<p>What about certain sports that are not recruited? Are those athletes also given a little push?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You'll love the controversy regarding how the CollegeBoard is now trying to suppress their own data:</p>
<ul>
<li>The SAT is a measure of resources more than of reasoning. Year after year, the College Board's own statistics depict a virtually linear correlation between SAT scores and family income. Each rise in earnings (measured in $10,000 increments) brings a commensurate rise in scores. Other research, meanwhile, has found that more than half the difference among students' scores can be explained purely on the basis of parents' level of education. </li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/sat.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/sat.htm</a></p>
<p>I posted the original CollegeBoard data some six months ago, but they've disabled the link.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh Mini, don't you love the downtrodden outsiders! Fairtest, by its own admission, has a budget smaller than the wages paid to the President of ETS or TCB. Rather than lament this apparent injustice, I'd rather point out that the organization has close to nothing to show for that spending. What have they contributed in their years of gossipy and tabloid-like "reporting?" This organization does not have the resources nor the required intelligence to understand the reports produced by ETS or TCB. They shoot for the hip and perform in the same manner as your ten o' clock news "insider" reports. Sensationalism with foundation seems to be their motto. </p>
<p>They also fall in the same class as the Princeton Review fake student protection foundation. A few weeks ago, I posted about the credentials of their fearless leader. While the PR site broadcasts -as an attempt to gain publicity- their participation in the U Mich AA trial, a closer look reveals the less than glorious testimony. The judge questioned the qualifications of the PR Foundation chief and forced him to admit that he had neither the training nor the required education to discuss the matter of standardized tests. </p>
<p>For my money, you may as well buy the National Enquirer and look for their annual SAT review. Actually, the NE probably would spend more money! </p>
<p>In the meantime, in the case of the suppression of data, a fairer statement would have pointed out that it relates to a COPYRIGHT violation of protected information. Nothing precludes Fairtest to obtain permission to use the data or analyze it. </p>
<p>Lastly, you may be interested in reading Table 4-2 of the senior annual report on the performance of seniors. Obviously, what might be missing might be a lengthy explanation written at a Froebelian level to allow fairtest and hiis followers to "get" it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Family Income
Less Than $10,000 47,170 5 36 64 426 112 458 127
$10,000 - $20,000 76,433 8 39 61 443 106 463 112
$20,000 - $30,000 88,741 9 41 59 463 104 474 107
$30,000 - $40,000 101,509 10 43 57 480 104 487 106
$40,000 - $50,000 84,485 9 45 55 496 102 500 104
$50,000 - $60,000 89,511 9 47 53 505 102 509 103
$60,000 - $70,000 83,942 8 48 52 511 100 515 103
$70,000 - $80,000 83,918 8 49 51 517 101 522 103
$80,000 - $100,000 124,676 13 50 50 529 101 534 103
More Than $100,000 207,199 21 53 47 554 101 565 104
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Truth in advertising is an acquired taste.</p>
<p>This was Jay Rosner's testimony:</p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as Rosner being an expert witness, here's a little tidbit of his testimony:</p>
<p>THE COURT: First you better ask him and lay a foundation, because his expertise -- I mean, I let him kind of go on a lot last time, and in fact, I thought about it and thought about it and probably let him go on too much. From now on we're going to answer the questions. And I haven't heard any -- why don't you lay a foundation if he has expertise in that area.
THE COURT: First of all, have you had any training, statistical training or anything of that nature?
THE WITNESS: I don't have any formal statistical training, no. </p>
<p>THE COURT: Is there a paper I can read that you have done on this? Is there anything other than your anecdotal discussions with people?
THE WITNESS: Probably the -- there is a test that we will talk about that I have compiled that, in the context of this testimony, that I just compiled a couple of weeks ago and that's, I think, the only thing.
THE COURT: Just compiled a couple weeks ago?
THE WITNESS: Yes. </p>
<p>MR. KOLBO: Your Honor, if I can just make it clear, we have an objection on foundation. We don't -- we believe this witness hasn't been qualified as an expert on test design and psychometrics and --</p>
<p>THE COURT: I agree with you, and that's what I thought we were getting into. </p>
<p>MS. MASSIE: But he doesn't have to, as an expert, to be qualified as an expert, he doesn't have to have specialized academic training. I think we agree about that.</p>
<p>THE COURT: I absolutely agree, but he has to have more than anecdotal kinds of information if he is going to testify as an expert. Anyhow, let's go. Let me -- we heard, we have heard from experts, so we know what they are, including Dr. Shapiro who testified before, who by training, by every kind of imaginable thing has the expertise to testify in testing areas and statistics and so forth. The only reason I mention it, I'm looking at your exhibits and -- </p>
<p>MS. MASSIE: I think Mr. Rosner's testimony will build on Professor Shapiro's.</p>
<p>THE COURT: It may build on it, but he's got to have some expertise other than the fact that he is a lawyer and he works for a company that gives classes on testing.</p>
<p>THE COURT: Have you done any testing of your own, done anything like that?
THE WITNESS: I have talked to minority students.
THE COURT: My question is, have you done any testing?
THE WITNESS: No.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Xiggi, I don't understand your chart with the numbers. What are you trying to say?</p>
<p>I've been reading for a while about the correlation between SAT score and family income. Many of the comments about this fact seem to be of the type: "No fair, these kids are getting high scores and getting into the better colleges just because they're rich." I have some thoughts on this, and they may not be PC, but here they are. First, lets assume it's true - that the more affluent the family, the higher the SAT scores (the numbers do seem to bear this out) But, how do we know the order of the cause-and-effect? I think the PC interpretation is: Rich families yield high-scoring kids, just because of their advantages. No fair!! But, is it possible, in a meritocracy that rewards those with brains and drive with higher income, that the richer people, on average (in America, at least), are also smarter than poorer people? And that the SAT is largely an IQ test, and that IQ is largely a heritable trait? So, shouldn't we expect the richer people to be the smarter people - again, on average, understanding that there will be many exceptions to the rule.
After all - we know that certain occupations (truck driver, manual laborer, low-level clerks, etc) are more associated with IQ scores on the left side of the bell curve. These are also lower-paying occupations. While those on the right side of the curve - physicians, lawyers, business executives, etc., are asociated with higher IQs and higher income. This is not a novel conclusion. Why are we so scared to suggest that, in fact, in a country where, over several generations, smart people have the opportunity to rise economically and socially, that smarter people (who also tend to be richer people) may tend, on average, to have smarter kids.
So when people say something like: "Oh, SATs are no fair because all they tell you is the income level of the parents, I would take issue with the conclusin commonly drawn. I might reply: "SATs tell you something about the IQ of the parents, which itself may be predictive of educational attainment and income level."
Pardon me for dragging up the essence of The Bell Curve" thesis, but I believe it.
In a meritocratic society, which we're fortunate to live in, brains can get you far. That is a good thing! So maybe Brains+drive=greater income, and brains in parents = brains in kids. But let's be careful about the cause-and-effect analysis.</p>
<p>xiggi: You gotta love lawyers!</p>
<p>According to the PDF, the higher the salary the higher the scores.</p>
<p>last four colums are verbal sat mean, verbal std deviation, math sat mean, math standard deviation</p>
<p>DS, it's an excerpt of the report for which I posted the click. The table is on page 11. </p>
<p>The headings for the table are as follows:</p>
<p>SAT Reasoning Test
Test-Takers
Number
Percent</p>
<p>Percent
Male
Female </p>
<p>Verbal
Mean
Std Dev</p>
<p>Math
Mean
Std Dev</p>
<p>So for income of less than 10,000</p>
<p>SAT Reasoning Test Less Than $10,000 </p>
<p>Test-Takers
Number 47,170
Percent 5 </p>
<p>Percent
Male 36
Female 64 </p>
<p>Verbal
Mean 426
Std Dev 112 </p>
<p>Math
Mean 458
Std Dev 127</p>
<p>wtidad, we have two kids. They both score 1150. One can afford to pay for tutors and after being tutored he now scores 1300. Now all of a sudden, the 1300 scorer is smarter than the 1150 scorer?</p>
<p>So what happens. We end up with businesses that teach students how to do better on a test. </p>
<p>I'm not sure how the SAT measures intelligence if I can have a tutor and raise my score.</p>
<p>Xiggi, the higher the parent's income or education, the higher the kid's score.</p>
<p>Do you have some kind of opinion that disagrees with this?</p>
<p>I would just like to give an example from our lives- My daughter was just accepted ED to Cornell. She is a recruited gymnast with a 4.0 uw gpa lots of other ECs that require extensive time commitments but with no better than a 30 ACT. She practices at least 1200 hours per year and then travels all over the country to compete. She has achieved better than a 210 AI in spite of the fact that she had to practice after school daily and then go home to do homework and projects for hours each night. While her scores could have been a little better she toiled away without any breaks at school since her school didn't recognize her club sport and she still achieved high recs from her teachers and a description from her guidance counselor as a super achieving allarounder. She will have to demonstrate the same level of commitment at Cornell to succeed. I think that is another reason that colleges like these kind of kids. They know that they can balance numerous extensive commitments successfully. She competes in a non-revenue sport and so must be an even better academic candidate. I have great appreciation for people who have high time commitments in other ECs, my son was a musician and he spent a great deal of time pursuing his interest. He was able to use this EC as a hook for the Coast Guard Academy. He did not have many of the elements they look for (sports acumen, eagle scout) but he was able to show them a useful skill that helped him get in plus a broad and long term commitment to job and community involvement. He also did not have stellar scores. I think that sometimes people point at the athlete and say "They don't have--- and they got in but I have---- and I didn't". Truth be told, one never knows why one student is admitted and another is not. Perfect scores will not compensate for being one dimensional or limited in scope. This is not to say that most kids that don't get in are lacking, we just don't know what tips them toward acceptance. We were told by someone who should know that even without the need for her sport she probably would have gotten in despite her lower scores because of her range and depth of involvement with her ECs, long term commitment to them, leadership and her ability to maintain strong grades in a very demanding environment. Who knows, we never will for sure. Many of these recruited athletes, especially in the Ivies, may be amazing people even without the sport.</p>
<p>DS, you are correct in that the SAT does not measure intelligence. The SAT measures a number of elements that are intertwined in various degrees for students. We can debate ad nauseam if certain elements are more important than others. The problem starts when people try to dissect those various elements from the SAT and analyze them. They usually can establish certain correlation, but not necessarily any causality. </p>
<p>For instance, there is a correlation of SAT with income levels. However, there is another one: the correlation between SAT scores and education levels of parents. Without trying to establish the correlation between income and education level of the parents, it is impossible to really know what "causes" the correlation. </p>
<p>Organizations such as fairtest and kooks such as Rosner are always trying to scandalize the use of the SAT for selection purposes. It is undeniable that poor students (without adequate preparation) who come from lesser educated family have a worse performance on the SAT. But, in essence, is that not absolutely normal as it MIRRORS the state of our national K-12. </p>
<p>The SAT is, in fact, one of the best barometers of the symptoms that plague ouir education system. It reports the issues but does not cause them! As far as the claim of racial and SES bias, could we not say that the SAT would be biased IF it was able to eliminate the diferences in achievement and preparation of our seniors?</p>
<p>"...nothing like coming home bruised & battered & utterly devoid of energy..."</p>
<p>Actually, there <em>is</em> something like that in the world of performing arts. However, many athletes & families of athletes are not well-informed about the athleticism & accompanied preparation, injury & exhaustion resulting from certain rigorous dance forms. Try coming home with swollen, bleeding feet, with blisters so raw that one literally cannot wear shoes to school the next day. Combine that with 4 hours of virtually non-stop aerobic dance activity, then come home & write a college-level research essay for your specialty h.s. seminar. My children would be happy to compare "war wounds" with any athlete -- chin splints, pulled muscles, tendonitis & all.</p>
<p>Combine that with being in a pre-professional or conservatory-style orchestra which requires advanced dexterity on a demanding instrument, 1st or 2nd chair, for several hours a day, resulting in its own exhaustion, injuries to fingers, soreness in elbows, shoulders.</p>
<p>That said, I continue to acknowledge the benefit of college sports & its associated recruitment. It brings $$ into a University's coffers, which benefits fin. aid applicants, ultimately. Nor do I deny that non-recruited athletes similarly achieve & sacrifice. Just please don't tell me that they sacrifice any more, work any harder than do many students in performing arts activities. This is not just about "practicing." There's a lot of mythology here.</p>
<p>DS, of course, I do not disagree with the table I posted. The purpose of posting was to show Mini that the info has not been suppressed. </p>
<p>I would, however, add that exceptions can confirm the rule. One of the exceptions to the income/SAT scores table can be cretaed by dedicated preparation. High paid tutors or services are not as needed as the opportunity and desire. I only have anecdotal evidence to support this claim -although the evidence is verifiable since I played a part in it. Another exception -as I allude in the previous post- comes from a higher degree of education of the parents. For this, the accomplishments on standardized tests of immigrants from Asian provide ample verification.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I like fairtest because it lists schools that don't require the SAT and it does point out that the SAT is not perfect. :)</p>
<p>Xiggi, of course there are exceptions.</p>
<p>Mep'smom post shows why there are more important factors than test scores, and her daughter's test scores are very good. </p>
<p>A straight A student and an excellent gymnast...obviously this young lady can do the school work.</p>
<p>Mep'smom, good luck to your daughter at Cornell.</p>
<p>I would like to add that I found this forum unbelievably helpful during her recruiting process. I was able to share the experience with other more experienced parents (even though I had been through it before, tha academies can be very different). I have been able to get "on top of" some issues that later became crucial. Had we not had the help of this group I would probably be locked up somewhere about now. What an experience this has been!</p>
<p>Two or three parents here especially have help us through this process as well as some very well informed student posters.</p>
<p>Someone suggested that we need to come up with some type of "sorting hat" for these kids. Boy, wouldn't that be easier.</p>
<p>"Just please don't tell me that they sacrifice any more, work any harder than do many students in performing arts activities."</p>
<p>Epiphany, you are correct. As I said, the grass is always greener for others. The sacrifices take different forms and one is not easier than the other. I am in awe of what kids in performing arts can accomplish. I know I could never master an instrument or attempt a pirouette. I realize that what they do "effortlessly" is a result of many, many hours of exhausting practice. </p>
<p>In the end, it is fact that we only know about what we get involved in, and a bit because of friends or ... dates. Otherwise, we tend to remain oblivious to other people's plight. In this thread, some athletes have posted about their brutal schedules, but it does not mean that they are unique.</p>
<p>dstark - Sure, the prep course can raise scores, but only within a range. A 400V kid may get up to 550, but won't get to 700. If your point is that richer kids can get higher scores because they can be tutored to some degree, okay, I'll accept that. But I don't really think tutoring explains the pervasive group differences, when averaged among a million-plus test takers. This could easily develove into a nature-versus-nurture debate, which has gone on forever. But I guess my essential point is that we can't just assume from the correlation between higher income and higher scores that higher income is the CAUSE of the higher score. In fact, in some subgroups, this is not the case. African-American students from families with $100,000+ incomes have lower SAT scores than white and Asian kids from substantially less affluent families. </p>
<p>(From a San Francisco Examiner article in 1998):</p>
<p>"A UC analysis last year of 1995 SAT scores in California found that blacks from the highest-income families scored lower than whites or Asians from the poorest families. </p>
<p>Two years later, well-off black SAT test takers continued to lag behind many lower-income white and Asian families, especially in math. </p>
<h2>For example, blacks from California families earning $100,000 or more per year had a mean math score of 498, 1 point less than whites from families earning less than $10,000 and only 7 points more than Asians whose families made less than $10,000."</h2>
<p>So yes, there are test-score disparities among groups, but they don't seem to be solely caused by income disparity.</p>
<p>Thank you for that, xiggi.
Mep's Mom recounted something similar & included the important phrase, "non-revenue sport." Indeed!</p>
<p>The SAT was originally designed as an aptitude test (Scholastic Aptitude Test), which was a euphemism for IQ test. Over the years, it has made some progress in evolving toward more of an achievement test, like the ACT, but it still has many elements - (particularly in the verbal portion, but also math) that are much more similar to an IQ test than to achievement tests. That's why a very smart 12-year-old who hasn't had Algebra yet can still score over 600 on the SAT-M (and a number of them do every year, in testing for the Johns Hopkins CTY program). Because it tests problem-solving ability as much or more than it tests subject knowledge. Subject knowledge is what the SATII is for.</p>