<p>That pretty much nails it - thanks!</p>
<p>Just to keep the thread going, because I think it’s a good one - </p>
<p>The issue here is unbalanced skills, not lack of skills :-). While there are people who are strong on both sides (humanities and science-math), I know a lot of smart people who aren’t. I had a huge argument with the head of our middle school, who seemed to think that one’s strength in math determined one’s strength in humanities, and, in my humble opinion, sabotaged the mental stability of several grades’ worth of kids by essentially telling the “strong in humanities, weak in math” kids that they didn’t measure up. Sorry, I"m ranting - back to the question. </p>
<p>The thing we had to figure out with the schools was - are we looking at an inability to do the work or an inability to take the test. Her math teacher and I both came to the conclusion that she was doing much better in class than on the tests. And the AOs at the 3 schools I mentioned seemed pretty open to the idea as well. </p>
<p>I was not surprised that Culver and NMH would be open. What did pleasantly surprise me was that Exeter didn’t write her off. Now, they could have been blowing some sunshine up the skirts - 2 generations of family got pretty good grades there, and have been, if small, consistent donors - but I really felt that the reaction was genuine - to paraphrase, it was “look, I’ve just spent half an hour talking to her, and she really seems like she can hold her own in a discussion…obviously the committee is going to ask about that math score…but I wonder if what she really needs is a couple of good years of Harkness math…”. </p>
<p>As it turned out, she was accepted at Culver (rolling admissions) in early Feb, so we pulled back the rest of the applications; thus we will never know what the end result would have been. But I did get the feel that they were acknowledging that some pretty smart kids will have some pretty unbalanced academic profiles, and that there was indeed a place for them. </p>
<p>One AO described a situation to me in which a boy had an IEP (Individual Educational Plan) which included extra time and extra support, but they also had gotten the impression that the boy was going to knock himself out to try to not call upon the “extras” if he could manage it. So perhaps there is also a feeling out there that the “unbalanced” academics can demonstrate some great work habits to their fellow students. And perhaps there is a plus to having some really hard workers in the mix of students. As I think I have mentioned in the past, having the example of a hard worker has been a huge help as we reformed the not-so-hard worker last year. </p>
<p>As far as what support she’s getting now - I think I mentioned that she seems to be getting some good results from going to “extra help” sessions that are offered to all students. A couple of teachers have quietly offered pep talks to deal with the (inevitable, I guess) shaky confidence moments. And getting the chance to dig into the subjects in depth, at the more measured pace that the block system allows, seems to be working. Physics was supposed to be horrendous, according to her phone calls in February, but somehow or other she was solid and moving ahead pretty strongly by the end of the year. </p>
<p>I am going to get the ball rolling to see if she qualifies for extra time on the SAT, however. There is something to be said for taking chances, but, as a teacher friend of mine said “everyone else is doing it, how come your kid has to do it the hard way?”. </p>
<p>I think every school is different in how they view their job. Some of them tend more toward a mono-culture - everyone is above average in everything. Some of them tend more toward diversity - world class writers who are working a grade lower in math, world class mathematicians who need help in synthesizing the evidence that proves their point in history. Takes all kinds.</p>