<p>
[quote]
some do resent the fact that others have money to spend whereas they have to earn every penny and watch every penny
[/quote]
They don't necessarily resent others having the money. They resent that those others assume that everyone does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where is the evidence for the "therefore" in the quoted statement?
[/quote]
I guess the point Calmom is making is that it does not matter if higher stats are the result of higher income or not. If there is a correlation (for whatever reason), by picking kids with higher stats you will be picking kids from higher income households.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I found out in January that my daughter didn't have a text book for a year-long class
[/quote]
Situations like this are exactly the reason we buy the textbooks for the kids. I know they would be tempted to try to share them... or use the reserve in the library... or just take a class not buying any books at all. And exactly because the long work hours would interfere with their studies and social life, I wouldn't want them to have to work more hours in order to buy the books. DS3 actually tells us that he could manage with just using the reserve books in the library all semester long (he does it anyway for the first two or three weeks, while awaiting for internet-purchased books to arrive). We don't think it's a good idea...</p>
<p>But that actually does not matter a little bit. Those same kids will have to buy textbooks whether they go to a privare or to a public college, so I don't really understand what you are trying to tell here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You mentioned a fraternity initiation dinner. There is no way that either of my kids would spend money on joining a fraternity --- that is simply the sort of unnecessary expense that they would totally avoid.
[/quote]
There are no expences in DS's fraternity, the students just change their meal and housing plans. Otherwise, I don't think DS would join. Actually, I believe that his only monetary interaction with the fraternity was... getting a $100 check covering part of the textbook expences. :)</p>
<p>I don't think that a comment about "costing nothing" would shatter any of my kids. Sure, there are people for whom many things "cost nothing", so what? Maybe, our kids are just used to this fact of the life, so it does not matter for them. We live like that all our live (I don't know what you mean by "truly poor", but our family finances do put the kids into Pell grant range). And they definitely do not "get regular checks from home"</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not a matter of feeling "resentment" -- it's a matter of feeling left out. What amazes me about these posts is the lack of empathy -- the assumption that if the kids aren't complaining, it doesn't matter.
[/quote]
Huh? I just told you that I had several talks with the kids on that topic - wanted to help them to deal with the supposedly humiliating situation. In fact, yesterday I asked one of them again - and got the same answer. The disparity exists, but it does not matter for him (and mostly, he does not notice it). Maybe it's (as epiphany noticed) that most of the activities on campus are free or close to that; maybe it's that he (like marite's son) would not even think of spending extra money on food when he already has the meal plan paid for; maybe he (like garland's kids) do not hang with people who do social things they can't afford... I guess, that's exactly what I called "self-segregation"; and it is not necessarily segregation by wealth, just by the interests. </p>
<p>But one way or another, that is the fact: our kids do not feel miserable, left out or inadequate in their respective colleges. Their friends do not seem drastically different from their sister's friends in her public uni. And anyway, there is a lot of much more interesting things going on for them there, so I doubt they will ever have time to brood over some phrase their unsuspecting wealthy friend might have let slip from his tongue... </p>
<p>Like marite said: some do resent the existing difference. Others don't. :)</p>
<p>Or, if you don't like the word "resentment", for some kids it does matter. For others it does not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess the point Calmom is making is that it does not matter if higher stats are the result of higher income or not. If there is a correlation (for whatever reason), by picking kids with higher stats you will be picking kids from higher income households.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is there some other academic metric that doesn't favor higher income (or higher parental education, etc) households? I must have missed that part of the criticism of the SAT: the list of superior alternatives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That's essentially my question too. Someone suggesting a change of policy could be suggesting </p>
<p>a) making the income distribution in selective colleges just like the income distribution in the country as a whole, </p>
<p>or </p>
<p>b) making the income distribution in selective colleges just like the income distribution of "qualified" students in the country as a whole. </p>
<p>Or maybe people have some other policy suggestions in mind. But the informational question I ask, and I really would like to encourage parents to think about this, is what kind of criterion for admission to a college would favor well off families LESS than standardized test scores? What evidence is there that there is such a criterion? In your local high school, don't the kids from high-income families generally have higher grade point averages than the kids from low-income families? Don't the high-income kids usually have more extracurricular involvements, more sports achievement, and more volunteer hours? Wouldn't they generally be able to get better advice and coaching on how to write college admission essays?</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
Originally Posted by calmom
reliance on SATs therefore biases the college admission process toward higher income students
[/quote]
I ask for specific proof of this point, which I have already disputed above. Where is the evidence for the "therefore" in the quoted statement?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with nngmm's take that we can speak of an "automatic" bias (and in this case the causation does not matter indeed).</p>
<p>But that's the case if we are talking about the general population. If we have already separated the high-SAT kids only, it does not matter anymore how did they come up with their 2200's - because their parents hired them a tutor, because EGPY let them take their courses for free, or because they are poor but brilliant and don't need any preparation... </p>
<p>And I believe that this was exactly the point of the discussion on this thread before we started talking emotions?</p>
<p>Let's see.
It is more affordable for the kids from 1-2 quintile to attend a private 100% need college (if they can get in, of course). It is a better deal for the students from 3-4 quintile to attend their state flagship (if they have a strong one in their state). Voila, that's exactly what the research shows: the high-SAT kids from the first group are overrepresented at COHFE schools, and those from the second group are underrepresented. </p>
<p>Looks like the students are not being maliciously excluded in order to favor the advantaged kids; it's just another automatic, economic-based decisions their families make. Am I missing something?</p>
<p>Tokenadult, thanks for the links you posted earlier in this thread. I'm sure most of us are familiar with the term "leveraging" when it applies to admissions. SAT's are only a part, albeit significant part, by identifying students who can (afford, matriculate and add to the legacy of the school) when a school sets out to meet its institutional needs. Stating that there are certain biases shouldn't alarm anyone. Schools are institutions of higher learning and all that other rhetorical poppycock, but they are in the business of making money.
Although there are many examples of those that have amassed wealth without a formal eduacation, it is largely recognized and coveted among those who have wealth as a resource to maintain and perpetuate wealth.</p>
<p>Many of the same attributes that are needed to get and maintain wealth are among those that do well in these academic settings. While there are many that possess the inate ability to do well academically and on standardized testing, the lack of social, economic, and other capital discourage many in lower socio-economic levels from developing their human potential. Moreso, many poor that would thrive in selective academic institutions, don't even conceive of attending one even when presented with opportunity. </p>
<p>IMHO, there are many real obstacles for people in lower and some middle income situations to overcome in having a more representative number in selective school numbers. To me the greatest obstacle is mental more than economic. "As a man thinketh so is he." The haves have because the want to have, whether that be financial, educational, physical, etc, and do whatever is necessary to fulfill that vision and perpetuate it. It's a simplification of a certain philosophy, but you can observe that principle in action in every walk of life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
I guess the point Calmom is making is that it does not matter if higher stats are the result of higher income or not. If there is a correlation (for whatever reason), by picking kids with higher stats you will be picking kids from higher income households.
[/quote]
Is there some other academic metric that doesn't favor higher income (or higher parental education, etc) households? I must have missed that part of the criticism of the SAT: the list of superior alternatives.
[/quote]
I'm afraid that it's just the fact of life: kids from those households are on the average better prepared academically by the end of high school. Thus, I don't think anyone can come up with an "unbiased metric" (of if one comes up with it, the kids with the same "score" would have drastically different ability to learn at the college level).</p>
<p>The real question is: can we change the educational system so that all the kids from all the backgrounds had received the comparable education by the end of high school? Hmmm... to be honest, I don't think so. </p>
<p>Too bad. If it were the case, even SAT would do. :rolleyes:</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The real question is: can we change the educational system so that all the kids from all the backgrounds had received the comparable education by the end of high school?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Unfortunately, the educational system is only one leg of a 3 legged stool when it comes to educational success for lower income students. We also need to change the attitude of kids and the attitude of parents. Changing any one thing won't be effective.</p>
<p>As one kid told me, "Why should I even bother to finish high school when I can be like my Uncle Louie and make $30/hour in construction?"</p>
<p>As for the correlation between wealth and SAT scores, someone asked for precise data. This report is from the College Board: see page 8 for the demographics on wealth. <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2007/national-report.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2007/national-report.pdf</a></p>
<p>If you graph family income vs. SAT scores, you will see that the line rises quite steadily. If you look at the average SAT scores of those seeking financial aid vs. those who aren't, you will see a difference of almost 100 points out of the 2400 possible points. </p>
<p>Incidentally, this report also provides a great deal of information about the score curves on the various tests. Worth some study. (My favorite part, personally, is that 32% of students taking the SAT report that they are in the top 10% of their class--and another 26% say they are in the next 10%.)</p>
<p>I keep hearing wealth, but the data is about income. Income and wealth are not necessary the same.</p>
<p>True, bomgeedad...determining wealth would take a lot more info, whereas income is a single data point. Can you imagine if you had to fill out a FAFSA/CSS profile form just to take the SAT?!!</p>
<p>The College Board data show an exquisite sensitivity of SAT to parental education. Given the association of income and education, is there any reason to believe that the SAT/income correlation is detecting more than the obvious fact of parents' preference for education (for themselves or for their children) manifesting itself in higher test results?</p>
<p>dmd:</p>
<p>did you also see that there is also a table that shows SAT score versus parental education. There is also a table that shows SAT scores of kids who took PSAT as Juniors, Sophomores and younger and who did not take PSAT.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to correlate of income vs education. Another interesting correlation might be practice vs SAT score.</p>
<p>Simba--yes, I've looked at all the tables in there. I think it's absolutely fascinating. Parents with grad school education... worth about 100 points on each part of the SAT. However, this discussion has been about wealth vs. SAT scores.</p>
<p>Is there any indication that wealth per se plays a role, as distinct from parental investment (be it money, time, ZIP code selection, or other such)? Certainly an uneducated or lazy rich parent can pay a fortune for private schools and SAT tutors and hope for the best. But are there enough such people for whom that strategy succeeds, to make a big statistical difference?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But are there enough such people for whom that strategy succeeds, to make a big statistical difference?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No statistical data to report, but looking at wealthier schools and their graduation, matriculation, sat scores, and post graduate matriculation results, I would say even those kids with wealthy parents who aren't as committed to elevated academic performance, generally benefit significantly from being in environments that are when compared to those that aren't as wealthy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It would be interesting to correlate of income vs education. Another interesting correlation might be practice vs SAT score.
[/quote]
Actually, according to the table on page 5 of that report, those who took the test last as sophomores scored the highest...(juniors came in second place, seniors in third). Does it mean that students actually get progressively dumber as they go through HS? I doubt it. Probably the kids who take the test as sophomores are smarter on average than all the ones that take it as juniors and seniors.</p>
<p>There is no way to check if there is correlation between score and "practice". Smart motivated kids do practice test at home by themselves, without paying the ETS for it.</p>
<p>CB has stopped publishing the data for a few years, when it did it showed that low income students from certain ethnic group scored higher than high income students from some ethnic group. Calif publishes such data for the STAR test this year, it shows similar trend.</p>
<p>
[quote]
CB has stopped publishing the data for a few years, when it did it showed that low income students from certain ethnic group scored higher than high income students from some ethnic group.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And this relates to the OP in what way?
I'm not the pc police , but we know how certain threads can get hijacked and disentegrate. I'm just asking to attempt to stay within the OP points made.</p>