<p>the truth according to you.</p>
<p>Besides, I did some pretty intense studying for that one month. About 60 hours which is essentially as much as 2 SAT prep courses.</p>
<p>Play nice children</p>
<p>The fact is you don't have to have a tutor to do well on the SAT. If you are a decent test-taker you will do well regardless. Yes, kids who can afford a tutor will probably do better. And kids who can afford Philips Exeter or Andover have a better chance at getting into HYPSM. And George W. Bush probably wouldn't have gotten into Yale without family connections. The college process isn't always fair ... and neither is life. Just make the best of it.</p>
<p>I agree. It doesn't matter whether your wealthy or poor since either way you technically have the same chances of getting into a good college. I heard that UCs use a point based system like if your parents make under 60,000 a year you let like a 300 (or 150) i think it was points boost in the equation (Gpa x 1000 + SAT 1, 2 SAT 2 x .8 + extras) so technically if you do come from a poorer background you do have an advantage. Like UCSD for example, I've heard bout ppl with horrible SAT and GPAs get in while students with like 2300s get rejected. I don't like it but i get why they do it. So please stop complaining bout how wealthy kids do better on SATs since in the end, everything fair.</p>