Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With their wealthy, educated, family oriented and ambitious demographics and insane numbers of enrollment at prep centers, these schools should score higher numbers of NMSF. What's missing?
About 1% of PSAT takers eventually qualify for NMSF status the rub is only about 1.5 million HS juniors take the PSAT. Per all juniors a good bet fewer than half of 1% qualify.
Further, the college board people trick up the results such that roughly half of 1% qualify per state (the cutoff score is much lower, year after year, in states like Mississippi, Nevada, Missouri and several others than TX, NY, VA, CA, NJ, DC and some others.........FWIIW most years Alaska, WV, NM, MT, WY and MS duke it our for last lowest cutoff). If this didn't happen TX and the other top 10 states would have far more NMSF winners.
Around the world parents in the highest IQ quintile have higher incomes, greater educational attainment, better test scores themselves etc. and so do their children. No one should be surprised that kids from high income families test well.
It pisses me off that the standards are lower for some states than it is for others. It's not our fault that Mississippi's education system is a hot mess. Our kids shouldn't be penalized for their failures.
It pisses me off that the standards are lower for some states than it is for others. It's not our fault that Mississippi's education system is a hot mess. Our kids shouldn't be penalized for their failures.
I don't think Texas is in a very good position to point fingers. Depending on methodology, most educational rankings place Texas somewhere between 30th and 40th. In terms of average SAT scores and ACT scores it is lower than that (those can be a little tricky because testing rates vary a lot by state).
Regardless, there isn't much evidence that Texas is among the top tier of states in K-12 education. I am sure Mississippi is near the bottom of course. Texas is a huge state and as a result we have some absolutely top notch public school districts, but that isn't true of the state as a whole.
I am not saying that NMSF standards should be different (I am neutral on the topic personally), but that has very little bearing on looking at the education system in their respective states.
NMSF by nature is looking at the very top percentage of performers on a standardized test. It is not a good measure of educational quality for a school, district, or state. Texas has quite a strong cadre of high performing test takers concentrated in certain areas, but that doesn't mean our educational system for the state as a whole is high performing.
If you took a hypothetical six year old and started him at the local kindergarten in the north DFW suburbs, would you expect him to not score any better ten years later on the SAT than he would have had he grown up in South Oak Cliff?
Of course not.
Quote:
Be careful assuming output differences are due to the school and not a difference in inputs.
Man, you are seriously all over the place, and making a bunch of assumptions that the data doesn't actually parlay, because no-one has ever done experiments about individual kids because we don't have time machines. In your hypothethical, you just implied that the school matters; otherwise, the hypothetical student would do equally as well in either school (which is actually generally true). Unless you actually meant not any hypothetical student but an upper middle class hispanic or black one. There the school might make a difference in college admissions, just due to the name.
Also, you and EDS both are missing that CA is losing lower and middle class hispanics and blacks at a relatively high rate and have been for a while, so they don't need tests that much, because larger and larger percentages of top students are high achievers as designated by high income. If I believed either of you gave a crap about equity, then maybe you'd have a point, but I don't think either of you do. You both believe a bunch of unfounded nonsense about IQ, and therefore are sad that maybe one or two high IQ people are displaced by equity.
Also, you and EDS both are missing that CA is losing lower and middle class hispanics and blacks at a relatively high rate and have been for a while, so they don't need tests that much, because larger and larger percentages of top students are high achievers as designated by high income. If I believed either of you gave a crap about equity, then maybe you'd have a point, but I don't think either of you do.
What flavor is that Kool-Aid? The UC system quickly become the best large university system in the world primarily via three factors......A). attracting and keeping leading edge faculty by fostering a hardcore research ethos, A1). keeping inbound freshmen quality metrics very high B). exceptional funding.
A1. is now in question was anyone with a shred of honesty will tell you test scores are better predictors of college success than grades, especially after a decade + of exceptional grade inflation and teacher recommendations which are exceptionally game-able, variable and narrow.
ETA - just to note The UC system has produced or is tightly affiliated with 80+ Nobel Prize winners......that did not happen by accident.
I don't think Texas is in a very good position to point fingers. Depending on methodology, most educational rankings place Texas somewhere between 30th and 40th. In terms of average SAT scores and ACT scores it is lower than that (those can be a little tricky because testing rates vary a lot by state).
Regardless, there isn't much evidence that Texas is among the top tier of states in K-12 education. I am sure Mississippi is near the bottom of course. Texas is a huge state and as a result we have some absolutely top notch public school districts, but that isn't true of the state as a whole.
I am not saying that NMSF standards should be different (I am neutral on the topic personally), but that has very little bearing on looking at the education system in their respective states.
NMSF by nature is looking at the very top percentage of performers on a standardized test. It is not a good measure of educational quality for a school, district, or state. Texas has quite a strong cadre of high performing test takers concentrated in certain areas, but that doesn't mean our educational system for the state as a whole is high performing.
Well, the implied thread thesis is about top students and Texas through any rational lens overproduces across the cadre and has for a long time.
Secondly, the tcalum's point was specifically about NMSF's state by state variable cutoff scores.
Thirdly, given the challenges TX K-12 faces to include several hundred thousand kids of illegal aliens in school every day and our Latino, Black, White, Asian etc. mix TX does well. Bits like top 30% SAT, ACT, NMSF and number very well qualified students leaving the state for college all point in that direction.........along those lines CA, NJ and Texas lead the country in students leaving for college.
Well, the implied thread thesis is about top students and Texas through any rational lens overproduces across the cadre and has for a long time.
Secondly, the tcalum's point was specifically about NMSF's state by state variable cutoff scores.
Thirdly, given the challenges TX K-12 faces to include several hundred thousand kids of illegal aliens in school every day and our Latino, Black, White, Asian etc. mix TX does well. Bits like top 30% SAT, ACT, NMSF and number very well qualified students leaving the state for college all point in that direction.........along those lines CA, NJ and Texas lead the country in students leaving for college.
Is that really due to Mississippi's education system being a "hot mess" relative to Texas, or is because of demographics?
Mississippi has a smaller cadre of top students than Texas, not just by raw totals (obviously), but also as a percentage. But it isn't because of something fundamental about either state's school system(s). Just looking at those two states Texas has a higher percentage of students in the top income groups, a higher percentage of students whose parents have advanced degrees, and somewhere around 5 times the Asian population (sorry, has to be pointed out in a NMSF discussion).
I probably didn't state my point well, but basically NMSF is really more about the students than a particular school and that is especially true when applied to an area as broad as a state. I would probably argue that California's public school system is a bit of a "hot mess" overall, but with a state with such a large population of affluent, educated, and yes, Asian, families, there is going to be a lot of competition at the top end of the distribution for standardized test scores. That doesn't say anything about how well the school system serves the majority of students or whether is is well run.
Is that really due to Mississippi's education system being a "hot mess" relative to Texas, or is because of demographics?
Mississippi has a smaller cadre of top students than Texas, not just by raw totals (obviously), but also as a percentage. But it isn't because of something fundamental about either state's school system(s). Just looking at those two states Texas has a higher percentage of students in the top income groups, a higher percentage of students whose parents have advanced degrees, and somewhere around 5 times the Asian population (sorry, has to be pointed out in a NMSF discussion).
I probably didn't state my point well, but basically NMSF is really more about the students than a particular school and that is especially true when applied to an area as broad as a state. I would probably argue that California's public school system is a bit of a "hot mess" overall, but with a state with such a large population of affluent, educated, and yes, Asian, families, there is going to be a lot of competition at the top end of the distribution for standardized test scores. That doesn't say anything about how well the school system serves the majority of students or whether is is well run.
Good post.
To be clear I did not mean to call you out or anything like that. IMO you always offer interesting and nuanced posts which I appreciate. And you've just offered a solid counterpoint. Per MS I'd argue it's overwhelmingly about demographics with a 100/150 year twist of near ubiquitous statewide dysfunction.
No one serious has a problem with legitimate points about racial groups across educational topics.......it's a worldwide thing........well, first world thing for sure. France, Germany, Italy, The UK, Austria, Norway etc. etc. all suffer academic achievement gaps that fall along racial lines similar to The US.
No question NMSF status is more about kids and their parents than schools. However, high drive, high involvement parents tend to steer their kids to schools with high output metrics NMSFs, impressive matriculation metrics etc........locally Plano West, Southlake, HP, the better privates and so on, same in Houston, Austin, NYC, heck everywhere good options exist.
Man, you are seriously all over the place, and making a bunch of assumptions that the data doesn't actually parlay, because no-one has ever done experiments about individual kids because we don't have time machines. In your hypothethical, you just implied that the school matters; otherwise, the hypothetical student would do equally as well in either school (which is actually generally true). Unless you actually meant not any hypothetical student but an upper middle class hispanic or black one. There the school might make a difference in college admissions, just due to the name.
Of course the school matters. I didn't imply otherwise. I only pointed out that not all of the difference in outcome is due to the school. Elite private schools are distinct because they can be selective in their admissions, unlike public schools.
My argument isn't all over the place. It's actually quite clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog
Also, you and EDS both are missing that CA is losing lower and middle class hispanics and blacks at a relatively high rate and have been for a while, so they don't need tests that much, because larger and larger percentages of top students are high achievers as designated by high income.
This doesn't lead to the conclusion that standardized tests aren't needed or useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog
If I believed either of you gave a crap about equity, then maybe you'd have a point, but I don't think either of you do. You both believe a bunch of unfounded nonsense about IQ, and therefore are sad that maybe one or two high IQ people are displaced by equity.
Whether you think I care about equity or not is irrelevant to whether I have a point or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
