Socio-economic correlation with low test scores?

Applying to College
1

<p>I had an argument with my calculus teacher about this. I am a fan of the whole "correlation does not imply causation" deal (as you should be if you are halfway conscious), and I'm not seeing this as a viable scapegoat for low test scores. </p>

<p>First will CC'ers find some good, researched info on this correlation and post it here? I couldn't seem to find a good study (maybe because this is a disgruntled accusation from poor people with a sense of entitlement...kidding... slightly).</p>

<p>I'm seeing that the argument here is that rich kids have a home environment that is more conducive to intellectual advancement and nurturing. Also, there's the claim that rich kids have more access to SAT/ACT prep sessions, books, etc.</p>

<p>I don't buy into this. While a wealthy student might have his own private library full of classics and medical textbooks, an underprivileged child could easily go check out books at a local library. Same with internet access. And SAT/ACT prep? Prep books aren't that expensive, and really, one can simply check these out of a (school) library as well.</p>

<p>I realize it's not as clear cut as that, but still.</p>

<p>As a middle class citizen myself, I have to argue against the whole prep thing anyway, because frankly, I didn't prep for the SAT/ACT, and I still did well. I most likely would have done just as well without having money (which I didn't use anyway) to prep for these tests.</p>

<p>And finally, why is this important? simply because if this correlation is nothing more than coincidence, then it is harmful to the admissions process. Giving less privileged students a theoretical boost to their test scores hurts the chances of wealthier students. When a wealthy student makes a 2400 and a poor student with a 2200 is viewed as equal, where is the fairness in that?</p>

<p>So yeah, hit it up, CC'ers.</p>

2

<p>Oh and by the way, feel free to link to different threads pertaining to this topic.</p>

3

<p>[SAT</a> Scores and Family Income - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/]SAT”>SAT Scores and Family Income - The New York Times)</p>

<p>Although there is likely a small causal relationship (low-income people will take fewer preparatory classes), it’s probably mostly merely correlational. The best preparation is very inexpensive (the Blue Book).</p>

4

<p>What do you think about this: salaries correlate with amount/quality of education; amount/quality of education correlates with intelligence; intelligence is hereditary==> thus the correlation we see with test scores and income. Hmm?</p>

5

<p>User comment from that link:

</p>

<p>So that’s pretty much what I was saying.</p>

6

<p>The main thing, I think, is that lower income correlates to a lower quality of education overall. Lower income kids, on average, go to poorer (both in quality and in finances) schools and do not receive enough of a supplemental education at home to make up for the gap between them and kids of higher income that appears early and grows quickly thereafter.</p>

7

<p>I think SAT prep courses (group, not individual) are mostly useless for high-achieving candidates because even at the start of the course your level will be higher than the final scores the others are aiming for. So the class will be tailored to the rest and you might feel bored.</p>

8

<p>Wealthy kids have had a lot more than access to test prep. They are more likely to have highly educated education focusewd parents, to have attended top schools and summer programs, to have traveled and been exposed to many things and the list goes on and on…</p>

9

<p><a href=“http://archive.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring06/PoorChildren.pdf[/url]”>http://archive.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring06/PoorChildren.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This really speaks for itself, but to summarize:</p>

<p>Lower income children hear far fewer words from their parents than upper income children do.</p>

<p>You can draw your own conclusions from this, but I think it’s fair to say that this disadvantage creates an inherent unfairness in tests testing vocabulary as well as reading comprehension based on advanced vocabulary.</p>

10

<p>There is likely a WAY bigger difference in test scores than the numbers would suggest between the well off and those in poverty.</p>

<p>If a student is wealthy and has a college-educated parent, even if he or she is stupid, there’s a good chance they’ll be taking the SAT or ACT. On the other hand, you can look at something like the Milwaukee public school system, where not only do many poor students not take the SAT/ACT, but only 50% graduate. To sort of sum up what I’m saying in a sentence, the poorer students’ scores are going to be inflated because the dumber kids don’t even finish school (much less take a standardized test), while the wealthier kids’ scores will not be as inflated because there’s a higher chance for a dumb kid to take the test and bring the average down.</p>

<p>So even if the numbers don’t say so, wealthier kids are probably doing much better if you were to exclude many the dumb kids (who don’t take the test in poorer communities).</p>

11

<p>@Millancad
Up until tenth grade I went to pretty horrible schools in a small, middle-of-nowhere town in eastern Kentucky.
@Redroses
True to education focused parents to an extent. But again, most poor and rich alike go to public high schools that /anyone/ can go to-- like myself. And many summer programs have need-based scholarships. I do see your point though.
@Nick567
First of all, this info is questionable in that I don’t see how you could track how many words are spoken in a house and then make a accurate representation of that to be used as a model for all households.
The info also suggests that one is more likely to be a low-achiever if one switches schools frequently. I myself have been to two high schools, two middle schools, and two elementary schools. Should I be given extra consideration because I “overcame” that?
And then again with the words: I didn’t start reading for fun until ninth grade and had a extremely lacking vocabulary at the time. I picked up a dictionary and looked up every single unfamiliar word I came across, and two years later, I hardly ever hear a word I don’t understand. I did that myself with materials to which anyone should have access regardless of wealth.
@MSauce
Interesting. But still, read below.</p>

<p>I responded to all of your comments, CC’ers, with personal anecdote because I wish to demonstrate that there are surely cases where this correlation does /not/ imply a causation. This topic is particularly of interest to me because of my own situation.
I realize that this correlation is deserving of consideration and that in many cases therein lies a suitable explanation for low test scores of poor students. But using this in the admissions process adversely affects the outliers, such as myself. It would need to be treated on a case by case basis, and because it is impossible to ascertain everything a student has done with their available resources and how much the wealthier kids have been pampered so to speak, I strongly believe this correlation should not be utilized or even considered as factor in the admissions process.</p>

<p>And I realize many schools are need-blind, yes; but many poor students get around that via the Common App essay, etc.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>Wait, where did you hear this from?? Wow, I never knew a less privileged background can give you a boast in admissions in such a way!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>“Get around”? If growing up in a low-income household has shaped your life and your aspirations, then it is completely appropriate to make that the topic of your college admission essay, just as you can talk about traveling to a different country or attending an expensive summer programs that had left behind a strong impression or anything else that’s important to you.</p>

<p>I think a less privileged background may give one a slight advantage in admissions only in circumstances where it had in some way prevented the applicant from gaining access to the same academic and extracurricular resources as his peers. A low income family will more likely place much less emphasis on education, require that the student work long hours after school (less time for extracurricular), or the student may have to deal with other obstacles in life that his peer will never have to face. Low income students in general are less likely to apply to selective colleges, so as a way to increase their presence in the student population and thus improve the diversity of the student body, a few colleges the country may actively encourage them to apply to college.</p>

<p>But overall, the big picture is that being low-income is detrimental to your chance of admissions, not the other way around. Only very few colleges in the entire country are even need blind.</p>

13

<p>African Americans statistically score lower than Caucasians on standardized tests. Using your “genetics” theory, does that mean you’re suggesting Whites are, on average, more intellegent than Blacks?</p>

14

<p>@Theasterisk
In this thread, I suggested nothing of the sort. The same factors don’t necessarily have to apply to these two different scenarios because race is quite a different issue than income. If the two are interrelated in a way, then this theory would apply insofar as they relate… but it would still come down to the income with race as a coincidental factor-- from my argument about income. (Of course there are other things to explore as far as race goes)</p>

<p>@xrCalico23
I can’t seem to recall where on CC I found it, but there was a link to a study, I believe by Princeton, that demonstrated clear admissions boosts for various races: African Americans received an admissions boost equivalent to a bit over 200 points on the SAT (I forget the actual numbers), Hispanics ~150, Whites 0, and Asian Americans about -50.
So no, I haven’t seen any similar raw data pertaining to income brackets, but based on this and sentiments around the site, I’d say there is somewhat of a similar discrepancy.<br>
By “getting around” I mean exactly that: though these particular institutions are need-blind, some students are able to let the adcoms know of their financial plights by writing about it. And if this fact about a student’s financial situation influences the adcoms though he/she might have sub par test scores, then I think that’s a problem and undermines the whole need-blind integrity.</p>

15

<p>Please then explain why there are distinct differences in the average test scores of different races if intellegence and their general economic status do not effect their scores.</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>Okay, here’s what I think: </p>

<p>Need blind admission refers to an institution’s policy to admit students without regard to their ability to pay. In other words, applying for aid does not diminish a student’s chance of admissions, but it does not mean colleges do not take into consideration the student’s background or their availability of resources. Admission officers do pay attention to the type of school the student attends, what kind of resources seem to be available to the student, what kind of obstacles he or she might have faced and overcome, etc. They try to assess student preparedness and academic potential in the unique context of each student’s personal experience, which is also the main idea behind “holistic admissions”. Need blind means that one’s ability to pay is not taken into consideration, not that their backgrounds or their experiences are not to be taken into consideration. There’s a difference there.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>You previously stated: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Also, here’s source providing information on SAT scores by ethnicity and family income:
<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

18

<p>"I’m seeing that the argument here is that rich kids have a home environment that is more conducive to intellectual advancement and nurturing. Also, there’s the claim that rich kids have more access to SAT/ACT prep sessions, books, etc.</p>

<p>I don’t buy into this. While a wealthy student might have his own private library full of classics and medical textbooks, an underprivileged child could easily go check out books at a local library. Same with internet access. And SAT/ACT prep? Prep books aren’t that expensive, and really, one can simply check these out of a (school) library as well."</p>

<p>There are no libraries in many low income areas or the libraries are not possible to reach due to a lack of public transportation. </p>

<p>Low income students are more likely to live in weak school districts since schools receive a large proportion of their funds from property taxes.</p>

<p>Low income students are more likely to have poorly educated parents, which means for the student a lack of exposure to things more well off students take for granted: parents who speak proper English and can help with homework; parents who understand the educational process; parents who attend PTA meetings, teacher conferences; parents who expose their kids to things like libraries, museums, educational summer camps; parents who encourage their kids to learn and assist them in developing the skills and interests that would allow them to go to college; living in a stable home, and not having to frequently change schools because they can’t pay the rent; having appropriate nutrition and health care so as to be able to do things like see the blackboard (e.g. having eyeglasses if necessary) or being able to concentrate on one’s lessons because one isn’t hungry…</p>

19

<p>Coming from a low-income family SHOULD NOT be an excuse to under-perform in academic surroundings. </p>

<p>However it is true that you are more likely to succeed if you grew up in a comfortable, financially-secure house hold for the reason being that</p>

<p>1) You have more resources at your disposal[don’t have to work from an early age(which interferes with your school work), your parents are able to enroll you in sports or clubs</p>

<p>2) Your parents are probably well-educated if you’re the child of middle to upper class parents, and thus are more likely to be more nurturing of you than the average person from a low-income family who’s statistically bound to be poorly educated. </p>

<p>3) You have less social-stigma behind you to perform well.</p>

20

<p>Wealthy kids do not go to public high schools like everyone else in most cases. They go to elite prep schools or public schools in elite enclaves that often function as prep schools.</p>

<p>Let’s also remember gene pool–they were often born with higher IQs.</p>