<p>I think colleges should be informed if a student got test prep or not.<br>
Kids that didn’t get it should just get 20-30 points added to their score.</p>
<p>It never in my wildest dreams occurred to me to spend money for test prep</p>
<p>Maybe my son could have improved on his 2250 non-prepped score (and he doesn’t come from a college educated, upper income family). Amazing what you CAN learn from a public inner city school if you put your mind to it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure why relying on AP exam scores, SAT subject test and IB tests is any better of an indicator to be used by colleges for admissions purposes. The qualitiy of the teachers could make a big difference in your score. Rich kids have access to better schools and would be able to get tutors to prep for these tests, something the poor kids can’t afford. These tests cost a lot more money to take than one SAT test. </p>
<p>The UCs were a big proponent of the SAT Subject tests. Now their thinking is to get rid of the requirement of SAT Subject tests completely. It didn’t turn out to help the group they most wanted to see more apps from–low income minority groups.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have heard from a lawyer about my age that law schools used to ask a question like that. I don’t think they ask anymore, and I think that is because they found out the answer to that question was less useful in the admission process than they first thought. </p>
<p>I must be a millionaire, if the score ranges reported in the article are in such lock step with family income. (Actually, they are not. Children at all levels of income get scores throughout the range of the test scoring scales.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know there have been threads here with much back and forth about the University of California system studies of that issue. In general, it is advantageous for grades, for test scores, and for extracurricular activities to come from a well-off family. Any reasonable college admission criterion favors wealthy families in that sense. And the mere fact of colleges keeping young people busy as they enter working age means that colleges attract mostly people from families well-off enough not to need their labor immediately, even if the colleges are tuition-free. (This is a world-wide phenomenon, much studied by economists of education.) So, yes, I don’t think there is any easy way to solve the difficulties faced by low-income students who aspire to attend college. But I do think this issue needs more consideration by admission officers. </p>
<p>[BW</a> Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor](<a href=“Bloomberg Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Businessweek - Bloomberg)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That would be impossible to administer. How could who did and didn’t receive test prep possibly be verified?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t feel bad, these classes aren’t any better than the Blue Book for a self-motivated kid.</p>
<p>But the blue book would be considered test prep, would it not?</p>
<p>The Blue Book </p>
<p>[The</a> Official SAT Study Guide ™](<a href=“Store App”>Store App) </p>
<p>is not expensive even at list price, and borrowed from a public library it is especially inexpensive. It is quite sufficient for getting a very good score.</p>
<p>How would one compare people from different schools then? And I do find study books more effective than courses. Free books as mentioned by tokenadult.</p>
<p>The thing we learn in statistics is correlation does not yield causation. Money does not make a person genetically better at the SAT’s. You can argue more money means more spending on test prep and tutors who just care about money which could lead to a better score. And I could argue that racial inferiority portrayed by media, and continuing stereotypes of certain racial groups make people believe they are inferior and underachieving. Neither one of us could be proven correct.</p>
<p>Children of well-educated professionals are, on average, more intelligent than children of low-income parents.</p>
<p>"In general, it is advantageous for grades, for test scores, and for extracurricular activities to come from a well-off family. Any reasonable college admission criterion favors wealthy families in that sense. "</p>
<p>That is true, but does not mean that income is the cause. As Sorghum states, genetics plays a role too - on average, education and intelligence are somewhat correlated with income, so, as a geneticist, I would argue that some of that correlation is because talented people on average breed talented kids. </p>
<p>This doesn’t deny lots of injustice but pointing out that correlation (between income and test scores) isn’t causation (that income brings about higher scores) - the cause can be something common to both (talent brings both higher income in the parents and higher talent in the kids).</p>
<p>I always felt that the “test prep problem,” while not insignificant, was way down the list when it came to problems with standardized tests. The gains from test prep are modest, on the order of 3-20 points for the former SAT-Verbal Section and from 10-28 points on the SAT-Math section. Taking the test again without prep tends to raise scores all by itself, and as you move up the score scale to the point where applicants to selective schools need to be, it gets harder and harder to move the scores significantly via prep and retakes. Then, in holistic admission processes, any modest increase in score that comes from test prep may get de-emphasized when it comes down to comparing students from dissimilar ethnic or socio-economic backgrounds.</p>
<p>Who cares if students have tutors? All they do is force kids to take practice tests and explain wrong answers. The answers are in the back of the book, and you can study on your own. You can throw down the $30 for a book or go to a library.</p>
<p>These people don’t have secret knowledge that can’t be found in a book or the internet. </p>
<p>What would stop people from lying about test prep? There is no way to verify whether or not they tell the truth.</p>
<p>Academic success is correlated with income? Not surprising. If they want to improve the performance of lower income students then communities should address this problem if it is such a priority. I cannot support taking away achievement from students who got results, no matter if they took a class or not. Are we going to punish a less wealthy family that saved money for test prep?</p>
<p>There are going to be shortcomings with every test method, whether it be SATs, SAT2s, or APs. I think SAT material is the fairest because it doesn’t rely on having one good teacher to do well in a subject. Example, one good chemistry teacher will lead to higher scores on SAT2 and AP chemistry. Students only take one chemistry class (usually). Math, reading, vocab, and grammar come from years of learning (the material on the test isn’t even that advanced). I think it is best to test the fundamentals.</p>
<p>I personally feel that the information of whether or not the student had test prep is irrelevant.
It’s not really a matter of money anymore; almost any kid can get test prep so it’s pretty much fair game. There is so much free test prep online or in public libraries that one can get ample prep for the SATs without paying a cent.</p>
<p>Besides, SAT courses don’t really offer anything revolutionary or that can’t be found online.</p>
<p>Articles like this always make me wonder if admissions officers assume that people who can afford test prep do. Because my parents can certainly afford group or private tutoring if I want it but 1) I don’t really believe in prep classes and 2) I’m not sure I really need it. I did pretty well on my first try (2220 - 770CR, 670M, and 780W), but I still want to raise my math. I’ve been prepping on my own with some test prep books from the library and a few I bought, but if I am able to successfully raise my math score, will it automatically be assumed that it was through test prep?
I guess it sounds like people don’t think tutoring is better than self-prep, but I don’t know…also, I go to a school where many, many people can afford and I’d estimate that over 50% do pay for test prep.</p>
<p>The children of people who can spend several thousands of dollars on test prep often apply to schools where test scores are somewhat de-emphasized vis-a-vis other components of the profile.</p>
<p>There is just so much bs about this subject. Tutoring SATs is a big scam. Taking a few practice tests is very useful, but those costly cram sessions are a desperate enterprise. Parents should take one of those practice tests themselves, to learn what the tests are about.</p>
<p>I don’t know how much it helps, but I do know people who have spent literally thousands of dollars on SAT prep. </p>
<p>That’s like, how many months of rent?!</p>
<p>It surprises me how kids who attend top HS’s need fancy test prep courses/tutors to get worse scores than some kids at lesser public schools who never do anything except a practice test once (such as son’s 2400). If they have such a good HS why don’t students do better without extra help? So glad didn’t raise kid in that kind of atmosphere. The best prep is doing well in HS courses all 4 years.</p>