<p>Harvard’s Greg Mankiw does a nice takedown of the column. Note that nothing he says in criticism is controversial among economists or those with elementary training in statistics.</p>
<p>[Greg</a> Mankiw’s Blog: The Least Surprising Correlation of All Time](<a href=“http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/08/least-surprising-correlation-of-all.html]Greg”>Greg Mankiw's Blog: The Least Surprising Correlation of All Time)</p>
<p>Promoting work ethic will result in very high GPA and high Standardized test scores, no matter what income is and how intelligent parents are. Just tell them to do their homework for every single class every single day and prepare for their tests, no need to take prep. class as most time they are waste of time. This stragedy has worked in our family for both of us and our D. We are not rich, D. has always had GPA=4.0uw and continues having the same in college (junior) and high test scores.</p>
<p>As the parent of 3 adopted children, I can vouch for the fact that GENETICS play a very big role.</p>
<p>There are exceptions to everything of course. I work with many students from families of means. Many of them have below the national average for SAT scores (that is pretty low) and have done absolutely no test prep. Test prep is relatively free…it just involves taking practice tests. Many also did not take a challenging HS curriculum, nor have very good grades.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true. However, students from low-income families are considerably more likely to have parents that don’t care about education. The student may be self-motivated - as, I would guess, most inner-city (but not necessarily low-income) achievers are - but if the parent is more concerned with that child going to work after school, there is not much the student can do to fight back. So while middle and upper income students may have apathetic parents as well, education is more of a big deal, between better schools, more highly educated parents, and a smaller chance of having wholly apathetic parents. What you listed is environment - undoubtedly influenced by parent’s income and/or educational level.</p>
<p>I don’t think test prep is the key here. It would be difficult to prep from a 450 to a 750. Yes, it has something to do with natural intelligence. Of course! But it also have to do with that student’s education career. How well was that student taught and exposed at home and at school? Does the student spend a lot of time focusing on school or focusing on other things, like taking care of the family or working, or even extracurricular activities (in the case of “dumb jocks” along all income levels)?</p>
<p>Kleibo, and applicannot, I agree with you. I am from NJ and Kleibo what you said is right on. Additionally, I know a very wealthy family. All 4 children began going to very expensive private prep schools from early elementary school. All 4 students easily will get into private schools that most upper middle and middle class students in our public high school can only dream about. They are not working harder to get there. They have the advantage of sitting in classes of 10 students vs. 30 students. If they have a question it is immediately addressed. They are exposed to activitites that our public school has never offered. They can also write in their textbooks, as their books are theirs to keep. They will get private SAT tutoring I am sure, but as applicannot suggets, the average 450-500 SAT score in a public suburban high school will not be tough to turn into a 750 (sure it happens, but not for the average kiddo even with tutoring). I have no doubt that all 4 students in this family will score above 600 before private tutoring. Additionally, for college, since the family can afford to be full paying, they have this advantage too. Perhaps knowing the correlation btn. income and SAT scores is something that many schools like for obvious reasons. Heck, IMO, they do not need to give grant money, and they have a student who requires less individual attention and will be more likely to graduate since they have stronger skills coming in! Additionally, since money makes money, this family might be more likely to be a future donor if they are not already. Many positives to accepting that rich, private prep student.</p>
<p>Mankiws article was interesting. Of my daughters friends who really struggled in school (a public school, in an affluant area) , an astonding % were adopted. I dont doubt the parents loved them any less. Oh well, this is my non-PC remark for the day – heaven forbid we admit that intelligence might be even somewhat heritary.</p>
<p>“1. The single best predictor of academic success for a child is the education level of the child’s parents, not family income.”</p>
<p>That, and</p>
<ol>
<li>The median family income of families surrounding the school (not that of the parents).</li>
</ol>
<p>If I were king, (hmm), and needed to give such a test, I would arrange for it to be given unannounced, with no opportunity for special prep, and have it given only once.</p>
<p>Yes, mini, but there is a correlation between family income and education of parents.</p>
<p>In terms of focus, I also found out from our D’s experience that being involved outside of school helps kids to learn how to organize very early in their life and enable them manage time very well while on their own. D. have been very involved with sport, music, art, 3-4 hours every day, including weekends. It helped her to find ways to do homework efficiently and plan way ahead. Her activities started at 5 years of age and lasted thru her graduation from HS. And at HS, she has worked and volunteered in addition to EC’s as everybody else.</p>
<p>“Yes, mini, but there is a correlation between family income and education of parents.”</p>
<p>Sometimes. Remember that virtually all social workers (and others in social services), as well as very large number of schoolteachers, have masters degrees or more. The income of the school neighborhood is a better predictor.</p>
<p>This is true of statewide assessments as well. In fact, I have seen charts that show one could assign test scores by real estate values and, with some exceptions of course, it would look pretty much like what the kids would score in any case. (so why bother?)</p>
<p>Why worry about this when the SAT scores of those students whose parents have $200,000+ incomes/graduate degrees only average around 1700?
That’s nowhere near high enough to get into top colleges or win scholarships. </p>
<p>Genetics is most important, IMO. No way to level that playing field.</p>
<p>What if “Children Whose Parents Post on CC Have Average SAT Scores of 2100+”?
Guess we’d better give it up to make things fair for everyone ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A good question. After all, the average student from any of these cohorts wouldn’t be admitted to most of universities discussed on these boards.</p>
<p>The real problem comes from the operation of the “Bell Curve” and statistics. Basically, when one group has a slightly higher average performance, and you are selecting almost exclusively “extreme right tail” individuals, almost all of them will come from the group with the statistically higher average. </p>
<p>This is what puts the university admissions boards knickers in a knot. They are very concerned with their role as priviledge rectifiers, but can’t engage in it to the degree they would like because the test results get in their way. (The budget gets in their way simultaneously.)</p>
<p>Everyone is part right.</p>
<p>[Actually</a>, You Did Well On The SATs Because Your Parents Are Rich AND Smart](<a href=“http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-actually-you-did-well-on-the-sats-because-your-parents-are-rich-and-smart-2009-8]Actually”>Actually, You Did Well on the SATs Because Your Parents Are Rich AND Smart - Business Insider)</p>
<p>atomom & dadx - Why worry about what? I don’t get the point of the question or comment. And if you think everyone posting on CC has kids with SAT scores above 2100, you are wrong.</p>
<p>Wow, let me guess! </p>
<p>The next sciencey report thingy in the NYT will hypothesize that there is a very strong correlation between being dead and being prone. </p>
<p>It would be an improvement. </p>
<p>“Change the world on your own time”</p>
<p>PS
It’s genetics, not finance.</p>
<p>My post says: “2100+ on Average.” So IF (I did say “What if. . .”) that were true, that “average” wouldn’t include “everyone” on CC–about 1/2 of them would be below average. And I’ll repeat my little winky face now: 
which means this a joke, sort of. As it was the first time. ;)</p>
<p>I’ll concede your “everyone” point! I’m not too familiar with your posting style so I may taken you too literally/seriously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That strategy does NOT work for every kid. It might have worked for “both of you” and your D, but there are many kids who work hard, do all their homework, prepare for their tests, and still do not do well on standardized tests. Your personal anecdote proves nothing.</p>
<p>There are kids who don’t work at all, don’t do all their homework, and do very well on standardized tests. That would be my kid. If I were to extrapolate from this personal anecdote and assume it applies to all, as you did, I’d have to advise kids not to do their homework or study for tests, because that worked for my family. (And the extent of his test prep was to read part of a Princeton Review book and, over several days, take one sample test. In 7th grade. Did nothing after that.)</p>
<p>GPA is irrelevant for this discussion; a high GPA does not necessarily correlate to high standardized test scores, nor do high standardized test scores necessarily correlate to a high GPA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No external activities, no ECs for my kid until 9th grade, except for a very limited experience with Cub Scouts, which was not successful. Most of the kid’s non-school “free” time was spent in riding the bus; when you catch a bus at 6:35 AM for an 8:30 class start time, transportation takes up a LOT of the day. None of the special ed schools he attended K-7th were anywhere near our home (and the academic work in these schools was often below grade level, never mind at my son’s level). </p>
<p>School and ECs don’t necessarily count for everything, nor even anything, when it comes to standardized tests. </p>
<p>You just cannot extrapolate from your data point of one (or three, if you are including you and your spouse) to the larger population. Just because something worked for your one data point, or my one data point, doesn’t mean it’ll work for anyone else.</p>
<p>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</p>
<p>I’m firmly in the “genetics” camp. My kid could have been raised by monkeys and he’d still have done well on standardized tests.</p>
<p>My older kid also loved & continues to love standardized tests & brain teasers. He was trying to help the preschool director improve the national standardized placement test she was trying to give him at age 3! My D has never been as keen on those tests, tho she does fairly well. </p>
<p>I know other kids who are very bright and work hard but don’t test well. There are kids who test extremely well but have no work ethic and have “skated” all their lives. What does this prove? Lots of variability for sure but not sure what else.</p>