<p>@rosie19 He/she is saying that if schools were to not give priority to wealthy students…</p>
<p>@SharingGift , you can have it back, I got a brand new shiny emblem that I think represents me better.</p>
<p>As to the SAT and income correlation, you can’t deny that scores increase with income. Take a look at page 4 or just search for the word “income”: <a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2013/TotalGroup-2013.pdf”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2013/TotalGroup-2013.pdf</a></p>
<p>@boredr, I can’t find anything showing a low correlation between test scores and family income. I can’t find anything for the SSAT in particular, but the consensus seems to be a correlation of about .95 for the SAT. Here’s some older data from 2005 that’s easy to read: <a href=“SAT Scores and Family Income - The New York Times”>SAT Scores and Family Income - The New York Times;
<p>Newer data doesn’t seem to look any weaker. Where is your information from?</p>
<p>This is gem of a thread. I see a lot of people creating new accounts just to be able to post on this thread.</p>
<p>Thank you, @squashisawesome. I’m gonna keep Homer for a few more days though… I mean donut 
</p>
<p>Here are at least two articles that illustrate the correlation between family income and SAT. <a href=“SAT Scores and Family Income - The New York Times”>http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/</a> and <a href=“The Story Behind the SAT Overhaul - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/magazine/the-story-behind-the-sat-overhaul.html</a>
The impetus behind overhauling the SAT is to address this concern. If you read about the SAT overhaul and other sources, grades provide the best predictor of success in college. I made the correlation between the SAT and SSAT because the testing company prides itself in the SSAT’s ability to predict SAT scores. Every student receives a SSAT report that includes a prediction of their future SAT score. I am sure that family income does provide an advantage on SSAT because many parents pay for coaching/prep courses. If a parent can afford to pay for coaching/prep course than it probably gives that student an advantage. The service must show some improvement in scores or else how would they justify their cost to the parent? This continues through college admission process. I have been amazed by how much parents will pay a “college counselor” to polish their child’s application. Many of these “counselors” have no other qualifications than the fact they attended an IVY school. There are studies on IQ but I think you mean race and IQ. </p>
<p>Back to the original topic: The FA:FP ratio is constant over time through recessions and such. I wonder if there is any valid explanation/cause for this in a need-blind scenario. I would have expected that more people would have applied for FA during the recession during which the FA:FP ratio should have increased.</p>
<p>The OP who posted the fun facts from the Andover web site might have that information if he/she saved it from years past. I recall that one statistic mentioned was the number of people applying for FA. With a recession, you would expect that at least that number was elevated. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re saying that full pay students generally have better references along with higher grades and test scores?</p>
<p>Sounds like Bye Bye for future fun facts.</p>
<p>In a hypothetical fantasy land, there are 2 well-trafficked hotdog stands selling same hotdog (Nathans, of course) at the same price.</p>
<p>One advertises it is giving out free hotdogs to ALL customers below 4 ft tall. </p>
<p>Other advertises it is giving out free hotdogs to all customers below 4 ft tall, WHILE SUPPLIES LAST.</p>
<p>At the end of the week, they give out identical percentages of free hotdogs. </p>
<p>Pass me the fantasy mustard…</p>
<p>@boredr, the statistics you site are from the same organization that runs the SAT. It’s like when the tobacco companies claimed that cigarettes were good for you. Articles in rags such as The Washington Post and NY Times show otherwise. And unlike The College Board, they don’t have a vested interest in the outcome.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/05/these-four-charts-show-how-the-sat-favors-the-rich-educated-families/”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/05/these-four-charts-show-how-the-sat-favors-the-rich-educated-families/</a></p>
<p><a href=“SAT Scores and Family Income - The New York Times”>http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/16/what-is-the-sat-good-for/”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/16/what-is-the-sat-good-for/</a></p>
<p>@boredr, your argument that income is only “slightly” correlated to test performance just doesn’t hold up. </p>
<p>You quote a 0.25 statistic without giving a source or identifying what it represents. If it is the r-square, then it means that 25% of the variation in test performance is correlated to differences in income. THAT is a significant correlation, and it isn’t likely/possible for there to be 50 other factors with as high or higher correlation unless the factors are cross-correlated themselves.</p>
<p>However, it appears that your statistic dramatically understates the influence income has on test performance. Here is a link to a New York Times article on the topic: </p>
<p><a href=“SAT Scores and Family Income - The New York Times”>SAT Scores and Family Income - The New York Times;
<p>This article states: “There’s a very strong positive correlation between income and test scores. (For the math geeks out there, the R2 for each test average/income range chart is about 0.95.) On every test section, moving up [a single] income category was associated with an average score boost of over 12 points.”</p>
<p>The data show that students from minimum-wage income families scored almost 400 points below kids from the wealthiest families. But honestly, that isn’t the end of the story; the advantages that kids from means enjoy is so substantial that directly comparing kids from vastly different income categories is virtually impossible. </p>
<p>I would argue that it is almost a disadvantage for schools to be need-blind because a student’s application must be holistically evaluated within the economic framework of opportunities available to that student.</p>
<p>Sorry about the pile on using the exact same sources offered by others… I managed to miss the last page of entries.</p>
<p>This thread has brought out a great discussion on issues that extend beyond the original thread. Many OP have posted educated replies. I just wonder why @straightalk was deleted. The post had many interesting points but now there is no ability to expound on any other points unless someone copied it or has a photographic memory. Just wondering for future reference why some posts get deleted.</p>
<p>^^ Had the same question (to the moderator?). </p>
<p>I had read the post and then tried to go back to it later when others kept referencing it. Thought I was losing as I didnt even suspect it would be deleted as there was nothing offensive in the post.</p>
<p>Only critique was @straightalk positioned themselves as someone in the know, but didnt elaborate on how they were so.</p>
<p>^^Ok, now that is very confusing. I can’t tell you how many posts I have seen by others who have no personal knowledge of a school etc. but post freely anyway. I thought perhaps the OP asked to be taken off because the Op was an actual Andover AO or somehow affiliated with the school. Well, I will spin my own theories just to keep myself amused. :)) </p>
<p>Looks like straighttalker exited as the kitchen got hotter. From what I have seen on CC, Andover folks don’t like losing Debates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have nothing to do with it. I’m surprised too. My best best is @straighttalker asked a moderator to delete his/her own posts. Also, I don’t work for nor affiliated with Andover.</p>