Who is "smarter"? The Val or the top test taker?

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Donemom....I can relate. I know for my oldest child, the one who was val....she had to learn to complete the SATs in the time allotted. Once she was able to do that, her score went up by 200 points. Some of it is just learning how to take that test!</p>

<p>Northstarmom....I agree with you that a student with a very high SAT who is not achieving in the classroom....while it COULD be due to boredom (seen with gifted kids), sometimes it is also due to not applying oneself in school....work ethic, etc. And to me, looking at the academic record is way more telling than the SAT score as far as if the student can succeed in a classroom. When they get to college, they can STILL be super smart like the SAT seems to indicate in terms of capability, but could still be a slacker or underachiever. There would have to be some indication that the student WOULD DO the work, not that he CAN do it.</p>

42

<p>If I had to choose one method of selecting a candidate for admission, I'd definitely choose the interview. By asking questions and listening to a person speak, you can assess the successful application of academic and social skills. Can they speak as articulately as they write? Can they carry on an interesting conversation about current events and a variety of topics? Can they respond intelligently to new information? Do they possess the necessary charisma/leadership/ je ne se quoi so that people will want listen to what they have to say? Are they creative in their responses; can they think outside of the box? Do they inspire confidence and could you envision them running a company or becoming President of the Unites States? </p>

<p>As per comments on the what becomes of Vals thread, from what I've seen students with high GPAs tend to be conformists with low tolerance for risk. They refrain from speaking their mind about controversial topics so as not to offend a teacher and thus negatively affect their grades, they avoid classes in which they suspect they may not do well or drop out early once they do suspect, they eliminate art, music and journalism classes from their schedule since few have AP or honors ranking, they arrange to take the same classes at the same time as other ambitious peers to ensure good lab/study partners, etc., they learn who the truly bright and knowledgeable kids are so they can pick their brains and ultimately end up with the better grade for having done so, the list goes on. So, they are pehaps the smartest at learning how to worth within a system. But they are not necessarily the smartest.</p>

43

<p>"If I had to choose one method of selecting a candidate for admission, I'd definitely choose the interview."</p>

<p>That is why is the least important part of admissions ... and by the widest of margins. Interviews are nothing more than a nice way to pretend that alumni might have some say in deciding who follows in their footsteps. Who does establish the minimum qualifications and conversational skills of interviewers? The best interviews for college admissions are the ones that did not take place. Pure and simpel. </p>

<p>Some schools such as Stanford have the integrity to relegate the interview process where it truly belongs.</p>

44

<p>GFG..my kid was val and took art and music throughout high school. She also raised two issues at her school on controversial subjects with the faculty and presented her rationale and policy before the faculty. She never avoided classes she did not think she would do well in. To the contrary, she craved challenge and would be very unhappy to be in classes that she found too easy. Thus she accelerated a lot, went beyond the school's curriculum, etc. so it would be challenging enough. Our school uses unweighted GPA for rank (or did when she was there). If she really was after val status (which she surely was not), it would have been FAR easier to have taken a much less demanding course load and not have accelerated and gone beyond the HS curriculum. While unweighted grades were used for rank and it is easier for a student in the easiest classes to be ranked high (the student ranked third took no Honors or AP courses, for example), she took the hardest courses (and then some) at her school because she wanted to, for learning's sake. For rank's sake, she'd be better off not having taken them. To have ended up val while also taking the most demanding load of all was even more of an accomplishment in the way her school was set up. Their ranking system did not reward those who took more challenging courses. But that did not affect HER decision to do so.</p>

<p>So, not all Vals follow the generalizations that you are making. In my child's case, there was no goal to be val and no jockeying or gaming to achieve it. While she ended up val, it was just how it turned out. She did her best in school bcause she is a motivated student, has high standards for herself and had long range goals to go to, as she put it when younger, "a good college." She eventually learned of her rank but I can't think of a single decision she ever made that was related to class rank. My D would never consider not being involved in art and music. She played two instruments her entire life (lessons on both up until she graduated), was in band, jazz band, select wind ensemble, (was All State musician on one instrument and did yearly National Auditions on her other instrument), dance classes in several disciplines, and took four art courses, plus an independent study in architectural drawing/autoCAD/mechanical drafting out of interest to explore a potential field of study (and is now majoring in architectural studies in college). So, these "electives" were a big part of her curriculum....plus webpage design as well. She loves the performing arts and also visual arts. While she is a great academic student, her life was not all about academics. She also was a three varsity sport athlete. Not everyone who is a val is trying to become a val. She wasn't. She just always was the type to do her best in whatever she did out of motivation and interest and standards for herself.</p>

45

<p>


???????????
Give me some credit, people. Sheesh.

These are the questions this thread is asking, or at least what I was asking. LOL. But like I said, on this forum it's best to just let the kite go where it wants to go. </p>

<p>I'm sorry that some continue to be stuck on the title or the word "smarter". I apologize. My attempt at a "Swiftism" of my own failed miserably. The internet does a poor job conveying a smirk.</p>

<p>Edit: I really thought the title was an absurdism and I was reacting to the other thread when I titled this one. My other favorite thread title is on the Chicago forum, "How Ugly are the Chicks?" so I couldn't use that one.</p>

46

<p>There's no number for what I think a college should be looking for - a person who is ready, hungering to learn. They may want to learn practical things like nursing or accounting or engineering. Or they may want to learn more about Swift ;), Shakespeare or the Renaissance. They may be fascinated by brain science or the migration of ducks - but whatever, they are ready anxious to learn.</p>

<p>I don't know how you pick those out of the number of kids who are only there because it is "time" for them to go to college - not by numbers, because some of those kids especially some of the boy ones or the poorer ones or ones with less than smooth home lives, may not have racked up the numbers to demonstrate their desire for learning.</p>

47

<p>Cangel...that is exactly it. While college admissions is not an exact science, I am thankful that the colleges do not just go by numbers. Yes, a student has to show some ability and achievement to be considered but there is so much more to the admissions process than those numbers. Many students have the numbers. Other things set them apart. And even then, perfectly qualified students can be denied at selective schools. If schools only wanted numbers, they would not bother with essays, recs, interviews, activity lists, short answer questions, etc. Even with ALL of that material, it is not easy to select who to admit but at least it is not only about numbers which alone, do not tell the whole picture about a person. Also, it shows the importance of presenting oneself effectively and with thought on an application so that the reader can get to know who you are and what makes you tick besides the raw data on the application. At selective colleges, when most applicants have the numbers in the ballpark for the school, it is all this other stuff that sets one apart from the other.</p>

48

<p>Curmudgeon, I interpreted your questions the way I wanted to interpret your questions. I guess if I had to take a verbal SAT test today, I wouldn't do very well. :)</p>

49

<p>cangel,
The problem with what you suggest is that system would work for schools that are very specialized in the fields that the student wants to learn, such as art schools.</p>

<p>The system does not work for most universities because the students are required to take a broad spectrum of courses not just, for example, take courses in Shakespeare.</p>

<p>Both of my sons love to learn. Unfortunately, they love to learn exactly what they want to learn in exactly the way that they want to learn it. As a result, one flunked out of college because he was studying independently with no credit a subject that he was not taking in college. Meanwhile, he wasn't bothering to attend his college classes. He did wonderfully in his completely self-directed independent study. He bombed all of his real courses.</p>

<p>Conseqently, most colleges don't care whether students want to learn, they want students who'll do the work and pass. It's only the very top colleges that are able to look for students who are passionate about learning, and those colleges also require their accepted students to also have the grades and class rank to demonstrate that students have the discipline to learn even when the subject isn't exactly to their interest.</p>

50

<p>dstark, I know you did. Everybody did. I do it, too. This is a group of free and independent thinkers. At least when they are on this board. It's like herding cats. ;) That's probably why I've stayed around this long.</p>

51

<p>NSM, I guess I'm thinking of my son, and a lot of other boys. He wouldn't be quite as extreme as your son. Once he found what he wanted to do, he would perform for that. Now he might also have to take those other nasty classes like Shakespeare - he wouldn't like it, and he wouldn't do his best, but he would do it if it was necessary to reach his goal. But, boys truly are different, and I'm only starting to see this maturity now at nearly 15, and he still might not have made the connection when he gets to college between the things you have to do to get what you want. Add in real passion for a subject, as you son evidently had, and I see a complete disdain for that one math class you have to take. If I can just survive the next 4 years!</p>

52

<p>soozievt, your daughter is simply in a class by herself or with few companions. But I guess what I was trying to get at is this phenomenon: at my high school, when the Val and Sal were announced, plenty of people were surprised or shocked, or had no idea who on earth they were. When departmental awards were given out (ie. "Best in History", etc.), they won none of them. When school service, citizenship, and athletic awards were given out, they won none of them. Neither was voted "most likely to succeed" or "class scholar" for the yearbook. While clearly they must have been bright, no one perceived them as the "smartest." They simply had no "presence."</p>

53

<p>Northstarmom, I agree with all you wrote. Schools do want to see that the students have demonstrated in the past that they have the discipline to learn. </p>

<p>You also mention about the discipline to learn even when the subject is not exactly their area of interest....again, agreed. One thing that may have been a good match for a learner like your son is to go to a school like Brown which has an open curriculum where he is not stuck studying subjects he is not interested in. That is one of the beauties of their curriculum. The students in the courses really WANT to be in thsoe courses. Or your son may be well suited to a school that is centered heavily on student directed learning and independent studies....like Hampshire, Goddard, or even Sarah Lawrence. He seems like he really goes after what he does when self directed. He may not even need college to do that. But just saying there are colleges where that kind of learning can take place that may be an option for that style of learner. Just putting it out there.</p>

<p>Curm, we only know what we read.....and the subject heading to this thread poses a certain question that the reader is free to interpret any way she sees it.</p>

54

<p>"I am thankful that the colleges do not just go by numbers. Yes, a student has to show some ability and achievement to be considered but there is so much more to the admissions process than those numbers."</p>

<p>I hate to -again- offer a very different opinion, but the overwhelming majority of colleges DO go by the numbers, as lower than expected number do disqualify lower "ranked" students. Notwithstanding a very small number of students who benefit from the poorly named "holistic" approach, what colleges really expect and USE are ... numbers. The reason a few colleges can afford the "holistic" approach to recruit and land superbly angular students is that they first cover their base by selecting 1 out of the the 10 or 20 statistically acceptable students. However, outside the world of hyper-selective schools, the guiding principle is to measure the applicants numerically and let the cut-off number be defined by their enrollment management specialists. </p>

<p>And, last but not least, let's not forget than there are thousands of schools that accept about everyone who wants to attend.</p>

55

<p>But soozie, it would be better to read the first post in most instances (or at least beyond the title) , wouldn't you agree?</p>

56

<p>TheGFC...I definitely do not think my D is in a class by herself at all. We simply live in different communities with different high schools. At our HS, the top 15 kids or so were in the NHS. I recall at the induction, looking at each child and I realized almost every single one also played at least one varsity sport and many were in the school music program. The val the year before mine was the Student Council President. The sal was a stand out trumpet player and involved in Robotics. The year my D graduated, the kids ranked 1,2,3 were all accomplished three varsity sport athletes. At graduation, my D won student-athlete and the kids ranked second, third and fourth won this or a very similar award. With dept. type awards, my D got the top awards in science, math, French. So, this doesn't fit the same situation at your school. That's why you can't really generalize about vals just from what you see at your one school. Last year's val went onto a college art program and I recall her being a track star. Last year's sal (at graduation) won two top awards/scholarships in performing arts and theater tied with my other D (my younger one who was not val). I recall in last year's musical, the kids who were seniors were also in the top ten in their class. Most of the best musicians in our school are also the top students. So, where I live, the students at the top of the class are also the ones who are often leaders and are very involved in extracurricular pursuits and achievements. They are not merely scholarly. I recall the year before my D was val....a girl ranked very high in the class who won the Coca Cola award for her science research (is now in vet school and accelerated through college) but she also was a standout in three varisty sports...soccer, nordic ski racing and track. That's what I am seeing here. We don't have a competitive atmosphere at our HS and only 2/3' of graduates go onto college. I just think our communities or schools are different than one another. My D is not extraordinary, however. Clearly her peers at Brown are very accomplished outside of academics as well. None of them just study.</p>

57

<p>"That is one of the beauties of their curriculum."</p>

<p>As a testament to Cur's flying kite analogy, I think that a discussion about the various approaches to a curriculum should have its own thread. However, since it did start, we may want to recognize that opinions could vary widely on this issue. For instance, is it fair to assume that teenagers do REALLY know what they want to study? Is it REALLY a blessing to have a school turning its back to a core curriculum and become a glorified educational cafetaria? Where one sees beauty, another might see a disastrous proposal. </p>

<p>Obviously, students and families choose their schools according to their own criteria while seeking the illusory best fit.</p>

<p>PS The Coca-Cola Scholarships are awarded based on character, personal merit and commitment. Merit is demonstrated through leadership in school, civic and extracurricular activities, academic achievement, and motivation to serve and succeed.</p>

58

<p>An ambiguity in the original question - it combined "smarter" with "academically capable" - the two correlated but not identical. I think that's why answers are being offered from divergent perspectives.</p>

<p>One common definition of "intelligence" (the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge) in itself is problematic, because acquiring knowledge and applying knowledge are two different aspects of the human mind. Some are better at theory; some are geniuses at application (e.g. Howard Hughes). I believe that people tend to give a nod to the acquiring aspect, but really respect the applying aspect more. Hence the old saying "What's a mind for if you don't use it?"</p>

<p>When we use the word on this board, I think we usually mean the ability to grasp concepts quickly, and keen natural reasoning abilities that combine analysis, extrapolation/interpolation and synthesis. I think these qualities or capacities do differ among individuals, and that, in a "God's eye view," the Lord of the Universes (homage to quantum physics) would, in theory, be able to rank the entire human race one by one - Sally is more intelligent than Harry, who is more intelligent than Laura, etc. </p>

<p>However, the driver that inspires the owner of such capacities to do something with them - motivation/desire - does vary, and that affects the demonstrated results - test scores, grades, and course choice. Measurements that attempt to quantify these capacities are flawed, since they cannot be individualized sufficiently to remove cultural, educational, and variances in learning style/preferences. Can't even come close to the "God's eye view."</p>

<p>In an attempt to get a slightly closer approximation, let's make the assumption that colleges first consider course choice (as they should, even if they don't). If a student offers 10 APs or an IB program, or has taken numerous college courses, that allows the college to judge motivation and be comforted that the student's attitude is "if called, I will serve."</p>

<p>For the "smarter" part, I'm going to go with the notion that the college should rely on standardized test results more than grades/GPA, but only those that are 'college level' (supposedly). Not the SAT I, but the IB, AP, and perhaps SAT II subject tests.</p>

<p>For the "academic capability" part, I think we have to make an additional distinction - a portion of academic capability is the quality of ramping up effort to jump the bar in front of you, and there the Vals and Sals have excelled, especially if WGPA is used. That's the portion that is usually predictable by past performance. Then there are those intellectual types who follow their own path - maybe observing mosquito breeding patterns or working on a first novel - and considered those intrinsic interests more important than concentrating on grades. That portion of academic capability is not predictable by grades, test scores, or rank, but those who have this quality/orientation may be the very ones who break new ground in the academic disciplines later - the students that every college would love to have, if they had a way of identifying them. Sometimes they do (contest wins, patents, publications) and sometimes there is nothing on the transcript that supports it other than recommendations - the student isn't fully baked by observable criteria at the time of application. northstarmom's son would be one example.</p>

59

<p>Xiggi...actually I agree with your statement. Perhaps I was not clear. I was trying to say that with very selective schools, it is not all about numbers as most applicants have the requisite numbers so admissions goes beyond the numbers, though one must be in the ballpark first to even be considered. But higher numbers don't necessarily "win out" over lower ones in admissions to selective colleges. We may see students on CC post and ask if they need to retake the SATs when they got 1500 but really, I don't think their admissions decision is going to differ if they had a 1500 or a 1550. The 1500 gets them to the gate and then lots of other stuff is going to get them IN the gate. A 1480 student with a 3.9 GPA can get in and a 1550 student with a 4.0 can still be denied. I agree that at certain level schools and at some state universities, most is riding on the numbers. Penn State barely had any essays required with their application, for example. And yes, some schools admit nearly all applicants.</p>

<p>Curm...I had read the first post as well as every single post on the thread before I posted on it. My thoughts are still the same.</p>

60

<p>The interview- NOT!!- I had to laugh at this one. Thank god it is the least important factor. A number of years ago my boss and I hired a senior attorney who interviewed magnificently. He turned out to be a psycho!</p>

<p>Between grades and SAT/ACT- I maintain that neither can stand alone to select "academically most capable". Both have limitations and the system is necessarily flawed. </p>

<p>True intellect shows itself in so many different ways. At my son's school, the kids are encouraged to read several newspapers every day- Times, WSJ etc. and discuss issues with each other and with teachers. My son's advisor is thrilled when my son shows up at his door with an article from an academic journal or from the internet that he wants to discuss. He (the advisor and a truly great educator) maintains that this is what education is really about.</p>