<p>Does this make you say "So what" or, "we should do away w/ the SAT" or maybe, as an economist I know suggested "should colleges move to income corrected SAT scores in admitting students?'</p>
<p>SAT</a> Scores and Family Income - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com</p>
<p>I have to agree with this guy to some extent:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that schools that take the holistic approach do take into account income (and other many other factors that are directly affected by income) when looking at SAT scores and other parts of an applicant’s income and coming up with an admit or deny decision.</p>
<p>I have no idea if family income is directly related to “intelligent parents”, but I do know that SAT prep classes are directly related to family income…as is private school education with built in SAT prep classes/seminars/coaching…</p>
<p>SAT prep classes are offered for free through our county’s public schools. It’s a .5 credit course.</p>
<p>Higher income families may also be able to provide for better nuitrition, health care, and more developmental opportunities in ealier years. On average.</p>
<p>And they might take the tests more seriously.</p>
<p>Higher income families generally have more books and access to more experiences. The score on the verbal section on the SAT can improve with exposure to books and experience.</p>
<p>Also in lower income families child care of younger siblings, jobs, etc. may get in the way of reading time. There may even be restrictions in how late lights may be left on if rooms are shared.</p>
<p>I definitely don’t think it’s fair to make the assumption that higher income equates to brighter parents. Ugh.</p>
<p>I wish I could cite sources for these points, but I don’t remember them. But I’ve read that:</p>
<ol>
<li> The single best predictor of academic success for a child is the education level of the child’s parents, not family income.</li>
<li> College admissions people are more impressed with a 1300 (old SAT) score for a low income student, than a 1450 for a high income student. If that’s true, then colleges are already “adjusting” SAT’s for income.</li>
</ol>
<p>Generally, regarding the survey itself, I agree with the poster who wondered about the accuracy of a teenager reporting family income – especially within $20K. I don’t think either of mine could do it.</p>
<p>While there are obviously differences between the highest and lowest categories, note that the change from category to category is probably insignificant.</p>
<p>I also have to agree with the quote in the second post… more intelligent people are more likely to be richer than those of lower intelligence. With intelligence being at least partially heritable, intelligence is not something that occurs independently of wealth.</p>
<p>Obviously there are many, many exceptions, but on average this seems to hold true.</p>
<p>The data’s available in the College Board’s newly released Total Group Report on 2009 college-bound seniors:</p>
<p>Family income / mean SAT score</p>
<p>< $20K / 1321
$20-40K / 1390
$40-60K / 1461
$60-80K / 1506
$80-100K / 1550
$100-120K / 1579
$120-140K / 1591
$140-160K / 1613
$160-200K / 1631</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Thus the mean SAT score of kids whose families make more than $200,000 a year is nearly 400 points higher than the mean for kids from families earning less than $20,000 a year. There could be lots of reasons for this: native intelligence, possibly, but also better schools, parents with higher educational attainments and expectations, more books and support in the home for educational achievement, richer and more education-oriented social networks that support and steer the kid in the direction of educational achievement and emphasize the importance of education from an early age, etc., etc.</p>
<p>Parents’ educational attainment is also strongly correlated with higher SAT scores:</p>
<p>Highest level of parental education / mean SAT score</p>
<p>No HS diploma / 1281
HS diploma / 1392
Associate degree / 1442
Bachelor’s degree / 1568
Graduate degree / 1683</p>
<p>I think it’s a bit misleading to say the correlation with parent’s level of education attainment is “stronger” than the correlation with income. They’re both pretty gosh darn strong, and both pretty similar. And they’re not totally independent, obviously.</p>
<p>I think many colleges do take these factors into account. That’s why, for example, many give admissions bonus points to “first-generation” college applicants, in recognition of the fact that they’ve come farther and overcome more obstacles than those whose well educated and handsomely paid parents prepared them from the cradle to apply to Harvard.</p>
<p>Here’s one study:</p>
<p>[Parent</a> Education Trumps Race, Income Level When Predicting SAT Scores](<a href=“http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/520182/]Parent”>Parent Education Trumps Race, Income Level When Pr | Newswise)</p>
<p>Clearly, there’s nothing to be done but to take all live born babies from their natural parents and entrust them to the state for upbringing under absolutely fair and equal conditions . . .</p>
<p>This is simply complicated. Higher education tends to lead to higher income. All other things equal, higher intelligence is likely to lead to better educational opportunities. As such, on average, I’d expect higher levels of education and higher levels of intelligence (however measured) to be correlated with higher levels of income. TI believe I’ve seen studies that suggest that beyond some level, higher levels of education and higher levels of IQ start to lower income. </p>
<p>Kids’ higher scores (SATs, IQ tests) are affected both by environment and genetics. Better educated parents are likely to provide a much better environment for kids to learn and thus develop higher intelligence (and, see the studies from Carol Dweck on people’s ability to improve characteristics like intelligence if they think such a characteristic is improvable and not fixed). </p>
<p>The real question is what you do about it. Taking an income-adjusted SAT score may pick out some factor like willingness to work or strength of character. But, you probably won’t get the best performing class from an academic or career standpoint by ignoring the environmental/inherited part of scores.</p>
<p>If you want to see delamer’s study (post #12) in action look up Los Alamos High School in Wikipedia.</p>
<p>If anyone has read Freakanomics you would know that SAT score is far more related to heredity than to money. However, those with “smarter” genes tend to be wealthier. </p>
<p>There is no way to fix this, but you can make the differences dissipate a bit, but you won’t like the answers</p>
<p>Ban SAT prep-this would level the playing field between middle income and wealthy. These kids probably have similarly intelligent parents, yet have a discrepency in scores. It would help make lower income less of an anomoly</p>
<p>1 Chance SAT-only allow kids to take it once. That way Richie Rich can’t take it 4 times and do better than Susie who can only afford to take it once</p>
<p>Those are two ways to close the economic gap</p>
<p>Anyone with $20 can buy a book of “Real” practice tests and time them at home.
Or borrow a practice book from the library and practice for free. It doesn’t take $$ to prep–only motivation and self discipline. </p>
<p>Choosing parents who were NMF’s helps a lot, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but the knowledge that it’s potentially helpful and ultimately lucrative to prep for SATs is not evenly distributed throughout the income scales and parental educational attainment levels. It’s still substantially an insider’s game. Kids from wealthier and better educated families tend to get better-informed guidance at home, at school, and in broader social networks; better K-12 education; and more home support and encouragement in prepping for college from the cradle through the SATs and the application process. So you’ll tend to find more “motivation and self-discipline” for SAT prep at higher income scales and in families with higher levels of educational attainment. Nothing wrong with that, but as a society I think we’re making a big mistake if we confuse being more clued in to an insider’s game with “merit.” It means, among other things, we’re wasting a huge amount of talent, and at the same time perpetuating privilege across generational lines.</p>
<p>As for the Ball State study cited in post #12, I’d be interested in seeing the actual study and not just the press release. But I must say, the press release leaves me unimpressed. It doesn’t say income is not a factor. It just says parental educational attainment is a (slightly?) better predictor of SAT performance. OK, but how much better? Show us the numbers. The College Board data quoted above (post #11) suggest very similar stratification patterns based on family income or parental educational attainment. To say one is “stronger” or “more important” than the other may signify nothing if there’s only a small difference between the two.</p>
<p>As for Freakonomics—well, it’s an interesting books by a couple of economists who in my judgment are not in a position to sort out how much is genetics and how much is environmental factors. It’s a kind of parlor game they play; interesting, fun, even occasionally mildly enlightening, but not to be taken seriously as a work of scholarship, and certainly not as the last word on any subject they touch…</p>
<p>There’s also the imputus of knowing there is some VALUE in getting a high score, including being able to go to a “better” school and knowing that the parents will be able to help pay for the student to actually attend.</p>
<p>When people KNOW that there are good consequences for doing well, there is MUCH more motivation than if they know that no matter how they do, they’ll be lucky if they can get to CC or perhaps the cheapest in-state U or college than if they know that their folks can & will pony up to a school they’ve been “dying” to go to.</p>
<p>Environment makes a huge difference as well, but so many of these things are often intertwined–higher income, parents with higher education and very intellectually stimulating environment. If you have kids who have all of these things, they really don’t need to take the SAT (or other testing) multiple times, they’ll likely outscore those who don’t have all of these resources. I’d suspect the latter group would actually benefit more from taking the test multiple times, to familiarize themselves with the format and timing. </p>
<p>Before you ask, I have no proof off-hand for any of this.</p>
<p>More income = ability to live in better neighborhood = most likely better schools. In New Jersey, the real estate prices in the townships with the better school systems are always significantly higher and harder to get into. If you are moving in New Jersey and you have school aged children, the first thing people look at is the quality of the education in that township. Upper middle and higher income townships normally have tremendous community programs for children - from pre-school to high school. And it’s is true that most likely the parents of these children also have college degrees or more.
So to me, it is easy to see the correlation between income and SAT Scores.</p>