faking it. I had the courtroom/evidence/legal research thing down cold. It was part about dispensing advice where I was really shaky, given the fact that clients rely on their lawyers to help them make life decisions in difficult situations.</p>
<p>I think we all share the one big lesson learned in hindsight from early academic accelleration: in the end, what it gets us is a very early entrance into the world of work, and once launched as workers rather than students, we don't get younger. We just get older and more tired out as time goes on. And then when we are in our 40s & 50s parenting kids who are doing all the fun things we never had a chance to do.....</p>
<p>"I suppose it's a good way to possibly identify the few kids who haven't been identified yet, but it seems to me that if the school and the parents have been doing their job, that should have been done years prior."</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many schools do a poor job of identifying gifted kids and many kids fall through the cracks, especially those from lower socio-economic families. (Obviously this is not a problem in NJ school systems like the one GFG is in.) My town's school district does nothing to ID gifted kids (partly because it offers no services for them). I think anything that helps schools know who these kids are is great.</p>
<p>I had moved my kids from our do-nothing public district to a nearby Catholic with an enrichment program. Long story short -- old principal gets fired (I didn't know they fired nuns) & new principal eliminates "elitist" enrichment programs. I knew my d would never want to take part in CTY stuff, but she took the exams so I could show the new principal how clear it was that she was being underserved. I was diplomatic about it, letting her know that there were no doubt several kids who needed more challenge & some type of pull-out or independent study group would be better than nothing. Given the budget constraints of a Catholic school, I even volunteered to supervise/lead it if staffing was the stumbling block. The new principal had never even heard of CTY. If she hadn't heard of it, obviously it couldn't be very worthwhile or valid, after all. The woman had a masters in elementary ed, by the way.</p>
<p>Pulled the kids out after being treated like something she needed to scrape off her shoes. (I would show how the school was falling further behind the math curriculum offered at my town public, but she was not interested.) Public wasn't terrific, but at least I wasn't paying for it. I since have heard through the grapevine that the co-op (admission test for Catholic H.S. admission) scores have dropped each year & kids are getting turned down by schools they were traditionally admitted to without question.</p>
<p>So, I am all for using CTY eligibility as a bit of leverage in gaining what enrichment your kids need. It just didn't work for me. In hindsight, I do remember a distinct smell of sulfur lingering around that woman......</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, many schools do a poor job of identifying gifted kids and many kids fall through the cracks, especially those from lower socio-economic families.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. One of the reasons I had such a hard time getting appropriate services for D. is that her school had no gifted program of its own (so no interest in referring kids out) and her principal equated gifted with privileged, and we weren't, so till I learned about the SBLC, all my efforts to get her screened were shot down, despite her 99th percentiles on norm-referenced tests. </p>
<p>I felt pretty stupid when I learned that gifted children as a group are more likely to have messy handwriting than the general population; one year the excuse why D. couldn't be screened was "her handwriting is too messy. Gifted children have to excel or be perfect in everything." </p>
<p>I still feel things worked out for the best for D., but there were probably many other children who also were denied screening. The difference in the % of the student body classified as gifted between her elementary school, and the elementary school a few miles down the road with the higher median income was pretty telling. </p>
<p>The other thing that participation in talent searches does, is to give parents information about resources and opportunities. I had no idea that there were so many things out there, particularly the summer opportunities. Had D. actually been willing to do any of them ("summer school is for kids who fail, Mom. I didn't fail"), they would have done a lot to make up for what she was missing in school and by living in a rural community.</p>
<p>"The woman had a masters in elementary ed, by the way."</p>
<p>I don't mean to insult any of the smart teachers out there--I know you're there--but an anecdote from my son's elementary years shows just how predictive graduate degrees in ed. are. In son's third grade class, four students were bored to death with the math lessons; they had mastered the material at least one year earlier. The mother of one of the affected four held a master's degree in mechanical engineering and was working on a PhD in physics. She offered to take the four aside once or twice a week, inside the classroom, and work with them on more advanced math stuff. (Not for pay, of course, purely voluntary.) The teacher was interested, but the principal was furious, adamantly denied permission, stating that it would be an insult to all of the professional teachers at the school to let a "non-professional" try to help. Principal was finishing up her work on her doctorate in education.</p>
<p>midmo: Sadly, it doesn't surprise me that an insecure principal turned down the assistance from a PhD candidate. The disparity in teacher quality & confidence I've encountered has been enormous. Messy handwriting was a big issue with one of son's teachers, too. (He has cross-dominance & was very slow to decide which hand to write with.) His third-grade math teacher thought she was showing how much empathy she had for struggling students by telling me, "I told them, Hey, I hate math too! But you have to learn it..." I had gone in to see her because she would hand out math tests that asked questions about colored pie charts, but had been xeroxed on a black & white copier. Or had tiny spaces that no kid could fit the answers in. (My ADD son, with his big, sloppy writing, would not even realize that he had left half the problems undone because the paper looked "full." I could go on......)</p>
<p>Other teachers have been outstanding. And they all get paid the same, regardless of talent, dedication, or work ethic. It bugs me. I bet it bugs them, too.</p>
<p>"Other teachers have been outstanding. And they all get paid the same, regardless of talent, dedication, or work ethic. It bugs me. I bet it bugs them, too."</p>
<p>In my opinion, a major issue. I can't think of too many other fields where performance is not tied to compensation.</p>
<p>I have found much of the standardized testing to be helpful and accurate. The CTY screening showed my son to be very advanced in reading, less so in math -- and it showed my daughter to be strong in math, weaker in reading. By not having them prepare for these tests, I thought I would get a more accurate picture. My son does better in essay tests than multiple choice ones, my daughter's the reverse. I think if so much wasn't tied to testing we might be able to see the benefits -- but they are just one piece of the puzzle. I didn't have my son take the SAT or SAT IIs over in hopes of a higher score, his scores accurately reflect who he is as a student. Those, coupled with his grades and course load, show him to be a very strong student academically, capable of excelling at any school. Sadly, that's not enough with so many kids graduating and applying, so something else figures in and that's where it gets into the realm of "the unknown." Each school will have to decide, since he's passed the threshhold of qualified, if his "extras" are something they want or need. And that's where the stress comes into play -- will this student fulfill that "unknown" quality.</p>