<p>blu, 11.5K of @ 19 K did NOT rank , more like 60% or better. Penn gets 50% private school kids. That's bunch right there probably. </p>
<p>Let's not shoot the messenger. ;) </p>
<p>I didn't say it was perfect. I said it was interesting. LOL. The fact remains that if you applied to UPenn as a val you had a better shot than a top test taker (at least as presented you did), and a better shot than some of the hooked kids (legacies). (Yes, I realize that I have no combined SAT numbers and acceptance percentages for the SAT and yes, I'm certain that if the same student scored above 750 on both sections of the SAT their acceptance percentage would go up considerably).</p>
<p>Diablo 2 is right. I could care less if someone was val. They had high grades, but does that mean they are smart? It just means they know how to get the grade. I applaud them for that, but if they do bad on standardized testing, then something is wrong. They're either cheaters, or they're dumb.</p>
<p>I don't consider someone with a high test score and a low gpa "smart". With their low gpa, they are obviously showing signs of laziness. I think the "smart" thing to do is to use your pseudo-intelligence to learn more in the classroom (applying your knowledge to classwork to gain more knowledge) instead of resting on your high scores and inflated ego.</p>
<p>As the top test taker in the history of my school, but also as a kid who is in the 3rd or 4th decile for class rank, I think I'm uniquely qualified to comment on this issue. In short, do I think that I'm the smartest kid in my grade? Yes, I do. I can understand complex ideas more quickly and more clearly than anyone else in any class I've ever been with. However, am I the most qualified kid for college? Absolutely not. The study skills and possibly the work ethic simply aren't there yet, and may never really develop. However, do I have more potential for greatness than the Val, simply due to a much higher intellignece? I absolutely believe that I do.</p>
<p>I think there are a certain number of young people who are too smart to put up with the usual high school curriculum. Some endure high school by getting involved in intellectually demanding ECs, and some by taking college classes on the side. These days, unlike in my generation, there are quite a few kids who enter full-time college at "early" ages or who homeschool to get educational programs sufficiently challenging to develop their abilities.</p>
<p>I'm kina like koolcrud. I would be valedictorian, but following someone through a red light on an otherwise deserted street and intersection caused me to get less than a A in driver's ed, so I am now 4th instead of first in a class of 17, so its a big bump. The three infront of me are all going to in-state schools in Montana, while I am going to USC, the most pretegious college someone in my school has gotten into since a kid got into MIT (one did get into the Naval Acadamy, but he lasted 4 days).</p>
<p>I also got the highest ACT (most common test here by far) score of my class by three points, and the second-place student has worse grades than me do to freshman math i think. He has aced every math class since, including calculus.</p>
<p>So go figure. I didn't even think Driver's Ed would count to my GPA.</p>
<p>I would say the person with the higher standardized test scores is brighter/smarter. Who's more likely to succeed in college? I'd say it depends... some people I know who got great SAT scores and weren't really interested in grades and what not in HS did/are doing extremely well in college because they can pick their own classes, they have more time to get work done, etc</p>
<p>I go to a pretty competitive all-girls prep school and frankly the vals & sals in the past years have gotten into good schools (Ivies & duke) but I wouldn't consider many of them "smart"... more like they spend their entire lives studying... which is fine, I guess, if that's what they want to do. Also they had ECs.. but not ones that actually required commitment like varsity sports or anything, more like "volunteering" and "math club", which they were obviously only doing for college apps</p>
<p>I know people who I really admire for the amount of time and effort they put into schoolwork, but they are just not smart. They have decent GPAs because some subjects like history and biology are mostly just memorization, but on the SATs it really shows that they are not the brighest people. Another thing is that I read a lot of books outside of school and I know other people who do this also (and don't have the greatest GPAs, but do really well on standardized tests) and I think it's REALLY important and most people who are really concerned with grades at my school don't do this at all</p>
<p>Also I don't understand what people mean when they say they're "bad test takers." ? Do they mean they're bad at taking SATs/IIs/ACT? If they're really "bad test takers" then how do they do decently in school? 3/4 if not more of my grades are from tests, is there some other way besides essays or something that schools use to decide grades?</p>
<p>From my own experience, Sapphire's point about outside reading makes sense. I'm a slow worker, so in high school the kids I thought were the smartest were the ones who could complete their school assignments and do well on tests but still have the time and motivation to regularly read the newspaper as well as unassigned high level books and novels. Some Val and Sals are students like this, and some definitely aren't. A person who is unaware of and uninformed about what is going on in the world is not truly "smart" in my book. Neither is someone fully intelligent if he has not broadened his mind with great works of literature.</p>
<p>An acquaintance of mine is a medical doctor in the military. Everyone believed her to be extremely intelligent, partly because she had managed to become a physician at a time when few women did. But she had never showed any interest at all in current events. Several months after 9-11, I questioned her about whether she had been administering a lot of anthrax immunizations to the soldiers. The question confused her. Imagine my dismay when I realized she had no knowledge at all about the anthrax contamination incidents in New Jersey! Smart? I think not.</p>
<p>"Also I don't understand what people mean when they say they're "bad test takers." ? Do they mean they're bad at taking SATs/IIs/ACT? If they're really "bad test takers" then how do they do decently in school? 3/4 if not more of my grades are from tests, is there some other way besides essays or something that schools use to decide grades? "</p>
<p>I don't think most of high school tests are 4 hours long multiple choice taken early in the morning ( I sure hope not :-) ) .</p>
<p>As an adult, I think I would define "smart" as the ability to define one's goals and work effectively to achieve them. For college you need book smarts but also common sense. So a high scoring underachiever who wants to go to an Ivy League college but slacks off and lets the grades slide is not "smart" at all. The bottom line is that a smart kid can do stupid things.... and in the end it is what you do, not your "potential" that counts. </p>
<p>On the other hand, let's assume a different goal: let's say for example that the kid's family has limited resources, and his goal is a full ride to a college that recruits National Merit Finalists, like Arizona State U. The kid knows that he needs a high PSAT & SAT scores, and reasonably good grades.... but he also knows that ASU doesn't care about class rank. So why sweat over a class that requires a lot of busy work? A few B's won't hurt. So maybe that kid ends up with a B average and a full ride to ASU, plus has a lot of fun in high school. For his goals, he's smart: he did what was needed, but didn't expend unnecessary effort on something that won't make a difference. Presumeably, if he's really smart, he found something better to do with his time.</p>
<p>parabella- ohh I see. I still don't really understand what the problem is though... four hours is long, but not that long (and I have a very short attention span..but I guess not for standardized tests... some of the reading passages are interesting :)) . 9 AM is early but not ridiculously early.. a lot of my tests for school are at that time or earlier. Lastly, most of my HS tests are multiple choice, except some physics problems and math tests</p>
<p>To be honest, I don't know why my own S always does very well on every other test BUT SAT 1. It is a mystery never to be solved, I guess. :-) SAT subjects worked great, every high school and college test he taken-great results , he is bright, well read, hard working, but not overly so. Is it because he considers SATs a waste of time, is it mental, I don't know, but here he is, not a SAT kind of guy. :-)</p>
<p>There are definitely people who claim their children are not good test takers who are taking advantage of a euphemism. It's nicer than saying they're not very smart. But, there are also most definitely students who have test phobia and freeze up, particularly on strictly timed exams. Their nerves get in the way of their performance such that a problem they could have done in a snap if it had been a homework assignment will freak them out if they see it on a test. As the middle child with a very bright older sister, I was always afraid of doing poorly on tests because I was worried it would show the world once and for all that I wasn't as smart as my sister (and thus my parents wouldn't love me). However, I did quite well in school work. I remember being recommended for IQ testing for the GT program. I was a real nervous wreck about it because of all things an IQ test is directly correlated with intelligence. After completing the test and doing very poorly, I shocked the psychologist by telling him as I walked out the door some of the answers I had not "known" during the test. Fortunately, I got over this problem by high school.</p>
<p>So it all boils down to a question of definitions. Koolcrud posts:
[quote]
In short, do I think that I'm the smartest kid in my grade? Yes, I do. I can understand complex ideas more quickly and more clearly than anyone else in any class I've ever been with.
[/quote]
But Calmom says:
[quote]
I would define "smart" as the ability to define one's goals and work effectively to achieve them.
[/quote]
Note: they don't disagree on the bottom line. Koolcrud says:
[quote]
However, am I the most qualified kid for college? Absolutely not. The study skills and possibly the work ethic simply aren't there yet, and may never really develop.
[/quote]
---proving that Koolcrud probably isn't blowing smoke about the whole "understanding complex ideas" thing.</p>
<p>What Koolcrud has is what I like to call "mental horsepower"* - the raw ability to conceptualize, analyze, grab a subject or a concept or a problem by the throat and master it - more quickly and more easily than other people - and in some cases, in ways that most other people can't master at all. The Unabomber has it - didn't do him much good. Einstein had it. Lots of really "smart" people have it. Typically people who do well on standardized tests have a lot of it, but the correlation with high school grades is less predictable. </p>
<p>Mental horsepower is not that directly related to "success" - it can be helpful, but it can also be an actual hindrence. That's why colleges wisely (in my opinion) tend to rely more heavily on grades these days. High school grades do have a greater degree of coincidence with success in college than test scores. </p>
<p>*That gearhead analogy on page one didn't come out of nowhere. I've actually thought about this before...</p>
<p>someone asked about not understanding bad test takers before- many good students work hard in school and study the material and do well on tests due to hard work. Standerized tests are harder because they tend to test natural ability and concepts more than facts that can be learned through hard work (although it is possible to practice for these tests). Therefore many good students consider themselves bad "test takers" not because thye perform poorly on tests in school (which are easier to study for and do well in with hard work) but because their standarized test scores don't reflect their grades and hard working character.</p>
<p>eeemillee, my daughter is a poor test taker -- she tests well under her ability & her performance (A student, near the top of her class). However, my daughter is not a drudge or hard worker. She does have very efficient work habits, but she doesn't spent a lot of hours studying -- not a slacker by any means, but not someone who puts in an undue amount of time on studying. Also, she was a very precocious child who was a self-taught reader by age 4, so we had her professionally evaluated at age 6, and her IQ was tested at 140 -- and at that age she topped out of the tests of reading ability given to her. </p>
<p>So there really are kids who have innate ability that can be documented, but who don't do well on standardized tests.</p>