<p>
</p>
<p>re: SAT coaching, Espenshade/Radford/Chung found that, in their sample:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Asians are more prone to pay for private SAT tutoring, </p></li>
<li><p>for those Asians who do get tutoring, the number of hours is higher than for whites</p></li>
</ul>
<p>E-R-C also applied the same type of statistical regression model that they used to investigate admissions, to analyze which factors influence a student to pay for private SAT tutoring. According to their regression, all else being equal, Asian ethnicity and first- or second-generation immigrant status both increase one’s chances of hiring a private SAT coach. The effect was substantial.</p>
<p>The admissions implication of this and other forms of over-preparation found by Espenshade would be that Asian SAT scores (and Asians’ academic credentials in a more general sense) are expected to be, on average, inflated: Asians’ scores and credentials would, to some small or large extent, tend to overpredict Asians’ academic performance. This is precisely what Espenshade found in the chapter on academic performance at college.</p>
<p>Some might find it amusing or appalling that the research apparatus of quantitative social science, with all due ceremony, has apparently validated some of the hoary stereotypes about academic preparation among Asian applicants to selective colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant. </p>
<p>First, blacks and Hispanics (and international students) are on different admissions tracks than US white and US Asian applicants, and we were discussing only the academic and admission situation of US whites compared to that of US Asians, particularly US East Asians.</p>
<p>Second, as far as it concerns discussions of “summer schools and academic camps” in elite college admissions, black/Hispanic students might as well be living on other planets. The programs they attend (or attended in the mid-1990’s) are largely intended to raise performance up toward the white/Asian levels, from below, and are often associated with words like remedial, minority outreach, youth enrichment and corporate donations. The programs Asians and whites like to attend are for those wanting to go far beyond the mean, and are associated with words like gifted program, acceleration, and Sputnik.</p>
<p>It’s the same with SAT coaching for minorities, by the way. Other studies have shown that blacks and Hispanics don’t necessarily use SAT tutoring at lower rates than whites, even when taking income into account. It’s low scores (or feared low scores), whatever that means for an individual, that drive the consumption of SAT tutoring. But given the national score distributions, the motivation must surely be different than for the high-range Asian college applicants. Everyone wants to raise their scores, but URM are trying to keep afloat and Asians are trying to “rock the curve”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is well known that SAT scores overpredict performance for blacks and underpredict it for females. We weren’t discussing the first case. For females, yes, the meritocratic admissions procedure would be to cut them some slack on test scores in admission, which is what actually happens. Whether there is too much or too little SAT bonus (so to speak) for females, I can’t say. Espenshade’s data show overperformance by females, but he uses grades which are a metric that is biased upward for females.</p>
<p>Edit: I should point out that Espenshade’s academic performance models, consistent with all other studies, did manifest the over/under prediction effects for blacks and females. This is another indicator that he also got it right when picking up an underperformance effect for Asians. He also found overprediction for Hispanics, and I gather from your comment that this, too, is consistent with SAT studies, but I am familiar mostly with the black and female data.</p>