Is Being Poor An Excuse For Not Performing Well On The Sat ?

<p>Colleges talk about how poorer students must rise above their situations and that sometimes, these types of students may not have the broadest opportunities available to them. So my question is, given a low family income, how would a mediocre/good (not totally horrible) score look ? Say from 1700-2100 (or any other score you think is ok). I mean, assuming that this kid didn't have and couldn't afford all the SAT tutors and prep classes, will good schools (UCLA, HYPS, NYU, Northwestern, Wellesley, Vassar, etc) think like this : "this SAT score isn't that competitive" or will they take a step back and say "hmmm, well, looking at the family income, i guess it's not so bad." ?</p>

<p>um...the SAT is used to judge your intelligence, not how much you can learn from tutors and prep classes</p>

<p>SAT tutors and prep classes don't hel anyways, you're the only person that can help yourself</p>

<p>stop making excuses for yourself</p>

<p>edit: the only "poor" that would work is if you can't even buy $20 prep books, though i'm sure you can (if you have access to the internet, which is more than $20/month)</p>

<p>No, being poor is not an excuse for not doing well on the SATS.</p>

<p>SAT classes are really expensive, so the majority of people who take the test don't go to them anyways.</p>

<p>Prep books aren't that expensive and even if you can't afford that, many libraries have them for check-out.</p>

<p>Being poor means there are evironmental differences to deal with that a kid who comes from a more secure background might not face. Food, shelter and basic clothing aren't necessarily a given in a low income situation. There are issues that many here have never dealt with so I would think a bit before one writes down how someone in a lesser situation can't do as well as you. </p>

<p>Think of it as a race, you line up look down and one shoe fits the other is five sizes too big and is an oxford. The guns goes off and everybody's racing. Run, why can't run faster? what's wrong? Why didn't your parents buy you running shoes? Don't they love you? </p>

<p>Getting out of poverty sucks, it can take several generations. For those who can break the culture of poverty, when given the same circumstances do very well because they actually know what it's like to be hungry.</p>

<p>I don't know exactly how colleges view differences in income, but I can tell you first-hand how school is for low-income families.</p>

<p>My family used to own a business and be fairly well-off (60k/year), but then my dad got terribly sick and died, leaving us in poverty.</p>

<p>It's weird... When money was not an issue, there was no question that me and my brother would go to college (even at 10 years old). The kids I spent most of my time with also had this goal. Then, after he died and I went to work for the first time (9th grade), I got the chance to spend more time with people who spent their whole lives in poverty. I realized that the young peoples' parents didn't really set college as a goal for their kids from early on. They were more concerned that their kids get a good job out of HS and be able to support (or contribute) early on in life. So the focus switched from devoting time to education to finding work in factories, restaurants, or other low-skill jobs. </p>

<p>When the focus switches like that, you also have to realize there are only 24 hours in a day. HS kids who work 30 hours a week while going to school don't have as much time for extra SAT studying. Factoring in the lack of general support from their parents and peers, SATs become even less of a priority. There just isn't a lot of time for it.</p>

<p>Of course, there are a few exceptions. Unlike my lower-income peers, I actually studied for my SATs and got a 2180. But generally, I think it would be unfair for colleges to say to children from lower income families "you're going to have to have as great GPAs, ECs, SATs as the people who don't have to work 30/wk to support themselves and their families."</p>

<p>I think what the OP meant to say was "do COLLEGES think being poor is an excuse for not performing well on the SAT". In the case, the answer is clearly and unequivocally yes, at least in respect to elites. Low economic status is a clear boost to you, as the top colleges want to prove that you don't have to be rich to get in or attend. They also know that you don't have to money to buy a gazillion books, courses, or tutors for the SAT.</p>

<p>ceecee, you're absolutely right. i also agree with the other people that sat prep and all that may not be so necessary, but the point is, is that it's helpful, and if your family is of adequate means, you'd probably take advantage of the resources (hence, the disparity when a poorer student can simply buy a prep. book, but cannot attend expensive classes and hire tutors). drummerdude, you hit my point exactly.</p>

<p>no i'm poor and i did quite well</p>

<p>its not supposed to matter; they say its the test to give everyone an equal shot, unlike grades where the work hrs. may cause a lower gpa/ and less time for ec's</p>

<p>Well bobbo, it's supposed to be like that, but colleges know that it's not, and that is the point here.</p>

<p>The SAT is the furthest thing from an aptitude test. It doesn't test intelligence in any way.</p>

<p>And, yes, the poor are at a disadvantage for numerous reasons.</p>

<p>The poor may be at a disadvantage if they are unable to go to a school with higher standards of education. However this does not only apply to the poor, it can also apply to middle-class students who are stuck in an area whose schools only offer lower levels to students..that's just how things are. </p>

<p>So I would say that depending on who you are, poor or middle-class, there will always be some disadvantage in some way. Only the rich get away with things because they can pay their way out..</p>

<p>BUT, if you are really motivated to learn and you are intelligent, regardless of your family's income, you should do your homework (ask teachers, principal, go online and search) and study on your own or get a scholarship. </p>

<p>To sum up what I've said:</p>

<p>Everyone has some disadvantage - save the rich.
Everyone has the opportunity to reach high - depending on your motivation and your intelligence/perseverance.</p>

<p>By the way, people with not as good of an education will suffer in those schools + Ivies.</p>

<p>While I agree that the poor are at a disadvantage in many ways in the college application process, I don't think that being poor is an adequate excuse for not performing well in the SAT. For example, in seventh grade, coming out a public school and never having taken any prep courses/had any tutors, I scored a decent 1410 on the (old) SAT. This was not due to the fact that I was able to prepare more or had more time to focus on the SAT.</p>

<p>I think that nowadays, while prep classes have become a big deal, even if you don't attend one, you can still do superb in the SAT. Unfortunately, these aren't the only issues facing someone of lower income who wants to apply for college.</p>

<p>Being poor is not an excuse for not performing well. it is a REASON for not performing up to potential</p>

<p>For example, if we placed Bob in a poor family, his parents wouldn't have as much time to put him in different extracurricular activities, or read to him, or buy him books. He wouldn't go to as good a school because he wouldn't live in as good a neighborhood. Would Bob learn more and better reach his potential if he was born into a wealthy family that sent him to private school all his life? FOR SURE</p>

<p>I broke 2300 without any tutoring or any books beyond the $10 Collegeboard one. In all honesty, I don't think anyone should have an SAT tutor. I regret that my score is cheapened by people who pay their way to higher scores (on a test that, regardless of its effectiveness, I don't feel like having that debate right now, is used as a measure of my aptitude). As the test is decidedly somewhat beatable, money unfortunately is a factor. That said, it shouldn't hold you back.</p>

<p><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/1995-SAT-Income.png/800px-1995-SAT-Income.png%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/1995-SAT-Income.png/800px-1995-SAT-Income.png&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/katzman.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/katzman.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Both links worth viewing. Where I disagree with Katzman is his repeated assertions that money can buy scores. I would posit that none of his "tricks" can't be figured out either on one's own, from a book, or from a practice test, all without shelling out big bucks for a tutor.</p>

<p>ok, you all have good points. So besides the SATs and other standardized tests, is it true that the mindset of a college admissions person may be the following? : "hmm, given John Smith's low family income, I guess I can understand/see why his ECs, school performance, GPA, etc. wasn't as great as maybe student John Doe's is, who goes to the same school and whose income is over 150,000." What do you guys think about this ?</p>

<p>How about the easy anecdotal evidence that kids who do well on this test were perceived as "smart" kids before the test as well? I'm of the belief that while there are false NEGATIVES on this test, there are nearly no false POSITIVES. That's why you have it's great weight in the admissions process.</p>

<p>well for us to analyze how "poor" you really are, would you mind telling us what's the total avg. income for your family per year</p>

<p>I don't think colleges should have to flesh that out from the apps. If you think your low income really made an impact on your performance, you should write one of your essays on the topic or something, about how you conquered this challenge, your disadvantages, etc.</p>

<p>On the other hand, what if you have other, better topics that you're more passionate about to write your essays on? Then should you really have to waste an essay on that.. hm.</p>

<p>Even if you are poor and do not have time to go to Africa and "save the children," do 29832904238 hrs of volunteering, and work 30h/week, your options are: 1) include your work as part of your EC. Colleges love early independent kids 2) write a stellar essay about how your financial hardships and demands of taking care of teh family helped you become a better person 3) buy practice SAT books from amazon.com from your local library (if you don't have a computer/internet) for as low as 1.99+ $4 (shipping and handling) 4) Go to a 2nd tier LAC or a middle level public school. For example, in CA mostly ANYBODY who gets like straight B's can get into UC davis, Irvine, Santa Cruz schools. They are not Ivy-caliber schools, but they will give you a good enough education to keep you out of labor-intensive, low-skilled jobs. </p>

<p>There are always ways to achieve any means. The difference between success and failure is how much you want it. </p>

<p>I am sorry this came off as a criticizing post. I am trying to offer some options and show that there are ways around any obstacle. </p>

<p>By the way, my parents spent $998 dollars on a crappy-ass Princeton Review course, and the only thing I learned was how to Plug in the answers. I am only happy I took that class because now I have extra practice books. Seriously, you do NOT need expensive classes to go to a good college.</p>

<p>Also, another personal example: My father was born in China. During h is childhood, china was still extremely communist and people lived in poverty and in a totalitarian government. He went to bed hungry every night, took 2 showers a month, and went to the top 10 universities in the nation. Now he can afford to raise his family in a upper/middle class neighborhood and 2 houses. Poverty is not an obstacle.</p>