<p>"In 2010, a total of 382 students scored a perfect 2400. Of these, 206 were boys, and 176 were girls. (If the writing test is omitted, 1,305 students got a 1600 -- 820 boys and 485 girls.) Among those who scored a 2350, 341 were boys, and 266 were girls. The same rough ratios hold (with one exception) for all of the scores in the top 10 percentiles."</p>
<p>For</a> the Boys' Sake, Don't Kill the SAT - Mona Charen - Townhall Conservative</p>
<p>Interesting article and responses. I think tests like the SAT and ACT have their place, but they are not the whole story, and most colleges look at other factors as well. What is unfortunate is that there are always people who want to use numbers like these to oppress others.</p>
<p>Personally, I resent the idea that the children of more educated parents do better because they “paid for their scores”. In DS case, we bought a review book and he spent 6 months being nagged by me to review various sections and read the word list. He took the 6 practice tests, took the SAT once, and scored a 1500/2210. The following week he took the ACT after only one practice test and scored 34. Total cost: about $40.</p>
<p>The problem with this type of argument is that it is based on aggregated data (total SAT scores). When the data is disaggregated, it is clear that the ‘advantage’ for boys is primarily math scores. And this is true for every level of math: according to the self-reported data on CB, girls take more math than guys at every level, but yet guys score higher on SAT-M. Guys even score higher on SAT-M even tho more girls take PreCalc and Calc, for example.</p>
<p>From Collegeboard’s own site, (which is available to all, Mona), of those college-bound seniors that scored 700+:</p>
<p>SAT-M: 66,606 guys, vs. 38,728 gals
SAT-CR: 35,320 vs. 35,840
SAT-W: 28,204 vs. 38,027</p>
<p>Similar numbers are found by the ACT: boys outscore girls on math: mean 21.6 to 20.5. For students who report taking Calc, boys mean = 25.2 vs. 23.7. Boys also score higher on ACT-Science (which includes more Reasoning-style questions).</p>
<p>I think the real correlation between money and SAT scores is that people who are smarter generally make more money and have smarter babies.</p>
<p>Shame on all of you! If you worked at Harvard, you would all be forced to resign.</p>
<p>Well this is about how boys performance differs from girls performance, not why rich peoples differs from the poor. I think the main factor is that more guys fall on either the really smart or really dumb end of the spectrum. Guys are always the experimental/disposable ones in society, and tend to have more differing abilities, where girls are more similar compared to each other. The very bottom percents of the guys do not take the SAT, they will more likely drop out of high school and such, whereas more girls take the SAT than guys.</p>
<p>Boys are better at math in general than girls. Look at IMO and USAMO if you don’t believe me.</p>
<p>
So what do you do with that?</p>
<p>in the international math olympiad of 500+ top candidates in the world, about 10% were girls, which is why they get their own chinese girl’s olympiad to help cope with this iregularity.</p>
<p>USAMO, same story, in fact a senior girl needs 1/2 the score a 2nd timer sophomore boy would,</p>
<p>But there is another problem with over-relying on tests instead of using the whole package= while the boys score higher on tests, they actually do less well in college. So again we see the non-predictive value of the tests.</p>
<p>Women just aren’t as smart. Who can blame them? After all, their brains are 1/3 the size of those of men…It’s science.</p>
<p>
Do you live in a poor area (ie, inner city) with an inadequate school system? This, along with major non-school stresses resulting from poverty, contribute to the lower scores of poor students. The system, like so many others, is stacked in favor of the rich.</p>
<p>I go to an inner-city public high school where 1/3 of students qualify for federal free lunch.</p>
<p>Kids still pay for prep courses. If that’s what’s important to your family and what you prioritize, it can be done.</p>
<p>Admittedly the 1/3 are likely not the majority of kids taking courses, but most of the other 2/3 are lower-middle-class or poor. I definitely know of poor people who scrimp and save so their kids can get help on SATs.</p>
<p>asians are perfect example, majority of them are children of poor immigrants from China, but it’s rooted in their values to have strong working ethics and many end up succeeding, yet other ethnic groups with similar if not better opportunities just botch it up.</p>