<p>You guys should check out the NY times story on Tony Jack, there's a link to it on the Amherst website. Talks about how low-income students are deprived of the resources to prepare for the tests like the SAT; this kid was accepted with a 1200, and did exceptionally well at Amherst.</p>
<p>However, the almost trite point that SAT scores do not necessarily lead to good college grade point is also a factor here, so the issue of diversity and low income is almost a side point to that issue. The real question pertinent to this thread is to what extent the lack of resources available to low-income students directly leads to lower SAT scores, which in turn directly affects admissions possibilities. If the extent is great, then Amherst is doing a good thing, and is justified in their search for diversity. If not (which would not by any means indicate they are not pursuing this endeavor with the best of intentions), it's really unfortunate that the politics of race have left whites and asians, albeit sometimes privileged whites and asians, embittered towards the system that seemingly refuses to recognize their merits, and arguably rightly so. In even more unfortunate cases, it leaves them embittered towards the race that ends up the beneficiary. A lot of this was discussed by Barack Obama in his recent speech on race, and I think he brings up some legitimate points.</p>
<p>To speak towards the issue of the lack of resources, I studied literally 0 seconds for the SAT, and I scored a 1520 out of 1600. My Critical Reading skills I can't really attribute to the benefit of better teaching; it was really the result of having read so extensively as a child and having a natural curiousity about the way language functions. My Math skills, admittedly, have been shaped by the teachers I have had, but not all too extensively... I mean let's be honest, the math on the SAT isn't ridiculously hard, it's pretty elementary. Both of these experiences lead me to believe that for upper level students, the kinds with the natural intelligence that Amherst is trying to draw, preparation for that type of test isn't as important as some might purport. (Clearly for average students it is much different; preparation obviously raises SAT scores.)</p>
<p>On the other hand, to take Tony Jack as an example, the article goes on to say he received an A+ in Calculus at Amherst- one of the few ever given by that teacher in 30 years of teaching. Clearly the propensity for mathematics was there; it's difficult to argue that a strong work ethic and decent intelligence could yield such stellar results at a school like amherst. So why didn't he score well (relatively) on the SAT?</p>
<p>The only thing I can think of is that most of the kids who attend Amherst would have been 1200 kids had they not studied either. Something tells me that intelligence is more prevalent amongst this constituency than that, though, so I'm having difficulty accepting that. I guess the only other possibility is that, despite clearly having a positive correlation with intelligence, SAT scores mean absolutely nothing when deciding who should be able to attend prestigious universities; rather qualities such as work ethic and capacity to learn difficult material should be more heavily considered. In which case this entire argument falls flat and the blame goes back to the college admissions process, something we knew from the start was flawed.</p>
<p>Guess this whole little rant didn't accomplish as much as I'd hoped. Oh well, at least I wasn't doing the copious amounts of homework I have waiting for me. Any thoughts? Anyone actually read that? I'd be impressed.</p>