<p>I was pleased when one college we visited made a point of saying they look at both GPA & test scores…and high test scores without a high GPA (good work ethic) will NOT get you admitted there.</p>
<p>Some of the comments here are great; others are hilarious: [Heredity</a>, environment, justice - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/heredity-environment-justice/]Heredity”>Heredity, environment, justice - The New York Times)</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s one camp or the other. It would say it’s 75% environment and 25% genetics - but no matter what combination you “believe in”, there is definitely a combination.</p>
<p>The SAT, however, is not a valid measure of intelligence. My methodical youngest son is brilliant - and yet doesn’t score well on standardized tests. He is not quick but will be a very good engineer one day. His older siblings are better at test taking than he is and have higher scores.</p>
<p>I also have to agree with the heredity point made with adopted kids. My stepchildren are adopted. They were all raised in the same home in the same school and vary wildly in their academic abilities.</p>
<p>My agreement with the “why worry” observations stands. It points out that,observing the data, whatever advantage is conferred by your fathers or mothers career success, it is far from the case that rich kids all score highly on the SAT’s. </p>
<p>The Times writer has committed a faux pas. He actually put the data out there, which is far less compelling than just ranting that rich kids have some certifiable unfair advantage. Some advantage!</p>
<p>One of the things that this canard about rich kids does is to unfairly burden the poor rich kids who don’t score well on the tests. They don’t get whatever consideration that the kids from the “right” zip code might get.</p>
<p>I’d love to see the numbers where annual family income is 400,000+, and/or the kiddos are in private prep schools with tuitions of 20,000 and higher.</p>
<p>With the caveat that Im skeptical as to whether SAT takers can accurately report their family income within $20K, here are the 2008 percentiles (from the College Board) for the $200K plus category average scores in the NYT report:</p>
<p>Math: better than 69% of test takers
Reading: better than 69% of test takers
Writing: better than 71% of test takers</p>
<p>So while a 1700 total score is not going to get many kids into a Tier I school, it is still significantly above average. And a kid who scores 670 or above on each section is at the 90th percentile or higher of all test takers. And one at 700 or above is about at the 95th percentile.</p>
<p>I wonder what is the governing factor for my kids. Very high income, parents without college education – dad is functionally illiterate. D1 had above-average SAT scores and grades, D2 is a 2100+ SAT person with lots of gifted milestones. In their case, I think it was motivated, committed parents and an intact family.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you assume it has to be a factor, singular? Environment obviously plays a factor, negatively and positively. (Low-income Asians who come here without formal educations nevertheless instill motivation – usually, not always; there are some stereotypes about that, but usually their children perform well; OTOH low-income Mexicans whose parents have 3rd-grade educations and zero previous family history of education or motivation in that direction, have much greater difficulty competing educationally.) Blue-collar Jews who survived the War in death camps and had their youth & youthful educational opportunities robbed from them nevertheless have often produced children who have succeeded splendidly. (In those cases it was often great genes combined with great motivation/family culture of education, but without the parental income.)</p>
<p>zoosermom, didn’t you post a long time ago that you tutor adults who do not read well? Perhaps you invested a fair amount of time, sitting 1:1 with your own children to help with schoolwork, reading etc.? Did you invest some $$ in exposing your children to outside intersts (or even if it were low cost/free, ie: music lessons, art classes)? Did you sign them up for outside of school tutoring for anything over the years including test prep?</p>
<p>More info relevant to the discussion:</p>
<p>[Marginal</a> Revolution: The Inheritance of Education](<a href=“http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/the-inheritance-of-education.html]Marginal”>http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/the-inheritance-of-education.html)</p>
<p>The article says that adoptees that have college-educated parents make little difference on their rate of college completion (7% greater than the children of non college-educated) and eventual income. Unfortunately, that study just confirmed what I’ve feared. I can only hope my kids are in that 7%. If they aren’t, it’s not for lack of trying, money, or love.</p>
<p>As they say, if your goal is longevity, your best bet is to choose your parents wisely.</p>
<p>Same for being well-educated. :)</p>
<p>(Doesn’t exclude effort, toledo)
:)</p>
<p>Many friends & family who have adopted have given their kids everything they could but several of them could never interest their kids to attend CC, much less college, even tho all the parents are college-educated & several have graduate degrees as well.</p>
<p>They all hoped their kids would be in the 7% as well.</p>
<p>This is very interesting. Any other adoptive parents or relatives want to share their experiences?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, because admissions to elite schools is a “tail of the curve” kind of thing. Sure, not every kid from a high-income family or a family with highly educated parents will get into an elite college. But the odds of getting in if your parents have a high income and/or are highly educated are far, far higher than if you start out somewhere farther down in the pecking order. And I wouldn’t assume it’s genetics that’s doing the work here. That may be part of it. But let’s face it, kids born into working-class families with parents who do not have fancy educational credentials start out in life not even knowing that the game they’re being asked to play is to chase admission to the nation’s most elite colleges; and even if they did know that, they often don’t have a clue as to what steps to take to get there, much less do they have knowledgeable coaches pointing them in the right direction every step of the way. In short, the game is rigged in the direction of advantaging the advantaged, and the winners of that game routinely mistake the advantageous outcome (from their self-interested point of view) with “merit.” It has not so much to do with merit; much more to do with social advantage.</p>
<p>Is there data tht supports statement that GPA=4.0 will result in ACT=18 in some cases? I do not think so. Most likely scenario is that GPA=4.0 will result in ACT close to or above 30. So, stating that GPA is irrelevant in discussion of standardized scores is incorrect. Kids who have GPA=4.0, simply are not the ones who “do not work and do not do homework” because nobody will give them an “A” for not turning in assignments. These kids do work hard and complete their homework and they will not take standardized test unprepared because they are not used to wasting their valuable time.</p>
<p>
Yep. You may have nailed it. The kids and I are huge readers. We’ve been known to battle over the same books and sometimes have to obtain multiple copies. I don’t think there has ever been a time in their lives that any of my kids (and I) weren’t reading something. I am a literacy tutor and was the volunteer librarian in their school for years. That was the greatest thing. I should have been a librarian!</p>
<p>Zoosermom, so your children grew up in a home where education is greatly valued, where books are important, and reading is treasured. You were a part of their school day by volunteering and they got the message that their schooling is important to mom and dad. There are no surprises in the outcome for me. You should be a proud mom!</p>
<p>I think sports scholarships are far too biased towards people who do a lot of exercise. I was as lazy as a military spending oversight committee at high school, and people who unfairly put in the hours of training got all the respect and accolades for sports.</p>