Who is an apt pupil?

[p43531]

<p>

I know for certain that profoundly gifted kids have been turned down at the HADES schools. Doing moderately well on a exam (in this case, the SSAT) is only ONE bar that must be passed to have a shot at a slot at the “elite” schools. I know some truly fabulous kids who have been rejected, and I don’t think they or their parents have any idea why.</p>

<p>AOs are not looking to fill a class with geniuses. They seek a balanced mix of individuals who will not only fit in tolerably well, but will add value to the school community and possibly end up bringing honor and prestige to the institution, as a high school competitor, or later - as alumni.

</p>

<p>We all know stories of talent denied. I hope (and believe) that such talented and motivated kids find their way with help of parents and teachers (if they have been denied at a Top50 private school, then they are obviously beyond the inner-city underprivileged, unrecognized talent, at least socially, since those kids have never even heard of DEGAS, let alone the SSAT).</p>

<p>But to inch back towards my original question, what is moderately well in your view, and the view of others? This is exactly what puzzles me: pitting talented kids against each other on a test where some prepare lots, some very little, some do naturally well, some do not; in the end, where is the cut-off where educators can say the kid most likely cannot do the work?</p>

<p>If the test were the sole determinant for admission, as it is many places around the world, it would make complete sense to rank the kids from Number One to Also Ran. Of course, the test would have to be much harder to select the aptest.</p>

<p>But here, is the function of the test segregating an elite pool (just to claim the best, without any pressing need to distinguish between 88 and 98) – or is it validating disparate educations by assessing each candidate individually on a standardized, objective test of aptitude? If the latter, why the percentile rankings? Why curve a group when absolute levels of achievements would clearly state: “this kid can and that one cannot handle what we ask at our school academically?”</p>

<p>Again, we are not talking about a student getting in at a certain score, merely, as other Forum members also wrote, being “worthy” (for lack of a better word) of consideration for admission.</p>

<p>

Well the short answer is - don’t worry about the minimum needed to “do academic work”. If you get in, technically you can “do the work” partly because there is a big range of “acceptable work” (e.g. from A to D). The tricky part is that for some individuals, the minimum required for “the work” wouldn’t necessarily get them in. This is a competitive process and the schools routinely turn down “academically admissible” applicants.

</p>

<p>Many students and their parents do worry about this “minimum needed”. Say a school takes nice, well-rounded kids who merely scored well percentile-wise (say, in the 80s), but they did not ace (97+ percentile) a small-sample, elite-pool standardized test. The school believes they can all do the work, and contribute beyond the classroom (because of their other talents, and niceness etc.)</p>

<p>Would the outcome for the school, and the kids, be radically different?</p>

<p>Why, would college matriculation statistics suddenly drop? Doubtful. SAT ranks all college applicants, a pool 35x the size of the SSAT. If the kids above were capable of doing good work (again: who would get A’s at this school? The kid with 98s in class or the best student in class, regardless of the score? If schools curve grades exactly as the SSAT percentile ranks curve the kids’ scores, then there *always *be some A students at our school, no matter the pool enrolled!), and such kids do well enough on the SAT (a test most everyone has easy access to, and which is admittedly only a minor factor in college admissions, where subject knowledge becomes equally important), then the equation really becomes one of social engineering a secondary school class based on numerous strengths beyond test scores or even academic preparedness.</p>

<p>All in all, I remain skeptical that an obsession with small-pool percentile ranking sheds much light on *individual * capabilities, as much as it polarizes the pool itself. If 12 kids in a class all score well enough on a test (in absolute points, not in comparison to each other), there is no reason to give a C to the lowest result. Or, (in our case of “being considered for admission”) fail him.</p>