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

Parent Cafe
81

<p><a href="http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/4435e36f08c96?in_archive=1%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/4435e36f08c96?in_archive=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>According to this article , a recent study by a professor in the Penn psych dept. shows that it is self-discipline rather than IQ that has the highest correlation with academic success. So, at least in a very demanding program, I'd have to vote for GPA, because self-discipline is automatically factored in there. </p>

<p>You could make an argument about who has the highest pure intellectual capacity in isolation from aspects of emotional intelligence since there are kids who mature later on and finally put all that untapped intellect to use</p>

<p>OTOH, the kids who, IMO, are at the biggest risk for performance in college are the straight A /high test score kids who NEVER had to study. I can't tell you how many times I have seen kids like that struggle.</p>

82

<p>Roshke- thanks for that link. That makes so much sense. For all his set-backs over the years, my son's strength truly is his self-discipline. That is what got him up at 6am to train before school on his own, and then again with his team after school. That is what helped him prepare for his classes and regulate his social life. His SATs weren't as high as many on this board and he didn't have a 4.0 (and he certainly had some behavior issues over the years), but what he DOES have is incredible self-discipline. This gives me hope! :)</p>

83

<p>Curm wrote:
"It appears 2331 doesn't think rank is a valid criteria for "best or brightest". </p>

<p>This goes back to what I was trying to say many posts ago in relation to your original question about who is "smarter"...val or top test taker. You just changed the word "smarter" to "best or brightest." I was saying that val is not even meant to represent the "smartest kid in the class" or the "best or brightest." Val status is simply the student with the best academic record in the courses at the high school compared to others in their class (and even then, some schools use unweighted but I won't go there for now). Nobody said the val is the best or brightest or smartest. They simply achieved the best grades all four years in comparison to others in the class. There could be someone in the class who is considered "smarter" (not sure the measure...IQ? or you are using SAT scores?) but simply did not achieve as well in the classroom as the val. Val is just what is says it is. </p>

<p>As I mentioned before, perhaps you were getting at which criteria might mean more in terms of college admissions and many discussed that. A high SAT score may mean ability but some with a high score don't get in. Some high scorers are underachievers in the classroom and schools might take into account past records of achievement in classwork. Also, colleges, thankfully, at least the more selective ones, don't just use one measure for admissions...thus high scorers may not get in over someone with a lower score who had more to offer in their entire package than the high scorer who perhaps had less "high" things in their entire package to offer. </p>

<p>Selective colleges are not just after picking who are the smartest students in the pile. They want smart students and so do use measures like SATs and GPAs, rigor of coursework, and rank to ascertain ability to do the work and academic potential. But they also want students who will contribute to their classrooms and also outside the classroom. One must be bright enough to be considered and have achievements, but at the most selective schools, a majority of applicants have met that criteria and thus a lot more goes into the admissions decision. It is not just by numbers, whether you wish to use GPA or SAT as your preferred number. Frankly, they use both, and lots more. I agree with Spinner that many measures are used for admissions and that is how it should be. It is not enough to have a high SAT and nothing else going for you at the most selective schools. If you look at adcoms deliberations, they didn't simply say "Johnny is smarter than Susie because he has a 1570 and Susie has a 1490, so let's admit Johnny." They discuss everything about the student including the SAT scores, and put those scores in context of everything else on the student's record.</p>

<p>If admissions was just a contest of who is the "best", "brightest", or "smartest" (to use the words you have used), then maybe they can just have an IQ test and no application and there you go. Simple. But that is not what they are looking for in and of itself. Therefore, they collect many pieces of information and weigh each in context and as an entire picture about a candidate. That is why you will see plenty of kids rejected who had a higher SAT than some kid who got in who had a lower one (but still in the ballpark for that college). That is why when I read the final decisions on CC on the student threads where kids ask one another to post their SAT scores and then kids analyze that so and so had a higher score than another kid but look, he didn't get in! That's because SO much more is involved. </p>

<p>I totally agree with MomofWildChild that the track analogy doesn't work. The winner of a race was the best time that day in that one race. Doesn't mean he/she is the best runner of all. I have a kid who is a ski racer and sometimes she has placed better than some racers who I KNOW are better racers than her but on that particular day, she did better. I'd have to look at their entire record to see who had the better record over time. Also, in her sport, it can come down to hundredths of a second, LOL. </p>

<p>But when you think about it, is a kid with a 1550 SAT truly smarter than the kid with a 1500? Personally, I don't think so. The kid with the 1550 happened to score higher on that one test on that one particular sitting. Even the SAT scores have a margin of error of 30 points either way on each subtest. As well, some are better at taking the SATs than others but that doesn't make them smarter...only better at that one test. So, a kid with a higher SAT...we could say, yes, he/she is better at the SATs! Not the same as saying he/she is the smartest. Same with val...he/she is better at getting the highest grades over four years....not the same as saying he/she is the smartest.</p>

84

<p>Of the students I've had the pleasure of being friends with in my high school, the ones that struck me as the ones "most likely to succeed" have the following attributes in common:</p>

<ol>
<li>An immense amount of solid common sense</li>
<li>Willingness to work hard for what they want, however elusive the target</li>
<li>Resistance to failure (in other words, the ability to bounce back)</li>
</ol>

85

<p>I agree with Roshke and MOWC (should that go on our master list of forum abbreviations??) that self discipline and how one applies themselves in an educational setting is something I would look for in a candidate and I think adcoms do as well. Pure intellect is good but that alone won't necessarily mean the student will be successful at the college. We are, after all, talking about academic success in college. You can be very smart and be lazy or not apply yourself or not be used to having to work hard because things came easily in the past, or just be a party hearty kid in college. Smartness alone is not enough to consider for admissions, though potential/skill/ability are important in terms of being capable...but alone, don't tell the picture if a student will be a success in college, contribute to the academic life of the college, as well as contribute to the student body and campus life.</p>

<p>PS....considering I have an athletic child like MOWC...I have to agree that one thing about athletes is the self discipline involved (mine also has had to get up at 6 AM many days per week in college and in HS), the work ethic, the time management, the commitment and dedication, the drive, and the collaboration are things that an adcom might see as beneficial about a person who has participated in competitive sports.</p>

86

<p>"I just wonder what tools we should use to determine the most worthy, the most academically capable, the smartest, the best, the brightest, whoever it is we are looking to reward or admit or give a scholarship."</p>

<p>Why do we need to pick one measure? There are many routes to success. One of my biggest problems back when I was in HS was that I looked down on people who didn't score high on SATs and didn't post the highest GPA. I thought those were the measure of the man/woman. Thank heavens I've matured in the last 30 years to realize that success -- in all walks of life -- is a recipe of a lot of traits. </p>

<p>Here's a quote from an unexpected source: "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."</p>

87

<p>I haven't read this entire thread, but I think I have the gist. Just to throw something out there:</p>

<p>Earlier this year, a poster on these boards sure thought he was pretty smart. Freshman at Cornell. Turns out he had the class rank, the test scores, the ECs, and was incredibly articulate in his posts. Also, quite financially privileged, it turns out, with a very supportive family. But Lucifer drank himself to death. Was he still the smartest kid in his school?</p>

<p>Sorry all, but smart is as smart does. GPA, class rank, and test scores don't even begin to describe smart. Our town newspaper featured a young woman who is due to graduate from one of the top law schools in the country, University of Michigan, this weekend. She was her high school's valedictorian, homecoming queen, etc. etc. And was accepted to UM after serving 11 years in the penitentiary under mandatory minimum sentencing for driving her then-boyfriend to several drug deals. Her sentence was commuted by President Clinton. So, I'd say she was smart, then dumb, now smart.</p>

88

<p>Define "most likely to succeed". </p>

<p>To me, I think that "most likely to succeed" would mean people who:</p>

<p>Make a positive difference in the community or world that goes beyond what they do for their family</p>

<p>Establish and maintain a reputation for kindness, good character and strong ethics</p>

<p>Establish and maintain longterm good relationships -- romantic and platonic -- with other people.</p>

<p>Rises above the inevitable setbacks and disappointments that come with being alive. </p>

<p>Whether the person has a prestigious job, attends a prestigious university or has a mansion or luxury car is inconsequential.</p>

89

<p>"I just wonder what tools we should use to determine the most worthy, the most academically capable, the smartest, the best, the brightest, whoever it is we are looking to reward or admit or give a scholarship."</p>

<p>I don't think admissions is about who is the "best", "brightest" or "smartest". Any of the measures you brought up....rank, val, GPA, SATs, track meets....and whoever does well or the highest in those measures....it simply says the person who was ranked first, or had the highest SAT or won the track meet, or had the highest GPA...was better at that ONE thing on that one day or in that one situation. That doesn't then equate to the "best" or "smartest". </p>

<p>EVEN IF there was one singular measure of the "best" or the "smartest", that still would not equate with who is a good candidate for admission to a selective college or scholarship. These folks have several criteria and look at the whole person and decide who they wish to have at their college (not who is the smartest in the land) or who they wish to give an award or scholarship to. </p>

<p>It kinda reminds me of casting in theater (something I am familiar with, as I have a kid who has been through countless auditions, both amateur and professional including Broadway)....it is not a contest where the "best" wins. Yes, one must be very talented to get to the final callbacks (been there, done that). But after that point, once someone has the skills/talent that are "good enough" to be considered, then it comes down to who fits what they are looking for....it can be a look (height, skin tone...how the actor looks in relation to other people cast in the show), a type, a need in the cast, and some pure luck. Selective college admissions is a bit like that.....you have to have the "goods" to be considered but after that, you either fit a need they are looking for, and sometimes even a little luck. It becomes beyond your control once you make some preliminary cuts based on talents/skills/abilities. You either fit the slot they are looking for or you don't. And if you don't get it, it doesn't mean you aren't good enough or talented enough but simply that one particular slot did not go your way this time. If you have what it takes, you'll make it. One college admissions result, one scholarship result, one casting decision....doesn't tell the whole story of one's ability, worth, smartness, or chance at success. </p>

<p>I also like what Northstarmom wrote...because really the issue isn't about who is best or smartest.....but who has what it takes to succeed.</p>

90

<p>[/analogy] Leaving the cars behind, I'll restate what I said before: As a group, the high GPA/OK test score students will more consistently "succeed" - i.e. not flunk out of college, get decent grades, advance to post-graduate schools, get a good job, etc. -- but this group will yield fewer "superstars" - the select few who rise to the very top of their profession, make a significant mark on the world, etc. The very high test score/OK GPA group will have a higher percentage of students who fail or drop out of college, but will have a smattering of superstars who will blossom in college (or after.) So if you want to play it safe, rely on GPA as your determinant of [whatever it is that 'mudge wants us to argue about] If you want to gamble on who will be the kind of person the high school will put in its future school profiles as a "noted alum" go for the highest SAT, but recognize that you run a higher risk of being wrong.</p>

91

<p>I disagree with you, kluge. A high test taker has proven that he/she can do well on a four-hour test. A superstar often has incredible creative ability (that often hinders one from getting high scores) and/or leadership skills that also can't be reflected in test scores. A superstar is also often a risk taker, another thing that's not measured by test scores.</p>

92

<p>Agree with Kluge.</p>

<p>And never forget that some people will have some talent or luck or characteristic that won't show up anywhere before high school and therefore can't be predictive.</p>

93

<p>cur:</p>

<p>your track analogy works bcos johnny and jimmy run the same distance under the same competitive conditions. The same is not true across 35,000 high schools in the country. Nor is it really true of testing since, in some part, the tests reflect academic achievement and experiences. If a kid's Alg II teacher is waaaaaay below par, that kid may struggle with the 3-5 Alg II problems on the SAT Reasoning test, in contrast to a kid who has a math teacher that goes above and beyond. Same example for Math II subject test -- last year, our Pre-Calc/Trig class never got to Trig....needless to say, those kids missed a few extra problems on the Math 2 subject test unless they self-taught.</p>

94

<p>Actually, I'm just using the words of others Soozie and parroting them back in question form . Again I'll state that I don't have dog in this fight and no vested interest to protect (my only ranked the same on each measure), and therefore no stake in the outcome. I just wanted to hear what y'all thought. To be honest, it hasn't been as interesting I thought it would be when I started. ;)</p>

<p>and blue the only reason I picked track as an analogy is how it is "graded" or decided. Without regard to anything that came before the event or that may come after the event, the winner ran the fastest race that day at that meet in that event.</p>

95

<p>the val is definitely not usually in the smartest i'd say</p>

<p>i know both the val and the sal, our school's val is not smart at all (imo) and she just knows how to get good grades, she is one step above the sal GPA wise because she took an honors foreign language her freshman year while no one else did, she has regular PE and has never joined a sport, and probably isn't involved in any clubs either..she's pretty good with html coding and flash though; the sal on the other hand scores very high on standardized tests, has varsity sports, president of 1 or 2 clubs and vice-pres in another</p>

<p>I on the other hand would consider myself to be the smarter type that just messes around at school because the teachers suck; all i do is sleep in 1/2 my classes because they are meaningless</p>

<p>for example, i'll take my AP statistics class</p>

<p>i ended with a C+ in that class with most likely 5 on the AP test, while all those idiots who earned A's were complaining about how hard it was</p>

<p>no one except me and another person (she has an A though) got all parts of the FR for #6 (which has non-textbook stuff that requires you to think) right</p>

<p>all the people that study the textbooks and get A's are in the top 5-10%, while i'm all the way back at the 15th percentile of our school's ranking</p>

<p>my UW is like 3.7 and my W is like 4.1 (but the thing was i didn't even try my freshmen year because everyone told me it had no effect on my ranking...)</p>

96

<p>diablo....there is smart as in "bright" or "IQ" or ability. But there is another kind of smart. The kids you are putting down were "smart" because they put their full effort into doing well in school because they knew that by performing well in school, they would increase possibilities for their goals later on. "Messing around at school" or "sleeping in 1/2 of your classes" are not smart things to do if you want to get ahead. Colleges are not looking for those who mess around or sleep in class. They are looking for those who give it their all. I am sorry your classes seem "meaningless" to you. But part of education is sometimes taking courses you don't like so that you can reach goals further down the road. For instance, HS has many required courses. Colleges have more choices in terms of courses and so there is a likelihood that you may enjoy the college courses if you chose them. However, you also may get a professor who "sucks" too. You have to know to still try and do your best because to get to the next goal, that's what it takes. I'd rather see an "idiot" who "earned an A" and "complained about how hard something was" than a genius who performed poorly. I think in the long run, adcoms are going to look upon it that way as well. Often you hear that adcoms don't wish to see HIGH SATs coupled with a LOW GPA....as it appears to be equated with "underachiever". They'd prefer a HIGH GPA coupled with a lower SAT. The most ideal candidate has a HIGH GPA AND a HIGH SAT (though colleges look WAY beyond just these numbers but am speaking comparatively amongst these three scenarios as far as numbers go). The fact that you are stating "I didn't even try" is something that would not be attractive if I were evaluating your package, if I had an inkling of that from the grades, recs, or anything else that showed you did not work up to your "smart" potential. Colleges want students who will succeed in their classes at the college, not just bright students.</p>

97

<p>I applaud Yulsie's post 58.
my own very random response to this wonderful thread: val measures ability plus a certain personality type and a good immune system during the high school years; high SAT measures ability plus access to prep materials and desire to master test. imho puzzle solvers are "smart"; those who create the puzzles (those who think up the questions to ask-- the interesting and important questions that may not have been asked before) are the very "smartest"</p>

98

<p>Here are some interesting numbers we found a while back that at least try to answer some of the questions , at one school (UPenn), in one year (Class of '09).</p>

<p>Rank/Acceptance rate
Valedictorian 46%
Salutatorian 35%
Other Top Five Percent 23%
Second Five Percent 9%
Total Top Decile 25%
Second Decile 7%
Second Quintile 4%
Third Quintile 1%
Fourth Quintile 0%
Fifth Quintile 0%
No Rank 21% (Edit: Notice this one is @ the same as their overall acceptance rate)
Incomplete Information 0%</p>

<p>SAT Verbal
Score / Percent Admitted </p>

<p>750-800 30%
700-740 24%
650-690 20%
600-640 17%
550-590 10%
500-540 6%
< 500 2%
ACT only 21%
Incomplete Testing 0 </p>

<p>Sat Math
Score/ Percent Admitted </p>

<p>750-800 26%
700-740 22%
650-690 18%
600-640 17%
550-590 10%
500-540 6%
< 500 0%
ACT only 21%
Incomplete Testing 0% </p>

<p>Sons and Daughters of Alumni
Applicants 1,182 Admitted 448 (38%)</p>

<p>At least at UPenn it goes Val - Legacy - Sal- over 750 Verbal (now CR) -over 750 Math. </p>

<p>I said earlier to notice that the acceptance rate for those not submitting rank was 21% , very close to the 20.8 % for all students. Remarkably close. Also a majority of applicants (@ 55%) fit that no rank category. </p>

<p>So did not having a rank hurt? Or was it that having a rank of 1 or 2 really helped, but not much difference after that? </p>

<p>Extrapolate away.</p>

99

<p>What about the yield rate of admitted applicants in each category?</p>

100

<p>cur:</p>

<p>1) don't forget that Penn is notorious for fudging numbers - they do not publish common data set.
2) How do you know that some of the legacies were also not also val, sal or 1600 scorer? Legacies could also have applied ED (which Penn admits is a big boost).
3) Also, need to look at % of kids who actually provide a school rank -- according to the LA Times, for example, ~50% of California publics rank.</p>