<p>yea, my mom read non stop as a child. like, she told me she’d be up to 3-4 in the morning reading some some nights. </p>
<p>for me baseball has consumed my life and right now I’m so regretful. Like, w t f is baseball gonna do for me on the SAT? NADA. i drive 4 hours to play a baseball game…for what? screwing my SAT score over? ugh, me and my priorities.</p>
<p>at least high school baseball captain looks good on an application i guess…</p>
<p>It’s the choices you made. Some of us chose to read, some of us chose to waste our time with sports.</p>
<p>for me, the bad part about loving to read so much is that, like your mom, i stay up really late just to finish a book…though its always worth it lol</p>
<p>I used to like reading. Then I took AP English Literature.</p>
<p>Honestly, tutors are entirely unnecessary. It just emphasizes that the SAT is not a test to be taken too seriously.</p>
<p>But honestly, anything a tutor could provide you could provide to yourself as well. So many wonderful resources. The best thing I ever did was probably complete the Blue Book. You don’t need a SAT tutor for that, when you can find any answer explanation online.</p>
<p>lol, kameronsmith, i wouldn’t call it a waste of time. i think i should have given more time to read and do such things. baseball has been great, but i feel that while i was playing i gave everything else 0 priority and reading was the last thing on my ‘to do’ list.</p>
<p>if i can be nominated for all-district this year, then i would perhaps take that trade off for a dip of 50 SAT points, but anything over 50 would be unnacceptable and i would once again feel like i wasted my time/didn’t give consideration to other things like reading</p>
<p>i agree 100% with meadow36, the blue book was my BIBLE, it had everything i could have wanted, especially with EIGHT tests!</p>
<p>
That’s not what I said. Plenty of people who can do the math required can’t do it for whatever reason on the SAT (simple mistakes aside).</p>
<p>Some thoughts…
<p>Trust me, it’s a fact that the rich kids who get tutored go farther with their SAT. I got friends who all got tutored ALL GOING TO IVY LEAGUE</p>
<p>I’m tired of this “2100 is as good as a 2300” BS. If a kid was truly smart, he’d be smart enough to study till he gets a 2300. </p>
<p>Those who get a 2100 aren’t smart enough to do so and thus try to Judith their less stellar numbers. You guys just try telling HYPSM that 2100 is a 2300.</p>
<p>Justify not Judith. Can’t edit, on phone browser</p>
<p>yes there is a huge difference between a 2100 and a 2300, but not between a 2350 and 2400</p>
<p>Getting tutored is one of the most pointless things a person could do for the SAT, so in that respect, rich or poor, it doesn’t matter.</p>
<p>I agree with MattNC… Tutoring is pointless, we spent a lot of money to get our D tutored and with the grueling sessions, she did not study in between. After a dismal test session, we encouraged her to actually do the Blue book. It works. Rich or poor it does not matter. Students with good reasoning skills will do well no matter what. Repetitive practice taking of the test will get you used to the format. Books available at libraries, used book stores, not expensive. Requires self motivation only.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. I live in an upper-middle class neighborhood and a pretty high amount of people are taking prep classes. Even people I know who scored 210+ on the PSAT are taking them (which IMO is a waste of time if you can score that well on the PSAT). My school even offers its own prep courses for the May SAT. A sizable amount of my peers also took PSAT prep classes (IMO a big waste of money).</p>
<p>I don’t think tutoring is pointless for everyone. It depends on the person. The people who can score 180+ on their PSAT without studying probably just need to polish their skills and don’t need them. The most self-directed students don’t need tutoring because they can guide themselves; fit SAT studying and academics into their schedule; and use resources from school, books, and the internet.</p>
<p>Alright, I think you all have established that whatever obstacles money throws in the way (buying the book, etc) can be overcome. Although I do think it’s easier for rich kids to do well, but anyway.</p>
<p>I really do not think that everyone has an equal shot at the SAT.</p>
<p>If I had a different background, I KNOW my SAT score would be lower. I wouldn’t have bothered to prep because none of my friends prep, the guidance counselors and teachers and students in my school barely even mention the SAT, I wouldn’t know about schools that practically have near perfect SAT scores as prerequisites, and I just wouldn’t care too much.</p>
<p>But, basically because of my parents, I’ve looked at colleges and been able to see that without good SATs I have fewer options. My parents understood me caring and bought me BB and a few others (yeah, I could have checked them out of the library, if I’d known that was an option).</p>
<p>Not everyone grows up in a home or a school in which education is a priority. Most of those areas in which education is NOT a priority are the poorer homes and schools. We’ve all heard how three year olds in poor households only know half the words of three year olds in a professional household.</p>
<p>I don’t think resources are as much of a factor (tutors, books, whatever), as the motivation. After all, you need motivation to overcome the monetary obstacles in the first place. Motivation for the SAT is mostly external - people are probably not going to want to ace it because it’s just that fun. They need proof that it’s relevant and matters to their lives, and some people don’t get that.</p>
<p>I’m not saying no one in that type of situation could motivate themselves through whatever means, but it’s less likely.</p>
<p>So if we’re stereotyping monetarily, the trend is that the rich kids will score higher, because they are the ones who get all the hype, expect to Go to a Good School and Become Professionals, have had the better education from day 1, and do all the prep.</p>
<p>Tutoring and SAT prep courses are all outliers ala Malcolm Gladwell.</p>
<p>yea, sorry guys, I change my statement (i changed it in an above post). anything above 2200 is all about the same intelligence.</p>
<p>I tried using 2100 as a score to state a point, but 2200 makes more sense. (anything above that is 99 percentile i believe as well)</p>
<p>While the availability of prep materials and tutors is important, I think there are other factors related to income that influence scores, too.</p>
<p>Parts of the SAT can be learned through memorization (this certainly isn’t the easiest way, but it’s possible), and those with the time to learn/memorize are obviously at an advantage. Having enough money (not necessarily into the millions, but enough) means leisure time. Living below the poverty line, though, generally means a grueling job, perhaps two, and barely any time to sleep. I have friends who, kicked out by their parents, struggle to pay their rents, utilities bills, etc. SAT is not exactly at the forefront of their minds, and I do not think “tons” of ECs are in any way comparable to struggling to survive financially.</p>
<p>Of course, there are outliers. Being too rich and having too many distractions (e.g. traveling all over the world, etc.) can be just as detrimental to scores as working furiously to survive. Also, it could be argued that poorer students are hardier, tougher, and more disciplined than richer ones.</p>