<p>I know a lot of grown up men who are that way too. Most of them are doing extremely well as responsible husbands, good careers, great friends. I married on. </p>
<p>My SIL wants to tell you that if her brother could make it–now married to a lovely woman, has a child, a great job, etc, anyone can. She said no one would have thought he would ever come out of his shell.</p>
<p>Poet said "Look, this is just a carefully disguised post of the usual question about URM’s and Legacy and athletic admits.</p>
<p>It’s not about your kids who have great scores and are shy. I promise."</p>
<p>Wow. You could not be more wrong if you tried. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with URMs, etc.</p>
<p>Also, it has nothing to do with my kids. My D has been accepted everywhere and is extremely outgoing.</p>
<p>I think that there should be a mix of objective and subjective. I do like that in Texas the top 10% or 8% are auto admit, then the rest are review admits. They then go to a Holistic review.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does study after study prove that test scores plus GPA are the best predictors of success in life? I ask because you didn’t address that above. And isn’t “success in life” really the goal here?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why “should” he have been captain? In my experience, coaches don’t pick captains based on how long they have been on the team, but based on leadership qualities. Someone “more outgoing” might well translate into a leader on the field, someone who inspires the younger players, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Accepted “everywhere?” Wow. Congrats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, schools actually consider “going home to babysit and not being able to participate” in terms of EC’s, as they consider actual jobs like working part time at a McDonalds. These are not things they overlook, and should be included in the application.</p>
<p>The problem with your premise is that you are saying that “exceptionally bright” students can be determined based on grades and tests. A certain subset of intellectual kids can, sure. But, another type of “bright” kid is very good with people and not as good at math tests. One is not brighter than the other, though I “get,” as one of the priveledged high intellectual IQ people, why you want to think this. It’s just not true.</p>
<p>Whether this has to do with “your” kid or not. This is the case.</p>
<p>For the most part the “system” works. Intellectually bright kids have acceptances, kids with high emotional iq’s have acceptances. There are kids who don’t get into their first choice schools, but just because a school is their first choice doesn’t even mean it is the “best” school for this particular kid.</p>
<p>The real “problem” is that parents and other adults encourage the idea of “the dream school,” which is, quite frankly, just that: a dream. It simply doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>
Sometimes as anxious parents we are more likely to see the weaknesses of our kid and not to see them as others see them. Don’t worry - he’ll find a place somewhere. :)</p>
<p>Sylvan wrote- “First I would say that there is a difference between “exceptionally bright” and “genius”. A lot of people want to believe that their exceptionally bright children are geniuses, but in reality most of them aren’t.”</p>
<p>That got me thinking about the difference in the two terms, so I did some research. Psychologists universally agree that the SAT test is an IQ test and there are even tables to determine one from the other. An SAT score above 1430 CR+M is equivalent to a 140 IQ. A 1570 and above is the same as a 150 IQ. There are differences of opinion on what constitutes “genius” however. The man who popularized the use of the term (Terman) put the cut-off at 140. Others say it is higher. In any case, I think it could be argued that someone with an SAT of above a certain level (1430? 1500?) is a genius.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4 - he was slotted to be captain because he had been on varsity since sophomore year and was only one of 2 or 3 seniors with that much experience. One was already captain from last year, so there was only one slot left. It came down to a vote, and it turned out to be a popularity contest. Shocker. There were new kids on the team that didn’t even know who he was or how experienced he was. But it didn’t go by experience or skill. It went to the kid with the bigger personality who, frankly, didn’t expect it and even voted for my S!!</p>
<p>Forgot to mention - if the coach had chosen - S would have been captain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>psychologists used to agree that SAT tests were an IQ test, but not anymore.</p>
<p>Psychologists (I am one) also agree that IQ tests are questionable, at best, in terms of predicting anything at all except future results on future IQ tests. 
</p>
<p>Go to a mensa meeting some time. It will tell you a lot about what a high IQ will get you, along with 2.50 for a cup of coffee at starbucks.</p>
<p>In fact, SAT tests are not considered to predict much of anything, at all, beyond the first year performance in college, and GPA, is considered a much higher predictor of college GPA, regardless of how rigorous the schedule in high school OR the high school, itself. In other words, B+ students from podunk high school tend to remain B+ students at Elite U, as C+ students from elite high remain C+ students at state U.</p>
<p>I think your premise is simply flawed, though I know WHY you raise the question.</p>
<p>In the end, the system is the way it is because admissions committees, who have been at this for a long time, have ways of knowing what they want in a class, including people who will keep all the clubs and teams and plays on campus, and those who will keep the lab work going. </p>
<p>If an admission committee simply selected the top scores and gpa’s and did not take into account EC’s, it would be a very strange campus environment. No?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl- I do not think that at all, but I should have been clearer in my example. I meant if a student was good at math and had an exceptionally high SAT vs another student and BOTH had similar CR SAT scores. I could make the same point the other way: Two students have similar math scores but one has a truly remarkable CR score and the other one doesn’t, but the higher CR score doesn’t have as good an essay (or ECs, or whatever). I don’t think it is fair that the 2300 SAT kid gets turned down and the 2100 SAT kid gets let in (again, assuming both took the same course load and had the same GPA/class rank etc in the context of their school).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Argued, sure, but to what point? Having a high IQ and/or a SAT means someone has ability, and it means that they’re way smarter than the average bear. It doesn’t mean they’re a genius, which is someone who sees the world in a fundamentally different way.</p>
<p>Friends and I used to talk about two types of “geniuses”. Type one is where you look at them and think that if you just worked a little smarter and harder, you could accomplish what they accomplish. Type two is where they come up with a solution to a problem…and you realize that you’d never have thought of that in a million years. The type twos just think entirely differently. Those are the real geniuses.</p>
<p>there is too big of a difference in SAT scores, as tied to socioeconomic background, to make any of these arguments valid. I’m sorry, there just are.</p>
<p>The SAT test, in spite of the way it has been re-engineered in the past while, still priveledges certain sets of students. There is a strong correlation between parents financial wherewithal and student performance to make it a more important factor than teacher recs and participation in EC’s.</p>
<p>The idea that the SAT is “more” objective than who gets elected president by peers is a point of view, but even this is not objective.</p>
<p>Sorry. It carries with it it’s own subjective point of view.</p>
<p>“psychologists used to agree that SAT tests were an IQ test, but not anymore.”</p>
<p>Everything I have read says just the opposite. Recent studies like Frey and Detterman, Beaujean. </p>
<p>Here is a recent quote from professor Claude Steele of Stanford’s psych dept. “It is in a sense an IQ test. The SAT and IQ test correlate very highly. Between the SAT and the IQ, they correlate almost as much as the SAT correlates with a second administration of the SAT, as much as it correlates with itself. So they’re very similar tests in content.”</p>
<p>I found many such examples. Do you know something these esteemed psychologists don’t :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where do you get this? I don’t think MENSA will even accept SAT scores anymore.</p>
<p>Slithy- I agree. I have done quite a bit of reading about this subject lately because it fascinates me. Personally I believe there are multiple types of genius. It’s always amazed me how someone can be a savant for example in one area, but totally clueless in another- like Rain Man for example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know that URM’s do not have lower IQ’s than caucaisions, and that’s about all I’m going to say on the matter.</p>
<p>You, however, may continue on.</p>
<p>“there is too big of a difference in SAT scores, as tied to socioeconomic background, to make any of these arguments valid. I’m sorry, there just are.”</p>
<p>I don’t deny that, but wouldn’t it be akin to false positives vs false negatives. I’m not saying someone who does poorly can’t be smarter than their SAT indicates. I’m saying that someone who does well is intelligent.</p>
<p>“I know that URM’s do not have lower IQ’s than caucaisions, and that’s about all I’m going to say on the matter.”</p>
<p>Of course not. What does that have to do with the debate?</p>