Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why the SAT Isn't a "Student Affluence Test"

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 12:46:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Isn't it generally applied that the wealthier one's family is, the better they do in school?
Less to worry about, better schools, tutors if needed, etc.
My work here is, finally, done.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 12:52:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 12:46:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Isn't it generally applied that the wealthier one's family is, the better they do in school?
Less to worry about, better schools, tutors if needed, etc.

Yes (but your explanation is speculative at best). A far more likely scenario: smart people tend to make more money because intelligence is a great asset, and pass their high intelligence down to their children. Many people hold the SAT itself responsible for the positive correlation between scores and family income, when in fact, the correlation is seen across the board, and disappears when one controls for IQ.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 2:38:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

What have I said which contradicts the fact that "most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference"? And how does that fact in any way confirm the rest of your assumptions?
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 2:55:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 2:38:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

What have I said which contradicts the fact that "most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference"? And how does that fact in any way confirm the rest of your assumptions?

The title of the thread. The SAT is an affluence test, it just primarily differentiates between the poor and everyone else
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 3:06:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 2:55:32 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:38:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

What have I said which contradicts the fact that "most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference"? And how does that fact in any way confirm the rest of your assumptions?

The title of the thread. The SAT is an affluence test, it just primarily differentiates between the poor and everyone else

If it's only an affluence test, then why do rich kids with mediocre IQs score worse than poor kids with high IQs?

Even if wealth is a factor in achievement, so what? Wouldn't the SAT just be accurately reflecting genuine advantages enjoyed by the wealthy? If the wealthy get a better education than the rest, then why should we be at all concerned when they do better on the SAT?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 3:07:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 12:52:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 12:46:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Isn't it generally applied that the wealthier one's family is, the better they do in school?
Less to worry about, better schools, tutors if needed, etc.

Yes (but your explanation is speculative at best). A far more likely scenario: smart people tend to make more money because intelligence is a great asset, and pass their high intelligence down to their children. Many people hold the SAT itself responsible for the positive correlation between scores and family income, when in fact, the correlation is seen across the board, and disappears when one controls for IQ.

So, my reasons are speculative, but yours is not?
It sounds like you are suggesting that intelligence is genetic, so the rich have intelligent offspring because the parents are intelligent. Fair enough, and I'd agree it is a factor, but how many rich marry non-intelligent spouses, and have children? Or have children before they are rich? Or intelligent people who are not rich having children?

Two doctors having a smart child makes sense. A hot housewife and a doctor does not.
My work here is, finally, done.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 3:13:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 3:07:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/1/2015 12:52:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 12:46:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Isn't it generally applied that the wealthier one's family is, the better they do in school?
Less to worry about, better schools, tutors if needed, etc.

Yes (but your explanation is speculative at best). A far more likely scenario: smart people tend to make more money because intelligence is a great asset, and pass their high intelligence down to their children. Many people hold the SAT itself responsible for the positive correlation between scores and family income, when in fact, the correlation is seen across the board, and disappears when one controls for IQ.

So, my reasons are speculative, but yours is not?
It sounds like you are suggesting that intelligence is genetic, so the rich have intelligent offspring because the parents are intelligent. Fair enough, and I'd agree it is a factor, but how many rich marry non-intelligent spouses, and have children? Or have children before they are rich? Or intelligent people who are not rich having children?

It's not speculation. Twin studies show that IQ is very heritable, and IQ is highly correlated with a variety of diverse cognitive tasks. Second, assortative mating for IQ is high - translation: smart people often marry smart people.

Two doctors having a smart child makes sense. A hot housewife and a doctor does not.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 3:16:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 3:13:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 3:07:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/1/2015 12:52:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 12:46:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Isn't it generally applied that the wealthier one's family is, the better they do in school?
Less to worry about, better schools, tutors if needed, etc.

Yes (but your explanation is speculative at best). A far more likely scenario: smart people tend to make more money because intelligence is a great asset, and pass their high intelligence down to their children. Many people hold the SAT itself responsible for the positive correlation between scores and family income, when in fact, the correlation is seen across the board, and disappears when one controls for IQ.

So, my reasons are speculative, but yours is not?
It sounds like you are suggesting that intelligence is genetic, so the rich have intelligent offspring because the parents are intelligent. Fair enough, and I'd agree it is a factor, but how many rich marry non-intelligent spouses, and have children? Or have children before they are rich? Or intelligent people who are not rich having children?

It's not speculation. Twin studies show that IQ is very heritable, and IQ is highly correlated with a variety of diverse cognitive tasks. Second, assortative mating for IQ is high - translation: smart people often marry smart people.

That does not suggest they have kids, though.

Two doctors having a smart child makes sense. A hot housewife and a doctor does not.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 11:53:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 12:42:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.wsj.com...

Dylan what is wrong with you? Being rich is better than being poor, ya know. That's the whole point.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 2:44:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 12:42:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.wsj.com...

'Now let"s look at the income effect in the PIAT when the mother"s IQ is statistically held constant at the national average of 100. Going to a $200,000 family income from a $1,000 family income raises the score only to the 76th percentile from the 50th"an increase of 26 percentiles'

26 percentiles is still a huge number. It's a jump of more than a quartile...

The US should cannot deny that it's very high up on the Great Gatsby Curve. The curve wouldn't look like this if parental wealth's effects on education were minute.

I agree that the law of diminishing marginal returns applies and a lawyer's or doctor's son probably doesn't have that huge an advantage over me, especially since I'm a bit of an autodidact. I sure do have a huge advantage over those who live in subdivided units or cage homes, however.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 11:55:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 2:44:23 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/1/2015 12:42:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.wsj.com...

'Now let"s look at the income effect in the PIAT when the mother"s IQ is statistically held constant at the national average of 100. Going to a $200,000 family income from a $1,000 family income raises the score only to the 76th percentile from the 50th"an increase of 26 percentiles'

26 percentiles is still a huge number. It's a jump of more than a quartile...

The US should cannot deny that it's very high up on the Great Gatsby Curve. The curve wouldn't look like this if parental wealth's effects on education were minute.

I agree that the law of diminishing marginal returns applies and a lawyer's or doctor's son probably doesn't have that huge an advantage over me, especially since I'm a bit of an autodidact. I sure do have a huge advantage over those who live in subdivided units or cage homes, however.

I won't deny that family income plays some role. However, you have to remember that parents of incredibly poor families are often times not very good role models for the very same reasons that they are poor, and don't instill good habits in their children. In other words, if a family that would have been incredibly poor wins the lottery, their children will not do as well as families who earned their money the hard way.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 12:21:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 3:06:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:55:32 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:38:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

What have I said which contradicts the fact that "most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference"? And how does that fact in any way confirm the rest of your assumptions?

The title of the thread. The SAT is an affluence test, it just primarily differentiates between the poor and everyone else

If it's only an affluence test, then why do rich kids with mediocre IQs score worse than poor kids with high IQs?

Even if wealth is a factor in achievement, so what? Wouldn't the SAT just be accurately reflecting genuine advantages enjoyed by the wealthy? If the wealthy get a better education than the rest, then why should we be at all concerned when they do better on the SAT?

That's the whole point. The SAT does give an advantage to the children of the upper middle class and wealthy over the poor. I'm not saying the SAT results are completely based on affluence and therefore shouldn't mean anything. After all, I scored really well on it and my parents are not wealthy. What I am saying, is that colleges need to be aware that an applicant coming from a poor high school and an applicant coming from a college prep high school, should not be expected to have the same SAT score, even if they have similar "scholastic aptitude." There is no reason to be concerned that the wealthy do better on the SAT, as long as colleges realize that and adjust their acceptance process accordingly. Which, for the most part, they do.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 1:43:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 12:21:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/1/2015 3:06:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:55:32 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:38:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

What have I said which contradicts the fact that "most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference"? And how does that fact in any way confirm the rest of your assumptions?

The title of the thread. The SAT is an affluence test, it just primarily differentiates between the poor and everyone else

If it's only an affluence test, then why do rich kids with mediocre IQs score worse than poor kids with high IQs?

Even if wealth is a factor in achievement, so what? Wouldn't the SAT just be accurately reflecting genuine advantages enjoyed by the wealthy? If the wealthy get a better education than the rest, then why should we be at all concerned when they do better on the SAT?

That's the whole point. The SAT does give an advantage to the children of the upper middle class and wealthy over the poor.

Differences in SAT scores between the poor and rich reflect real differences in the quality of the education they received. If the poor and rich scored the same, there would be something wrong with the test. Of course some of the difference can be attributed to expensive test prep courses that are only available to the wealthy, but they are actually far less effective than you'd think.

I'm not saying the SAT results are completely based on affluence and therefore shouldn't mean anything. After all, I scored really well on it and my parents are not wealthy. What I am saying, is that colleges need to be aware that an applicant coming from a poor high school and an applicant coming from a college prep high school, should not be expected to have the same SAT score, even if they have similar "scholastic aptitude." There is no reason to be concerned that the wealthy do better on the SAT, as long as colleges realize that and adjust their acceptance process accordingly. Which, for the most part, they do.

Actually, most colleges don't take into account family income at all. They are far more concerned with racial background.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 2:13:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 1:43:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 12:21:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/1/2015 3:06:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:55:32 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:38:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

What have I said which contradicts the fact that "most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference"? And how does that fact in any way confirm the rest of your assumptions?

The title of the thread. The SAT is an affluence test, it just primarily differentiates between the poor and everyone else

If it's only an affluence test, then why do rich kids with mediocre IQs score worse than poor kids with high IQs?

Even if wealth is a factor in achievement, so what? Wouldn't the SAT just be accurately reflecting genuine advantages enjoyed by the wealthy? If the wealthy get a better education than the rest, then why should we be at all concerned when they do better on the SAT?

That's the whole point. The SAT does give an advantage to the children of the upper middle class and wealthy over the poor.


Differences in SAT scores between the poor and rich reflect real differences in the quality of the education they received. If the poor and rich scored the same, there would be something wrong with the test. Of course some of the difference can be attributed to expensive test prep courses that are only available to the wealthy, but they are actually far less effective than you'd think.
Depends on how effective you think I think they are. I am very familiar with the college prep schools and their methods, having gone to one myself. I think I know roughly how effective these kinds of schools are. As for test prep courses, yes they are overrated, but they are still available and for the most part they do work as advertised. An average student who is willing to pay the money and put in the hours can bump their score by a couple hundred points.
I'm not saying the SAT results are completely based on affluence and therefore shouldn't mean anything. After all, I scored really well on it and my parents are not wealthy. What I am saying, is that colleges need to be aware that an applicant coming from a poor high school and an applicant coming from a college prep high school, should not be expected to have the same SAT score, even if they have similar "scholastic aptitude." There is no reason to be concerned that the wealthy do better on the SAT, as long as colleges realize that and adjust their acceptance process accordingly. Which, for the most part, they do.

Actually, most colleges don't take into account family income at all. They are far more concerned with racial background.

Source? Have you worked in a college admissions office? Because I have, and I can tell you that race was one factor, but it was not as important as what school the applicants came from. We had stats giving the average GPA and SAT on tons of high schools nationwide, and we used that to judge whether a kid was among the best performers in a crappy school, or a mediocre kid at a high school where everyone gets As and aces the SAT because they take it 3 times and pay for Kaplan.

Again, contrary to conventional wisdom, the most important thing wasn't race. If you are black or Hispanic but coming from a prep school and your parents are doctors, you are going to be mostly judged against the other kids at that school. If you are white but come from a bad school where almost nobody goes to a four year college, but you have good grades and decent scores, you are judged against the rest of the kids from that type of school, white or not.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 2:22:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 2:13:50 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/3/2015 1:43:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 12:21:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/1/2015 3:06:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:55:32 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:38:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

What have I said which contradicts the fact that "most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference"? And how does that fact in any way confirm the rest of your assumptions?

The title of the thread. The SAT is an affluence test, it just primarily differentiates between the poor and everyone else

If it's only an affluence test, then why do rich kids with mediocre IQs score worse than poor kids with high IQs?

Even if wealth is a factor in achievement, so what? Wouldn't the SAT just be accurately reflecting genuine advantages enjoyed by the wealthy? If the wealthy get a better education than the rest, then why should we be at all concerned when they do better on the SAT?

That's the whole point. The SAT does give an advantage to the children of the upper middle class and wealthy over the poor.


Differences in SAT scores between the poor and rich reflect real differences in the quality of the education they received. If the poor and rich scored the same, there would be something wrong with the test. Of course some of the difference can be attributed to expensive test prep courses that are only available to the wealthy, but they are actually far less effective than you'd think.
Depends on how effective you think I think they are. I am very familiar with the college prep schools and their methods, having gone to one myself. I think I know roughly how effective these kinds of schools are. As for test prep courses, yes they are overrated, but they are still available and for the most part they do work as advertised. An average student who is willing to pay the money and put in the hours can bump their score by a couple hundred points.

I doubt the courses are any better than just using SAT study books.

I'm not saying the SAT results are completely based on affluence and therefore shouldn't mean anything. After all, I scored really well on it and my parents are not wealthy. What I am saying, is that colleges need to be aware that an applicant coming from a poor high school and an applicant coming from a college prep high school, should not be expected to have the same SAT score, even if they have similar "scholastic aptitude." There is no reason to be concerned that the wealthy do better on the SAT, as long as colleges realize that and adjust their acceptance process accordingly. Which, for the most part, they do.

Actually, most colleges don't take into account family income at all. They are far more concerned with racial background.

Source? Have you worked in a college admissions office? Because I have, and I can tell you that race was one factor, but it was not as important as what school the applicants came from. We had stats giving the average GPA and SAT on tons of high schools nationwide, and we used that to judge whether a kid was among the best performers in a crappy school, or a mediocre kid at a high school where everyone gets As and aces the SAT because they take it 3 times and pay for Kaplan.

Again, contrary to conventional wisdom, the most important thing wasn't race. If you are black or Hispanic but coming from a prep school and your parents are doctors, you are going to be mostly judged against the other kids at that school. If you are white but come from a bad school where almost nobody goes to a four year college, but you have good grades and decent scores, you are judged against the rest of the kids from that type of school, white or not.

They take into account what school you went to, but they do not take into account your family income per se.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 2:55:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 2:22:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:13:50 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/3/2015 1:43:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 12:21:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/1/2015 3:06:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:55:32 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:38:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

What have I said which contradicts the fact that "most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference"? And how does that fact in any way confirm the rest of your assumptions?

The title of the thread. The SAT is an affluence test, it just primarily differentiates between the poor and everyone else

If it's only an affluence test, then why do rich kids with mediocre IQs score worse than poor kids with high IQs?

Even if wealth is a factor in achievement, so what? Wouldn't the SAT just be accurately reflecting genuine advantages enjoyed by the wealthy? If the wealthy get a better education than the rest, then why should we be at all concerned when they do better on the SAT?

That's the whole point. The SAT does give an advantage to the children of the upper middle class and wealthy over the poor.


Differences in SAT scores between the poor and rich reflect real differences in the quality of the education they received. If the poor and rich scored the same, there would be something wrong with the test. Of course some of the difference can be attributed to expensive test prep courses that are only available to the wealthy, but they are actually far less effective than you'd think.
Depends on how effective you think I think they are. I am very familiar with the college prep schools and their methods, having gone to one myself. I think I know roughly how effective these kinds of schools are. As for test prep courses, yes they are overrated, but they are still available and for the most part they do work as advertised. An average student who is willing to pay the money and put in the hours can bump their score by a couple hundred points.

I doubt the courses are any better than just using SAT study books.
Assuming you know how to study, yes that is pretty much correct.
I'm not saying the SAT results are completely based on affluence and therefore shouldn't mean anything. After all, I scored really well on it and my parents are not wealthy. What I am saying, is that colleges need to be aware that an applicant coming from a poor high school and an applicant coming from a college prep high school, should not be expected to have the same SAT score, even if they have similar "scholastic aptitude." There is no reason to be concerned that the wealthy do better on the SAT, as long as colleges realize that and adjust their acceptance process accordingly. Which, for the most part, they do.

Actually, most colleges don't take into account family income at all. They are far more concerned with racial background.

Source? Have you worked in a college admissions office? Because I have, and I can tell you that race was one factor, but it was not as important as what school the applicants came from. We had stats giving the average GPA and SAT on tons of high schools nationwide, and we used that to judge whether a kid was among the best performers in a crappy school, or a mediocre kid at a high school where everyone gets As and aces the SAT because they take it 3 times and pay for Kaplan.

Again, contrary to conventional wisdom, the most important thing wasn't race. If you are black or Hispanic but coming from a prep school and your parents are doctors, you are going to be mostly judged against the other kids at that school. If you are white but come from a bad school where almost nobody goes to a four year college, but you have good grades and decent scores, you are judged against the rest of the kids from that type of school, white or not.

They take into account what school you went to, but they do not take into account your family income per se.

True. And statistically, using the school a kid goes to as a proxy for their parents' income is extremely accurate. Again, I realize anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything, but on the files I read, I'd constantly see kids at good schools have two parents, who were lawyers or doctors or accountants or some high paying profession. while kids at bad schools were the ones who only listed one parent, and that parent rarely had a job that I'd expect to make good money.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 8:45:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 11:55:23 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:44:23 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/1/2015 12:42:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.wsj.com...

'Now let"s look at the income effect in the PIAT when the mother"s IQ is statistically held constant at the national average of 100. Going to a $200,000 family income from a $1,000 family income raises the score only to the 76th percentile from the 50th"an increase of 26 percentiles'

26 percentiles is still a huge number. It's a jump of more than a quartile...

The US should cannot deny that it's very high up on the Great Gatsby Curve. The curve wouldn't look like this if parental wealth's effects on education were minute.

I agree that the law of diminishing marginal returns applies and a lawyer's or doctor's son probably doesn't have that huge an advantage over me, especially since I'm a bit of an autodidact. I sure do have a huge advantage over those who live in subdivided units or cage homes, however.

I won't deny that family income plays some role. However, you have to remember that parents of incredibly poor families are often times not very good role models for the very same reasons that they are poor, and don't instill good habits in their children. In other words, if a family that would have been incredibly poor wins the lottery, their children will not do as well as families who earned their money the hard way.

There are also poor parents who work 80 hours a week to make sure their children are well fed.

I'm pretty sure there are good and bad role models in all classes, and I don't think it's significant enough a factor to explain the disparity between academic results of the rich and the poor.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 8:57:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 8:45:45 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/3/2015 11:55:23 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:44:23 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/1/2015 12:42:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.wsj.com...

'Now let"s look at the income effect in the PIAT when the mother"s IQ is statistically held constant at the national average of 100. Going to a $200,000 family income from a $1,000 family income raises the score only to the 76th percentile from the 50th"an increase of 26 percentiles'

26 percentiles is still a huge number. It's a jump of more than a quartile...

The US should cannot deny that it's very high up on the Great Gatsby Curve. The curve wouldn't look like this if parental wealth's effects on education were minute.

I agree that the law of diminishing marginal returns applies and a lawyer's or doctor's son probably doesn't have that huge an advantage over me, especially since I'm a bit of an autodidact. I sure do have a huge advantage over those who live in subdivided units or cage homes, however.

I won't deny that family income plays some role. However, you have to remember that parents of incredibly poor families are often times not very good role models for the very same reasons that they are poor, and don't instill good habits in their children. In other words, if a family that would have been incredibly poor wins the lottery, their children will not do as well as families who earned their money the hard way.

There are also poor parents who work 80 hours a week to make sure their children are well fed.

I'm pretty sure there are good and bad role models in all classes, and I don't think it's significant enough a factor to explain the disparity between academic results of the rich and the poor.

Why are people so bad at understanding the concept "on average"?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 9:04:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 8:57:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 8:45:45 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/3/2015 11:55:23 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:44:23 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/1/2015 12:42:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.wsj.com...

'Now let"s look at the income effect in the PIAT when the mother"s IQ is statistically held constant at the national average of 100. Going to a $200,000 family income from a $1,000 family income raises the score only to the 76th percentile from the 50th"an increase of 26 percentiles'

26 percentiles is still a huge number. It's a jump of more than a quartile...

The US should cannot deny that it's very high up on the Great Gatsby Curve. The curve wouldn't look like this if parental wealth's effects on education were minute.

I agree that the law of diminishing marginal returns applies and a lawyer's or doctor's son probably doesn't have that huge an advantage over me, especially since I'm a bit of an autodidact. I sure do have a huge advantage over those who live in subdivided units or cage homes, however.

I won't deny that family income plays some role. However, you have to remember that parents of incredibly poor families are often times not very good role models for the very same reasons that they are poor, and don't instill good habits in their children. In other words, if a family that would have been incredibly poor wins the lottery, their children will not do as well as families who earned their money the hard way.

There are also poor parents who work 80 hours a week to make sure their children are well fed.

I'm pretty sure there are good and bad role models in all classes, and I don't think it's significant enough a factor to explain the disparity between academic results of the rich and the poor.

Why are people so bad at understanding the concept "on average"?

What make you think poor parents are worse role models 'on average'?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 11:07:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 1:32:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 11:07:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

Your politically correct assumptions do not impress me.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 1:51:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 1:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 11:07:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

Your politically correct assumptions do not impress me.

I've seen more and more people acting under the assumption that just because something is considered 'politically correct', it is false, and that there's some sort of cover up of an offensive truth going on. That isn't the case here; your own source study argues against the point that you're trying to make. The math doesn't bear out in your favor. Sometimes, political correctness is based on good reasoning. Sometimes, its not. Being politically incorrect all of the time doesn't make someone a crusader for suppressed truth, it just means that they're using an irrelevant social norm to guide their opinions instead of examining things on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case, it's pretty clear that the SAT scores are, on a significant level, influenced by the affluence or poverty of the student's family. I don't even have to site a source for that, because it's what your own source says.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 2:02:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 1:51:58 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 11:07:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

Your politically correct assumptions do not impress me.

I've seen more and more people acting under the assumption that just because something is considered 'politically correct', it is false, and that there's some sort of cover up of an offensive truth going on. That isn't the case here; your own source study argues against the point that you're trying to make. The math doesn't bear out in your favor. Sometimes, political correctness is based on good reasoning. Sometimes, its not. Being politically incorrect all of the time doesn't make someone a crusader for suppressed truth, it just means that they're using an irrelevant social norm to guide their opinions instead of examining things on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case, it's pretty clear that the SAT scores are, on a significant level, influenced by the affluence or poverty of the student's family. I don't even have to site a source for that, because it's what your own source says.

I never denied that quality of education is a factor. In this thread I said "Differences in SAT scores between the poor and rich reflect real differences in the quality of the education they received."

I was simply rejecting his oversimplification of the issue. If, in response to the above article, someone says: "If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science." then they are suggesting that the whole story can be summed up in a few words, and that my position is unnecessarily complex. What I'm arguing is that quality of education is not the whole story.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 2:36:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 2:02:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:51:58 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 11:07:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

Your politically correct assumptions do not impress me.

I've seen more and more people acting under the assumption that just because something is considered 'politically correct', it is false, and that there's some sort of cover up of an offensive truth going on. That isn't the case here; your own source study argues against the point that you're trying to make. The math doesn't bear out in your favor. Sometimes, political correctness is based on good reasoning. Sometimes, its not. Being politically incorrect all of the time doesn't make someone a crusader for suppressed truth, it just means that they're using an irrelevant social norm to guide their opinions instead of examining things on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case, it's pretty clear that the SAT scores are, on a significant level, influenced by the affluence or poverty of the student's family. I don't even have to site a source for that, because it's what your own source says.

I never denied that quality of education is a factor. In this thread I said "Differences in SAT scores between the poor and rich reflect real differences in the quality of the education they received."

I was simply rejecting his oversimplification of the issue. If, in response to the above article, someone says: "If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science." then they are suggesting that the whole story can be summed up in a few words, and that my position is unnecessarily complex. What I'm arguing is that quality of education is not the whole story.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that affluence is the 'whole story', just that it is a significant part of the story. Your whole argument seems to be an attempt to deny that through associating IQ with affluence. To me, that's cutting the complexity out of the story by suggesting that the influence of wealth can be explained away by intelligence. Pretty much everyone opposed to you in this thread is saying 'no, the quality education, and affluence which largely determines it, are still important,' not 'education is the only thing that matters.'
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 3:19:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 2:36:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2015 2:02:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:51:58 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 11:07:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

Your politically correct assumptions do not impress me.

I've seen more and more people acting under the assumption that just because something is considered 'politically correct', it is false, and that there's some sort of cover up of an offensive truth going on. That isn't the case here; your own source study argues against the point that you're trying to make. The math doesn't bear out in your favor. Sometimes, political correctness is based on good reasoning. Sometimes, its not. Being politically incorrect all of the time doesn't make someone a crusader for suppressed truth, it just means that they're using an irrelevant social norm to guide their opinions instead of examining things on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case, it's pretty clear that the SAT scores are, on a significant level, influenced by the affluence or poverty of the student's family. I don't even have to site a source for that, because it's what your own source says.

I never denied that quality of education is a factor. In this thread I said "Differences in SAT scores between the poor and rich reflect real differences in the quality of the education they received."

I was simply rejecting his oversimplification of the issue. If, in response to the above article, someone says: "If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science." then they are suggesting that the whole story can be summed up in a few words, and that my position is unnecessarily complex. What I'm arguing is that quality of education is not the whole story.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that affluence is the 'whole story', just that it is a significant part of the story. Your whole argument seems to be an attempt to deny that through associating IQ with affluence. To me, that's cutting the complexity out of the story by suggesting that the influence of wealth can be explained away by intelligence. Pretty much everyone opposed to you in this thread is saying 'no, the quality education, and affluence which largely determines it, are still important,' not 'education is the only thing that matters.'

Exactly
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 5:12:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 2:36:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2015 2:02:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:51:58 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2015 11:07:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2015 2:12:20 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If you actually read the article, it says most of the effect comes in the first 100k annual salary difference. Obviously there isn't going to be a statistical difference between Richy McRicherson whose parents make millions, and Alf Fluent whose parents *only* make 100,000 a year. All four of those parents are likely college educated, and they have the money to live in a neighborhood that isn't in a ghetto school district.

If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science.

Your politically correct assumptions do not impress me.

I've seen more and more people acting under the assumption that just because something is considered 'politically correct', it is false, and that there's some sort of cover up of an offensive truth going on. That isn't the case here; your own source study argues against the point that you're trying to make. The math doesn't bear out in your favor. Sometimes, political correctness is based on good reasoning. Sometimes, its not. Being politically incorrect all of the time doesn't make someone a crusader for suppressed truth, it just means that they're using an irrelevant social norm to guide their opinions instead of examining things on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case, it's pretty clear that the SAT scores are, on a significant level, influenced by the affluence or poverty of the student's family. I don't even have to site a source for that, because it's what your own source says.

I never denied that quality of education is a factor. In this thread I said "Differences in SAT scores between the poor and rich reflect real differences in the quality of the education they received."

I was simply rejecting his oversimplification of the issue. If, in response to the above article, someone says: "If you send your kid to a bumfuck rural school, or an innercity ghetto school, their education will suck, and their SAT score will be much lower than it could have been. This isn't rocket science." then they are suggesting that the whole story can be summed up in a few words, and that my position is unnecessarily complex. What I'm arguing is that quality of education is not the whole story.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that affluence is the 'whole story', just that it is a significant part of the story. Your whole argument seems to be an attempt to deny that through associating IQ with affluence. To me, that's cutting the complexity out of the story by suggesting that the influence of wealth can be explained away by intelligence. Pretty much everyone opposed to you in this thread is saying 'no, the quality education, and affluence which largely determines it, are still important,' not 'education is the only thing that matters.'

Sorry for the confusion. I certainly never meant to imply that environment plays no role, or a very insignificant role. However, if I had to guess, I'd say that regression analysis would tell us that family income explains less than 10 percent of score variability, and environment as a whole less than 30 percent.