Does low income justify low SATs?

College Confidential Community
41

<p>Even on perfect knowledge-based tests, people do experience diminishing marginal returns with respect to increased preparation. We've all heard of the students who study all day and still fail to get A's in their classes (and in their AP or SAT exams). Even knowledge-based tests correlate with IQ exams.</p>

<p>The question is, how much do these tests correlate with the supposedly immalleable "g factor"? (the measure of intelligence which theoretically should be unaffected by preparation).</p>

<p>IQ tests have the greatest correlations
SAT tests have less correlations than IQ tests
knowledge-based tests have even less correlations with SAT or IQ tests.</p>

<p>But none of those tests have absolute or 0 correlation with the g factor. This allows for SOME modification through low environment. The question, then, is a question of extent. And thus, IQ tests are the least malleable by environmental influences, whereas knowledge-based tests are the most malleable by environmental influences. NONETHELESS, they all are based on genetic influences as well. The question, then, is for an individual, are the environmental influences more significant in the low score, or are the genetic influences more significant in the low score?</p>

42

<p>Things like this really makes me bitter. Maybe it's just because I feel like I am shouting into an empty void because it seems like nobody truly listens. Having money makes so many things easier in the realm of education. And if you don't have money, merely having parents that are education-oriented is great. </p>

<p>Stuff like this strikes way too close to home because I hate it when people imply that a score like 1200-old-SAT is crap if it comes from a student from a poorer region. I am a first-gen college student who didn't have parents that really cared about education, nor did we have a whole lot of money. My school had budget cut after budget cut, and resources were slim. My father had died during high school, and there were some massive expenses to fend for, and issues of food. No transportation, either. All of this makes it very difficult to focus on education, especially if nobody around you cares about it much.</p>

<p>People who don't have to deal with things of that nature have no idea how difficult it is. Things like prep courses and tutors are simply out of the question in low-income situations. However, I think the best way to go about it is to just buy some practice tests and get cracking. I taught an SAT course as a side job about a year ago, and what I noticed is that people who initially scored around 1600 on the new SAT had started hitting 2100+ when I was done with them. Some people were smart to begin with -- but others who also started out around 1600 just didn't understand what was going on and did not have as much of an increase.</p>

<p>My point is, a score really says quite little. I've taught people who had low scores but were bright students, and with a little guidance they were able to understand the test and hit higher marks. Others who started out with equally low scores who were not as bright did not understand the test as well. </p>

<p>Some are just better at learning the battlefield than others, but keep in mind that sometimes someone has the score they do merely because they didn't have someone to show them where to look. </p>

<p>However, it is still possible for one to get access to a packet of SAT tests and learn from those. My score post-prep was much higher than my pre-prep score. It simply means that prep can boost your scores. Not everyone knows what SAT prep can do for you, or how to go about getting it. When a student has more resources, we better see the potential.</p>

<p>Don't let low-income students with low-scores fool you, especially if everything else about them is solid in terms of abilities. Having a lack of resources, in itself, is a huge obstacle. You always have to evaluate a student relative to all these factors.</p>

<p>In a word, low-income <em>can</em> justify a lower SAT score. It is hard for colleges to evaluate people from extremely poor areas, because there are only so many things to do and the metric for success may not be so high (ie. maybe their school didn't offer any advanced calculus so we'd have no idea how they'd do if it were offered). But it is the people who smash the metric and try anyway who I think have success in admissions.</p>

43

<p>Being "naturally smart" isn't enough to score well on the SAT in certain circumstances.</p>

<p>Low income completely justifies a low SAT score, if, and only if, the student attends an underserved school. Otherwise, it's just an excuse. Income isn't what affects SAT scores(at least not directly). It's resources. Low-income students with lower SAT scores generally come from pathetic high schools.</p>

<p>I know, I attended one. Currently, the average ACT score is a 16, the highest SAT score in the school's history is a 1550. But that's to be expected: the school teaches things that students typically learn in 5th through 8th grade. Still, students often fail finals and tests, especially in math and English. Most can't read or write on an adult level. Or any reasonable level. Is it their fault that they can't beat biased standardized tests? No, the public education failed them. Even students with high GPAs don't do well. The average ACT score(I'm from the Midwest) of the top 10 students was a 22. These aren't stupid people. They work hard and will probably rise to any challenge set before them. They just attended a bad school.</p>

<p>Is it their fault that the English teachers don't grade on grammar on tests and papers? Or that teachers are discouraged from assigning papers longer than two pages? Or that the principal is eliminating trigonometry and refuses to even consider creating Honors or AP courses? No! The public education system is the wrong-doer again! The students are usually so behind by the their freshman year that they can't create advanced classes. There aren't enough students to fill them. </p>

<p>I was fortunate enough to attend a private school from elementary to middle school. A series of bad circumstance forced me to attend a new inner-city college prep charter school, one that promised a "ninety-percent or higher graduation rate". It reached it's goal: the graduation rate was almost twice the city's average, an impressive ninety-eight percent. Sadly, the school forgot to boast it's ten percent functional literacy rate.</p>

<p>Despite my high school education, I managed to do well on my ACTs considering my circumstance. All credit is due to my middle school education and my drive.</p>

<p>legendofmax: props for having the wisdom to see things for what they are.</p>

44

<p>I think it's wrong to assume that anyone who has the money to take an SAT prep course will take one. It's kind of like saying every person who can afford a nice car will buy one.</p>

45

<p>SAT prep courses aren't the essential difference between the high-income and low-income student. Dozens of opportunities are.</p>

<p>People really don't understand the hurdles low-income students face, I guess.</p>

46

<p>And yet low-income students still perform well. In fact, the difference in average SAT score (out of 1600) between the richest income bracket (100K+) and the lowest income bracket (0-10K) is only about 1.3 Standard Deviations (260 points). So, if income is seen as the sole difference between the richest and the poorest, you can add the full 260 points. The difference between 40-50K bracket to the top bracket is 130 points.</p>

47

<p>^And he would have been closer to the 10K bracket than the 40K bracket, and he was a little over 200 lower. Seems to fit.</p>

48

<p>Very few people argue that income is the sole determinant of the difference in standardized test scores - you want to be the one to make that claim?</p>

49

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1995-SAT-Income.png%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1995-SAT-Income.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

50

<p>Income might not be the sole determinant of SAT scores but there's definitely a positive relationship between the two.</p>

51

<p>


</p>

<p>Circular argument. Why do you think your parents taught you? Why did they value education? Because they were smart, they went to college, they enjoyed learning. They passed their intelligence genes to you. Research shows that genetics accounts for the majority of IQ.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
Income might not be the sole determinant of SAT scores but there's definitely a positive relationship between the two.

[/quote]
Obviously, there is a reason I posted what I did.</p>

53

<p>if u didn't let the poor kid in w/ the low score.... then the poor could would never go to college, since he/she could never pay... u would continually increase the gap between the rich and the poor, since the poor could never get a higher education, therefore they would never make a higher salary....... it's equal opportunity..... for everyone out there who dislikes the fact..... just put yourself in their shoes..(oh wait....you can't).. a poor person w/ 1200 probably VALUES college more than a middle class person or a rich person w/ a 1200.</p>

54

<p>I used to have a similar outlook on the SATs (like the OP). I'm from an upper middle class family and I have been blessed with a good environment and nurturing parents. I did well on the SATs, but I never took any prep course or really even prepped at all. I always subscribed to the pull-yourself-up idea. If I can do it without prep, everyone else should be able to as well. If not, you're either stupid, lazy, or a combination.</p>

<p>In retrospect, that was such a naive, simple-minded way of looking at an immensely complex issue.</p>

<p>Now... on why colleges would choose Applicant A (poor 1200) over Applicant B (rich 1400).</p>

<p>I think what you're missing here is the difference between a 1200 and a 1400 on the SATs is really not all that much. It's maybe a couple of percentage points max. As few as 4 or 5 questions.</p>

<p>With a gap that small... I don't think you can conclusively say that Applicant B (1400) is necessarily a mile ahead of Applicant A IQ-wise. In fact, if A were offered the same conditions (throughout life), it can be argued that he could have potentially performed better.</p>

<p>Just some food for thought :)</p>

55

<p>^indeed .</p>

56

<p>"Are you guys arguing that Tony Jack isn't smart, because he didn't do as well on his SATs as some other people may have? The article proves him to be extremely intelligent - I commend Amherst, and am proud of my school, for realizing his potential."</p>

<p>The argument isn't that Tony Jack isn't smart. It's that's it's unfair for a middle class applicant with the same GPA and same SAT scores to be rejected to a college based on the fact that one applicant's parent makes more than the other's. After all the applicant's parents are rich because they work hard for their money or had grandparents who worked hard for their money so their kids and grandkids could live well. </p>

<p>The availability of resources argument is flawed. All anyone really needs to do well on the SATs is access to prep books (which can be found at a public library) and a good work ethic. </p>

<p>by the way, how do you use the "quote" feature?</p>

57

<p>People always focus on SAT scores on CC. OMG, IT'S NOT THE ONLY PART OF THE APPLICATION. You guys need to realize that you are not the admissions officer and they do know what they are doing. You can talk and hate on the person that you think is dumb as much as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that they got in to a great school</p>

<p>People who are not as intelligent may be more likely to be poor, but that is only if they have a poor upbringing. Great example is our president. He is not that intelligent but he had a great family so now he is the Leader of the Free World. Not everyone who is poor is unintelligent, most of them just have unfortunate circumstances. So do not make that assumption.</p>

<p>Realize that people face terrible things in life. Things that are unfathomable to you. In my city B-more, a lot of kids can't go to school because drug lords there kill them if they try to learn. If they do go to school it is so they can sell drugs. At the better schools, funds are low and teachers do not have the resources available to teach. Ever wondered why your school was ranked in Newsweek? Because you have AP or IB courses, and being able to provide that in a public school is kind of rare in this country. </p>

<p>Along with the terrible street and school life, some kids face a home life where they're parents are negligent, either working or doing some shady business. So when an admin sees this in an applicant they realize that this kids has really survived on their own and know that they can do the same in college. </p>

<p>This is just an example of the urban poor. There are rural poor, white poor, Hispanic poor, any kind. When they have gotten that far on their own that is special. </p>

<p>OPEN YOUR MINDS PEOPLE! </p>

<p>Also IQ is does not determine ones abilities. There have been many cases of people classified as mentally retarded, doing extraordinary things and they had below average IQs. Wiki Kim Peek.</p>

58

<p>The quote is formed by: [ quote=type-in-username ] Actual Quote [ /quote ]</p>

<p>Without the spaces before and after the brackets.</p>

<p>SAT scores are not the only thing, any idiot can tell you that; but it is something.</p>

<p>I wouldn't say that Bush is unintelligent -- I wouldn't make a judgment, period, seeing as how I don't know the man and that my only perceptions of him stem from the media.</p>

<p>Getting into college is not directly based on intelligence (as in, IQ, straightforwardly), but on achievement measured on a standardized level. The problem in this is not that poor kids can achieve but are disregarded, but that average kids can achieve and that achievement is somewhat disregarded. Whatever they get or don't get is attributed to what their parents have or have not done, not themselves. The SATs, being a Standardized Test, forms a standardized baseline. With that standard established, a person knows exactly what to study for or not study for. Resources available online and in the library are enough to get a high score on the SATs for.</p>

<p>Being from NJ and all, the most I've heard about is with the Italian Mafia still running strong. I'll admit limited knowledge on my part on circumstances known to people. However, circumstances can only end up as excuses. Horrible things have happened to me and I've just tried to brush them away. My overachieving tendencies realized that notion, and though I've suffered, I also understand that the decision to suffer was made by me. How to deal with circumstances is based on individual decisions.</p>

<p>Yes, there have been many cases of below average IQ people being amazing, but not half as many as the people who have Above Average IQs achieving extraordinary things. This is why they are considered exceptions -- no test can measure achievement, but some tell the likelihood of. I mean, I don't run around asking people "hey, what's your IQ?" and deciding whether I like him/her based on that.</p>

<p>I have no problem with a person writing a college essay about overcoming all odds. Cause as much of a sobfest as you like. What I do care about is grouping people together as if the worst-case is the norm, and giving them kudos points for that alone. Though I am sure that there are many people who are stopped left and right from doing things, there are too many more who choose not to.</p>

<p>Potential is not realization. There is no way to measure potential, except through its realization. People who have potential, but don't choose to develop it or can't develop it are going to be passed over. It is not anyone's exact fault, per se, but what logic dictates. The most anyone can do is try to fight through obstacles and accomplish what they want. If getting into college is based on the individual, admissions departments should consider the applicant on an individual level. None of that assumption crap.</p>

59

<p>Actually you have to judge Bush's intelligence from the media, one can see in it through his actions, actions that have really brought the country down. And that is a fact that many, both conservatives and progressives, will tell you. </p>

<p>Like whatisinaname said it, people should just get over it. The person got in and you didn't and you can't do anything about because you are not the admissions officer. Nothing is fair in life.</p>

60

<p>Eh, I'm of the opinion that the Media makes Bush look a lot worse than he is, and he can't really stop it. I think some of his decisions are extremely stupid, but you have to remember that those decisions are not entirely his own. To pass anything, congress and the Supreme Court both have to accept it. Anyway, point being that it's hard to make intelligence calls.</p>

<p>Public opinion changes, and people have a tendency to blame the government. One example (sorry to keep this utterly off topic) would be the War. After 9/11, there were those in the country criticizing the government that they did not involve themselves in warfare until a month later -- people, emotional and vengeful as the time was, were desperate to get into war with whoever was responsible. The government has now determined Al Quaeda responsible, and for whatever reason, also Saddam's administration in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction, my ass). Now, it's all "send the troops home!" People want to initiate things, but then get tired and not want to carry them out. The media sways with the people, and the entire system is pretty ridiculous. Then again, who knows, the media might redeem itself with another Watergate.</p>

<p>...Plus, Dick Cheney may be holding a shotgun.</p>