Does low income justify low SATs?

College Confidential Community
1

<p>I just want to know what people think because this just has never made sense to me. </p>

<p>There are so many articles about "college success" stories. Students from struggling families manage to be at the top of their classes and get into great colleges. I think that's really greaat fot them, however, the one thing that really struck out at me was how their low SAT scores were. There's an article in the New York Times about a boy who got into Amherst with a 1200 (on the old SAT) while the meadian is 1422.</p>

<p>I've heard the argument about how poor people can't afford to take prep classes and often go to poor schools where they aren't taught well enough to be prepared for the SATs, but Kaplan's classes teach pretty much the same as things as the information in review books like Princeton's, and how hard is it to spend a couple hours a day learning basic math and vocabulary on your own?</p>

<p>I'm from a low income family and did fine on the SATs, after taking it for a second time. I studied a lot, mostly by doing practice tests and managed to pull a my score up 200 points to a 2300 by self-studying. </p>

<p>What do you guys think about SATs and low income?</p>

2

<p>Yeah, it's pretty BS.</p>

3

<p>Stop whining. I would rather pick a kid with 1200 SAT (a score showing he can think) from a poor family than a cookie cutter rich kid 1400er.</p>

4

<p>A score of 1200 shows you can think...but a 1400 doesn't? What exactly do you think the cookie cutter rich kid is? I mean, what characteristics define that person? What family income are you looking at? What sort of net worth? What sort of ECs? How do rich kids distinguish themselves?</p>

5

<p>
[quote]

I've heard the argument about how poor people can't afford to take prep classes and often go to poor schools where they aren't taught well enough to be prepared for the SATs, but Kaplan's classes teach pretty much the same as things as the information in review books like Princeton's, and how hard is it to spend a couple hours a day learning basic math and vocabulary on your own?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hard. Especially when if you're not in school, you're working to help your family live. Hard when your teachers in school are terrible, you have no educational materials available, and you're living in a tough area where jealousy and fear abound.</p>

<p>Generally, people who haven't experienced hardship shouldn't make assumptions about people in different circumstances than them.</p>

<p>
[quote]

I'm from a low income family and did fine on the SATs, after taking it for a second time. I studied a lot, mostly by doing practice tests and managed to pull a my score up 200 points to a 2300 by self-studying.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Did you have money to buy your books and practice tests? Did you pay for two tests? How much time did you have to invest in studying? Did your family/friends support how you were spending that time?</p>

6

<p>When you are busy worrying about where, when and how you are going to eat the next day, or if your little sister made it home without being shot up or raped, then you can talk about it being "easy" for people to prep the SAT.</p>

<p>I love how kids who mooch off their parents think that everyone should just go out buy everything they need to succeed. Life doesn't work like that, and that's why I'm loving to see the day when a lot of my classmates go out into the real world and get smacked in the face by the real world.</p>

7

<p>^^^ I absolutely agree! It's important to think about the resources kids have available to them... to consider what they're living through, and the many issues that require greater attention than preparing for the SAT's... all these factors can play a tremendous role in how well kids perform!</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
all these factors can play a tremendous role in how well kids perform!

[/quote]
How so? At my school the best performers on the SAT performed well without study. They did this by being pretty damn smart. Certainly it correlated with income (as does academic performance and innumerable other variables) but that was not a hard rule. IQ seemed to be the overriding rule on how well someone did on the SAT - not income.</p>

9

<p>"Generally, people who haven't experienced hardship shouldn't make assumptions about people in different circumstances than them."</p>

<p>The same could be said about posters in this thread making assumptions about the affluent.</p>

10

<p>Coaching really doesn't have as big of an effect as people think. The average gain as a result of coaching is 8 points in Reading and 18 points in Math. </p>

<p>Source:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/coaching.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/coaching.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I agree w/Payne that your SAT score reflects your innate ability rather than how much $ you spent on prep. If anything, I think being poor and having a tough life would have a much larger effect on GPA since that's something that one needs to work at every day. It's hard enough for me to study w/my sister running around the house causing trouble. I lost count of how many times she's defaced one of my homework assignments, thus making me have to do it over again. It would be all the more difficult if you are plagued by much worse hardships 24/7. Despite the coaching and the prep books though, the key to acing the SAT lies in the one who is taking it. The valedictorian of my school never took a prep class and never looked at a prep book. He took the SAT once and got a 1560 out of 1600. If you're smart, you're smart.</p>

11

<p>School districts see it that way, to them low income families are less educated therefore don't push their kids to be educated and it goes down a big line of noneducated people. </p>

<p>It is bullcrap, a parent can only do so much. And kids have their own mind, just because your parent doesn't push you like a baby doesn't mean to slack off. So judging intellegence by income is stupid.</p>

12

<p>amount of income => availability of resources => amount of intelligence</p>

13

<p>^agreed.</p>

<p>however, that's a huge generalization.</p>

<p>it isn't just expensive prep courses that get rich kids better scores. it starts at day 1, when they were exposed to art and culture and baby einstein, instead of second hand smoke and stupid language 'we aint not gonna came up to the store' etc. </p>

<p>you learn so much in the first few years, and i believe that quality of what you are exposed to then really would have an effect on your SAT scores.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]

It is bullcrap, a parent can only do so much. And kids have their own mind, just because your parent doesn't push you like a baby doesn't mean to slack off. So judging intellegence by income is stupid.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What you wrote makes no sense. No one is judging intelligence by income. We're talking about the effect of being poor on one's SAT scores. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The valedictorian of my school never took a prep class and never looked at a prep book. He took the SAT once and got a 1560 out of 1600. If you're smart, you're smart.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How good were his teachers during the last 12 years? Did he have books to read from a young age? Did his parents encourage him?</p>

<p>I scored better on the SAT than your friend. I never took a class and I spent minimal time practicing. But I had books to read since I learned how to. When I was young my parents taught me tons of math. When I was a bit older they encouraged me to do math contests.</p>

<p>That's how I did well. Not some naturally intelligent bs. If my parents (two, not one or none) were busy trying to make sure we were surviving, I wouldn't have done all that well.</p>

15

<p>
[QUOTE]
How so? At my school the best performers on the SAT performed well without study. They did this by being pretty damn smart. Certainly it correlated with income (as does academic performance and innumerable other variables) but that was not a hard rule. IQ seemed to be the overriding rule on how well someone did on the SAT - not income.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>First off, the SAT is not a test based on intelligence. It's more a test of logic, reasoning, and your ability to perform under constraints. Nothing on the sat requires knowledge really above the 8th grade, max 9th (except certain math concepts which many kids in low income areas aren't even exposed to until their junior or senior year of high school), but rather the ability to pace yourself, uncover inferences, and apply basic concepts to seemingly complex problems. The act is more of an "intelligence" test rather than the SAt, though again, a standardized test is in no way a good indicator of intelligence levels for a myriad of reasons I don't feel like going into.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
The same could be said about posters in this thread making assumptions about the affluent.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Dude, I don't think you understand. When these kids are born, they don't suddenly decide they are gonna bang out on 145. Sometimes its needed to survive. I know of RIDICULOUSLY intelligent kids from harlem who dont get a chance to prove themselves because of ****ty living conditions, poor school conditions, and no attention from the people who matter to get them to progress. I mean the alliteration, assonance, and other devices I've seen some kids use in freestyles rivals that of old poets, and I've seen people free style verses with words have of the people on CC probably haven't even HEARD of.</p>

<p>When you can't get any resources, its not just about the prep classes. You forget that its a test to examine the compilation of knowledge you have gained over the years, and if the quality of education you are given is bad, it's only natural for you to be at a disadvantage compared to a person who had access to even the small things like extra help after school, homework help, etc. In comparison some of these kids were out at the age of 12 and 13 hustlin on the block, or helping to support families.</p>

<p>I can make claims on being fairly well off as well seeing as how my father now owns a huge baby mansion that he designed himself, his own business, and my mother is a paralegal, and this is all from the grandchildren and great grandchildren of people who worked on plantations. A lot of people get caught up in the struggle, and if you don't know what the struggle is like, then assuming will only make an ass out of you and me (well just you.)</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
Does low income justify low SATs?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No. Just about nothing justifies low SATs. It is not a particularly hard test, especially since all of the answers are on the test itself (in the verbal sections at least) -- the math section, I can understand, but only slightly. A lack of personal initiative is probably the cause for most low scores, with low income used as only an excuse. </p>

<p>I am not talking about the new-age poverty stricken, of course, but the lower middle class / upper lower class ghetto folk. And as for assumption, I'll cut that down by stating that I've only had experience with those living in New Jersey.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
amount of income => availability of resources => amount of intelligence

[/quote]
That's pretty much the dumbest thing I've ever heard. One can have all the resources in the world and still be an idiot. Babies are adopted all the time into the best of circumstances and it affects their IQ insignificantly. Of all predictors of an individuals IQ, the IQ of the parents is the best. Not income, not availability of resources (well, material resources at least), not your school district.</p>

<p>
[quote]
^agreed.</p>

<p>however, that's a huge generalization.</p>

<p>it isn't just expensive prep courses that get rich kids better scores. it starts at day 1, when they were exposed to art and culture and baby einstein, instead of second hand smoke and stupid language 'we aint not gonna came up to the store' etc.</p>

<p>you learn so much in the first few years, and i believe that quality of what you are exposed to then really would have an effect on your SAT scores.

[/quote]
IQ is static after age 3 (although IQ at that means something different than it does for adults). Twins separated at birth have IQs that correlate extremely well even when one looks at vastly different upbringings.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What you wrote makes no sense. No one is judging intelligence by income. We're talking about the effect of being poor on one's SAT scores.

[/quote]
Being poor only matters because it correlates with income (dumb people are more likely to be poor). What actually matters is parental IQ, because that is a very good predictor of child IQ.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How good were his teachers during the last 12 years? Did he have books to read from a young age? Did his parents encourage him?

[/quote]
IQ is static upon entering school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I scored better on the SAT than your friend. I never took a class and I spent minimal time practicing. But I had books to read since I learned how to. When I was young my parents taught me tons of math. When I was a bit older they encouraged me to do math contests.

[/quote]
And your IQ is high. And your parent's IQs are mostly likely high as well.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's how I did well. Not some naturally intelligent bs. If my parents (two, not one or none) were busy trying to make sure we were surviving, I wouldn't have done all that well.

[/quote]
Idiotic. You think you got a 1560+ because you had books available or you went into math competitions? Is this a joke?</p>

<p>
[quote]
First off, the SAT is not a test based on intelligence.

[/quote]
It correlates with IQ. Having a high IQ makes you do better on this test. Fact.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's more a test of logic, reasoning, and your ability to perform under constraints.

[/quote]
Logic, reasoning, and working quickly. Yes, all these things greatly benefit with higher IQ.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nothing on the sat requires knowledge really above the 8th grade, max 9th

[/quote]
Correct. Knowledge is not IQ. But when the information is this basic then IQ is what creates the distribution in scores.</p>

<p><a href="except%20certain%20math%20concepts%20which%20many%20kids%20in%20low%20income%20areas%20aren't%20even%20exposed%20to%20until%20their%20junior%20or%20senior%20year%20of%20high%20school">quote</a>,

[/quote]
Ummm. If the math is available at the school then they can do it any year.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but rather the ability to pace yourself, uncover inferences, and apply basic concepts to seemingly complex problems.

[/quote]
IE: Be smart.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The act is more of an "intelligence" test rather than the SAt, though again, a standardized test is in no way a good indicator of intelligence levels for a myriad of reasons I don't feel like going into.

[/quote]
Tests that correlate with intelligence are used for college admission because they want to screen for intellect - a primary determinant in how one succeeds in college. You think they want 100 IQ people going into engineering/math/physics? It'd be a waste of time for both parties!</p>

18

<p>"Did you have money to buy your books and practice tests? Did you pay for two tests? How much time did you have to invest in studying? Did your family/friends support how you were spending that time?"</p>

<p>I borrowed most of my books from the library, and bought a few used ones from amazon.com. I didn't pay for any of my SAT tests, I got a fee wavier through my school. Also, my parents have no idea what an SAT even is. They did not go to college in the US, and my older sister really didn't care about school, so I was pretty on my own. </p>

<p>"When you are busy worrying about where, when and how you are going to eat the next day, or if your little sister made it home without being shot up or raped, then you can talk about it being "easy" for people to prep the SAT."</p>

<p>This isn't necessarily true. Many of these low scorers are valedictorians. Atleast at my school, a huge part of grades is based on homework, so if these kids had enough time to write reports, do problems sets, worksheets etc. then obviously the supposed issues about safety and security aren't so distracting that the prevent the students from being able to learn and study properly.</p>

19

<p>I said this in post #17.</p>

<p>Original: Being poor only matters because it correlates with income (dumb people are more likely to be poor).</p>

<p>Corrected: Being poor only matters because it correlates with **intelligence<a href="dumb%20people%20are%20more%20likely%20to%20be%20poor">/b</a>.</p>

20

<p>Yes I think it's easier and more likely for a rich kid to do better than a poor kind on the SATs. I went to an Ivy (Columbia) several years ago, before a lot of this craziness in competition began but competition was still pretty bad at that time. All my siblings went to Top 5 schools. We were a pretty poor working class family growing up, just one year of tuition was as much as my parents made in a year. But they made education a huge huge priority in our lives and that's why we did well. From my high school class only on other person did well on their SATs (e.g. enough to get into an Ivy). I can't think of one person, including myself, who would have been able to afford ANY prep courses. Nowadays especially prep courses seem to be the standard versus the exception. I see all these younger cousins of mine and all take prep courses and many start preparing for the SATs as early as middle school. We couldn't afford any of that stuff when we were kids, we ended up doing well but there were only a few of us who did. If you strip away the SAT prep courses and tutors from every kid in a more affluent high school how good will the SAT scores be? another big thing is having to work, virtually everyone in my high school had to work after-school. We didn't get dad's credit card to go clothes shopping, etc. I had a ton of wealthier cousins and family friends growing up and none of them had to work, after school they can do things like SAT prep. For us, SAT prep was done with a couple books on the kitchen table with people running all around you. Even little things like affluent kids having their own rooms or quiet places at home to study makes a big difference. I've done well for myself, working for a large hedge fund and make good money now, and yes life is very different. Money gives you options.</p>