Comment by usgroup
6 years ago
If the optimisation problem is “pick a set of kids that can finish the curriculum quicker as measured by standardised tests” then any effective screening test is likely to select for “test taking prodigies” since that is the leading measure.
RE percentage vs percentile: I think you may be wrong here. Take for example, uni exams. 40% is the pass mark here in old Blighty. The exams are standardised and the 40% threshold is not a percentile. In fact, it makes almost no sense at all to stackrank every cohort of test takers. It wouldn’t be fair at all not comparable over time. I think the parent poster is correct. Doubtless the empirical distribution of real scores are used to decide cutoffs for grades, by 99% in the parents posts very likely refers to a percentage.
Gifted classrooms are funded by a budget and have a certain number of seats available. In must be a percentile selection (mixed with subjective judgments, diversity, etc)
Anyone with the same percentage score will obviously be in the same percentile ... so if you have a limited number of places and everyone scores the same mark, then the fact that you’re filtering by a percentile doesn’t help you in the slightest: it’s tantamount to picking at random.
If none scores 99% then you just don’t take anyone ... in your method if everyone scored 0% you’d still take a bunch. I don’t think that makes any sense.
Differentiation between candidates with equal scores is probably done by going through applications and whatever subjective info is provided there. That can be effectively random, but there's not much of an option at that point.
> in your method if everyone scored 0% you’d still take a bunch.
Yes, and they will. My understanding is it's still a normal school, just with a special selection of students; what are they going to do, shut down for the year?
1 reply →