<p>@grx567 - not confusing to me. @straighttalk positioned themselves as someone who had intimate knowledge. When others “just post” you know thats what they are doing.</p>
<p>Although, @SharingGift is affiliated with Lawrenceville. :)</p>
<p>Please note that correlation of sat and income does not mean that being poor causes people to get a low sat, nor does it infer that low sat causes low income.<br>
Correlation doesn’t imply causation, so any argument concerning that a high correlation proves a reason is a lie
Correlation is explicitly implies causation unless you can be sure that other factors don’t influence the scores, any scientifically explained phenomena would be proof, but unluckily not in this case.</p>
<p>Hilarious example of correlation would be, for an example the amount of apple products to sat scores, the amount of books a individual has to their gpa score.</p>
1 Like
<p>@balledtoohard, You made my morning with such a logical post!! You are a genius, at least that’s what I think, though you may be more modest.</p>
<p>I hate to say this but NYT, my favorite newspaper, was wrong when its overzealous reporter made ill-conceived statistical analysis and claimed a stronger correlation (R2= 0.95) than what really was between family income and SAT scores. When correlation coefficient (R2) is calculated, one has to use the entire data points, not averages of binned data. No doubt that family income affects SAT scores but only moderately at best. </p>
<p>@SharingGift So by having a >$200,000 income I can expect a moderate to low positive change in my score? I think you need reform your logic.</p>
<p>@balledtoohard, Just so you know I wasn’t sarcastic about my post above.</p>
<p>@rosie19 Ah, not its fine, I was just being sarcastic to the other post. Thank you for your compliment!</p>
<p>The only way a low income is going to properly be correlated with SAT scores is in terms of prep classes and ability to be well prepared- not with how well an individual could score. It’s an unfortunate predicament, but grades/GPAs/teacher recommendations can all help balance things like that out. Also, I would assume that schools take income-SAT/SSAT/PSAT scores into consideration if there is, in fact, a strong correlation. </p>
<p>Adding on to the above post, low income doesn’t cause a low score and high income doesn’t cause a high score, at least not directly. People with money can afford better test prep and it often comes down to that. </p>
<p>Also, just another note, but this might just be me. I think sometimes strongly regimented private schools (the type of schools you often see high-income students coming out of) actually prevent their students from being able to think creatively and apply their skills. This might not be the case. But, if that is true, then those students are at a disadvantage as well because they don’t have as well trained an ability to think about things above their grade level, no matter how bright they are. </p>
<p>How would it prevent creativity?</p>
<p>Not really creativity but the way to solve problems without a masterful understanding of the material at hand, like having confidence in your abilities without having been coached through the lesson. </p>
<p>This might just be me.</p>
<p>@pd100 Do you mean learning how and not why, preventing someone from applying their skills to an unfamiliar problem?</p>
<p>How large an endowment would Andover need to offer truly need-blind in admission and sustain that going forward?</p>
<p>As a professor in a very highly regarded LAC, filled with lots of interesting and creative students from all different backgrounds, I can tell you categorically that, no, private schools do not prevent their students from thinking creatively or having a very deep understanding of the work. In fact, good private schools and BS push their students to delve deeply into their work and apply it in new situations, rather than teaching to the test. That’s why parents pay the big bucks.</p>
<p>@Daykidmom I can’t speak for @pdl100 but I tend to believe that a group of kids with diverse backgrounds, perspectives, or life histrory do better in solving certain real-life problems than a homogeneous group of lookalike rich kids, or for that matter, a homogeneous group of working or middle class kids. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are not entitled to any score, but if you use your parents’ resources wisely and work on test prep, yes you could expect modest improvement in SAT scores. There are exceptions though…if you have already maxed out your brain department, you won’t see much improvement at all. That’s why correlations between $ and scores are rather low.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, $ doesn’t equate to better scores. Read on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Conversely, people without money can still do well on test, so more often than not, it does not come down to money. Read on.</p>
<p>If you go back to the CollegeBoard [url=<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbs-2009-national-TOTAL-GROUP.pdf]report[/url”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbs-2009-national-TOTAL-GROUP.pdf]report[/url</a>], the difference in math score, a section that can be most improved upon test prep, between the lowest income families ($0-$20K) and the highest (>$200K) was mere 122 points. I’m saying “mere” because standard deviations for these groups were 119 and 104 points, respectively. What all these numbers mean is that, as you will learn in high school statistics, 95% of the students from the lowest income families scored in the range of 219 and 695 (mean+/-2SD), and the same percentage of the highest income family students scored between 371 and 787. Now you should appreciate there is a much greater degree of overlap between these two classes than was oversimplified in the NYT article. </p>
<p>IMO, there are many other factors that affect test scores more significantly, such as genes, culture, and personal traits including grit, determination, discipline, etc. If you have one of these, lucky you, you should make the most out of it, and you’ll be able to beat most of affluent kids. How about that rich kid who scored 787? That’s where your writing skills become important. Show how you have risen to the challenge and leap across the opportunity gaps.</p>
<p>Not easy. But doable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here is fudging again and the use of semantics. They want to sound like it’s overall yield, but it is 85% of who attended the Spring visit program. A good chunk of these are local day students, obviously they can’t all choose to go to Dracut High School. 25% didn’t attend the revisits. So what is the true overall yield?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What about St. Andrew’s School, Delaware? As was discussed on the other thread about Andover’s need-blind admissions and the rigorous statistical analysis, it is unlikely that it is ever truly need-blind. When a School claims something, who checks their books other than it being a Self-Proclamation? CCers need to take these unilateral statements for what they are. </p>