<p>
</p>
<p>However, what is really harsh is that children with high test scores (would they be deemed intelligent on that basis?) who happen to grow up in poor families are far, far less likely to attend college than children with low test scores who happen to grow up in rich families. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.pdf[/url]”>http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.pdf</a></p>
<p>Life isn’t fair, and that is why life is worth living.</p>
<p>This is why things like Affirmative Action are good.</p>
<p>This isn’t just about “test prep,” it’s about the disparity in resources available to kids from different social classes. Along the lines of what wis75 was saying – the best test prep is 4 years of quality high school education, and unfortunately that quality of education is determined by the type of town you live in.</p>
<p>argue the effectiveness of test prep all you want, but realize that you’re choosing to focus on the trees and not the forest: SAT scores, AP scores and college acceptance rates are very strongly correlated to income level.</p>
<p>A couple of points:</p>
<p>First, of course test scores and income are correlated, so is intelligence and income. </p>
<p>Second, asking people if they have had test prep is ridiculous: reading is test prep, school is test prep, the blue book is test prep. There is little evidence that expensive courses are any better than using the blue book. I would certainly not send my kids to such courses. I view them as a waste of time and money.</p>
<p>Third, standardized tests are essential to any kind of half-way fair system of college admissions. Even schools that claim to judge students without evaluating their SAT’s or ACT’s use those exams to assess the high schools and therefore the grades of students who withhold their standardized test scores.</p>
<p>Fourth, money is good that’s why we work so hard to get it. It buys lots of good things: medical care, housing, education for our kids and comfortable retirements for ourselves. There seems to be a notion around in some quarters that personal income should only be used for buying jewelry and boats and that the really important stuff should be provided to folks using tax dollars.</p>
<p>and what is intelligence? can you buy it?</p>
<p>SAT has become a drug to the universities and students. Everyone keeps saying how they are absolutely not important during admission process, but the universities still try to pick the applicants with higher score. And everyone understands it’s not necessarily the indicator of intelligence - it’s just that you have got to have higher average score than your rival institution. Harvard can’t afford taking all them bright kids who happen to have lower scores but maybe some extra achievements over perfect-scorers. That would mean loosing to YPS and slipping down the rankings. It would be ideal if there was an unpreppable iq test.</p>
<p>I do not agree that income in itself is linked to “intelligence.” I do agree – and this can be borne out quantitatively – that, with some exceptions, those with higher incomes contain a larger percentage of highly educated than those with lower incomes.</p>
<p>But the key is the education, more than the income. Most people, including lots of CC posters, are not aware of how much direct and indirect education occurs via parents: that education prepares students for, and supplements, their education from preschool until college. (And possibly beyond, but that’s not as necessary.) It’s a matter of resources, of expectations, of priorities, of vocabulary, of shared/networked info about schools, and more.</p>
<p>It can also help to be native-born. Even very well-educated immigrants often do not know how to navigate the public school system (such as for course placement), or what the differences are between publics & privates, and how to manage those admissions.</p>
<p>The social logic of dismantling objective tests seems backwards. High test scores are hard to purchase, and the sharper and more numerous the tests used, the harder it is for the wealthy to guarantee their children success. </p>
<p>The class war being fought with tests is between the wealthy and the middle-class, with the latter having the advantage. The poor are a sideshow in that game because they will always have trouble no matter what the system.
If tests are eliminated the benefit will go not so much to the poor but to the wealthy, who can purchase advantages in everything <em>but</em> testing. The middle class strivers would get screwed.</p>
<p>i agree with peachsnapple, anyone and everyone has access to college prep and most can be done free. The key is will they do it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but students of lower income groups are not aware of many test prep material (in some cases). Maybe because they parents and other members of the family have little exposure to such methods of scoring well on the tests.</p>
<p>“However, what is really harsh is that children with high test scores (would they be deemed intelligent on that basis?) who happen to grow up in poor families are far, far less likely to attend college than children with low test scores who happen to grow up in rich families.”</p>
<p>And IMO, this is the one great benefit from standardized testing. A high-achieving student from a poor, public HS that doesn’t typically produce such students can catch the eye of an admissions committee rather than be dismissed as less-prepared because of their background. To me, the SAT is the higher ed what 40-yard-dash times and bench press repetitions are to NFL scouts. Someone who looks athletic but comes from a non-scholarship small college isn’t usually NFL materials. But as soon as they’re clocked at 4.3 in the 40-yard dash, they’re on the radar - just like the student of humble origins who posts a 2250 SAT.</p>
<p>siserune - you nailed it. But the left is very concerned about the achievement gap with Blacks and Hispanics, and they find it convenient to attack the oh so nasty striving habits of the middle class - which, well, smacks of competition and all that. </p>
<p>I never took a test prep course in my life. Went to some of this country’s best schools, undergrad and grad. My mother was single, ill, poor and unemployed. I took plenty of AP courses, though, and obtained very good grades. That was by far and away the best SAT prep - by far. Wis 75 is spot on. Then again, I am, like Wis 75, from the Midwest - some of that work ethic (and it is real) helped too. </p>
<p>The best thing we could do to promote education in children is to repeatedly and loudly proclaim what a lousy life strategy it is for children to be borne of out wedlock and not be raised by two caring parents. Believe me, I know this personally. We have a huge cultural problem in this country, and it destroys opportunity, and perpetuates a cycle where those least inclined to take care of children properly continue to have them in increasing numbers. Access to test prep is an elliptical issue - lets get more two caring parents involved.</p>
<p>Why are people complaining about test-prep giving kids an unfair advantage?</p>
<p>Is there any statistical evidence that a $2000 private tutor boosts your score any more than buying a $14 SAT prep book?</p>
<p>As a side note, none of the numbers the article throws out shows causation, merely correlation.</p>
<p>The Blue Book and on-line practice is just as good as any tutor (IMO) if a kid (and parent) are willing to support studying it on their own. Paying for a tutor takes the “self control” somewhat out of the equation as you have someone that you have to be accountable to with tutoring and the parents don’t need to nag as much to get the studying done. I have 3 kids, third one just got into all the colleges she applied including 3 top ranked nationally, middle child had good options and #1 child got into top ranked school nationally and they didn’t go to an exceptionaaly good high school. All studied on their own, everything you need to know is in the Blue Book (And Red Book for the ACT). My kids compared notes with kids they knew who did the Princeton Review and they learned the same things. Some kids are just better test takers than others. All three kids did very well on both exams and got into their first choice schools while some of their friends that had counseling and tutor programs didn’t fare as well. The kids needs to learn HOW to take the test, he/she can get that by reading the book and taking practice exams over and over to learn what they are doing wrong. They are not going to learn any new academic material! I guess what I am saying is that there is a lot of free help out there and I’m not sure tutoring is worth the $$. My kids wanted to do well so it wasn’t a problem, it depends on family. Then the other argument is that it is usually people with the extra $$ who want to cough up the $2000-5000 grand or more for prep. Is this and advantage, i’m not convinced.</p>
<p>My children attend(ed) a poor rural school. AP’s and IB’s are not offered. Someone comes in every spring and offers 4 hours of SAT prep for $35 includes a book. I told my two kids they could take it if they paid their own money. Instead they elected to prepare on their own using online resources and library resources. They both scored in the 2000-2100 range with high 700’s on the CR. My daughter is attending Cornell ( her dream school since 9th grade) and is doing well and my son is headed to the University of Rochester. Both took advantage of every opportunity that was offered them at our little remote school and both did well both EC wise and academically. We have friends in a wealthy area of NJ who are into the tutoring, college essay help services, and all the rest of that stuff. My sister’s family is into this. They are incredulous when they see our kids getting into the same echelon of schools as theirs without all the extra “help” . What is even nicer is that with our family income of less than 60K and they are getting their educations for a very low cost as well.</p>
<p>The advantages of higher income begin long before SAT test prepping comes up. The advantage begins at conception with higher quality maternal health and prenatal care and is continually present going forward. Children in higher income families are advantaged in every conceivable way-- better health care, better nutrition, environments rich in educational resources, better educated parents who interact with children using more complex and frequent language, better schools, enriching summer activities and on and on and on.<br>
The effect of income is both causative and correlative-- Some of the advantages, like better health care access are direct purchases others are more fuzzy, like increased language use/complexity.<br>
The indignant protests that middle and upper class children are being punished by the possible discounting of standardized test scores is surpising to me. I have a hard time believing that anyone would trade a middle class American lifestyle for a lower class American lifestyle.</p>
<p>If getting into college was really about picking the most motivated and most well prepared and most deserving, would we really rely upon gpa/classrank/SAT scores? I think not. Lets be honest here: the real reason adcoms want that information is to split hairs (or pick your analogy), because there are too many kids applying to the so called “top” schools (and even many second tier schools). Its a numbers game. Over the last 40 years or so, many schools intentionally picked kids with lower scores and bypassed kids with perfect scores, in a sort of social experiment. Many times that worked out well for everyone with the student succeeding marvelously and the school ridding itself of that dreaded elitist moniker. Many schools are now dropping the SAT requirement altogether or making it optional. </p>
<p>Some kids just test better in that environment than others and its not an indicator of intelligence or likelihood of success in college. Furthermore, with the information age upon us, going to college has become a necessity for any chance at a reasonable job with a reasonable income, or preparing kids for being very flexible in a world that doesnt value company loyalty anymore. Its true that many jobs dont require a college degree. Even some of the most powerful people in our country have not had degrees. (This is not a political statement, but did you know that Karl Rove never got his degree? He blew out of 3 colleges. ) We are a society where credentials are the first step to getting a job, without which you wont even get in the door. It may not be “fair” but it is what it is. </p>
<p>Sadly, many highly qualified students who are denied admission to the top schools never look at the more than 2,000 schools in the United States who would love to have them as students and would likely give them nice scholarships. Kids think they wont be successful unless they go to a top name school, which of course is ludicrous. (To be equal opportunity here, I will say that James Carville graduated from LSU). </p>
<p>If you cleared out the “wannabes”, applicants who even if admitted would most likely really struggle or worse, and just examine the well qualified students, I would suggest that all those students would be just fine, even at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford or MIT. </p>
<p>On the narrow issue of test prep, I will say this: some kids NEED that test prep because of learning disabilities or test anxiety. But a lot of prep schools give free test prep, starting in about 6th grade, so their kids all score really well and they get those elite college placements. The best antidote to that skewed process is for colleges to disengage from that “insiders” game and admitting more public school kids.</p>
<p>^^ thank you DeirdreTours. This isn’t just about SAT test prepping. It’s about the environment you’re raised in, and the advantages that environment gives you.</p>
<p>Whether or not your parents have a college degree/education makes a huge difference in being raise (as you learn more from your parents than anyone else), and only 8% of parents in the bottom fifth income bracket have a college degree (compared to 36% in the top fifth)</p>
<p>Also, SAT scores are more strongly correlated with income than they are with college success. Talk about the difference between correlation and causation all you want, but I think that alone shows a fundamental issue.</p>