Not all of them. But it’s more likely as household income increases. I would be willing to bet that there is a statistically significant correlation between household income and performance on standardized tests. I would also be willing to bet that if you set up a regression model with “performance on standardized tests” as the dependant variable, and controlled for household income, educational attainment of parents, and zip code, that you would account for a majority of the variance in scores on standardized tests.
Not legally.
So what does that mean? I think I know you are dustinquishing correlation from cause?
Okay, but it still happened. And those that wanted to go about it legally could afford to pay large sums of money for SAT tutors and other prep to get their children a leg up.
Do you think it’s possible that those with good incomes have $$ because they are smart and work hard?? You know, the American dream?! And they instill that in their kids?? Why are u stating a premise without proof? Is the reverse true too? If u score well u r rich?
I was poor, had no prep and did ok. Today any measurement tool is viewed as cruel, mean or unfair. I don’t think it should be the key factor but it’s good to have a test that measures everyone’s using the same standard, as one of the legs in the stool. It also captures well the really smart top 10% kids you really want to target too. For kids from deprived backgrounds less weight should be given to it.
Congrats. That doesn’t impact wealthier kids, especially in this day and age, having an advantage. That’s the whole point of this trial, to get a sense of what impacts this has on success once the kids get to college. I don’t understand why this would be controversial to run this as a trial program, given other schools have seen positive benefits from adopting similar policies.
So your argument AGAINST this policy is that there’s a subset of kids that dominate test scores currently?
It is possible. It's also possible that they (kids who grew up well-off) grew up in a system or a structure that benefited them more than others. I had this benefit, and others I know did not, and I ended up doing better than them on those tests. I recognize this and see that is it pervasive and wrong. My parents both had Masters degrees and stable jobs. I never went to bed hungry or had to walk through tough areas on my way to school. My parents could afford SAT prep. All of these things matter.
It means that if you made a scatterplot with "household income" on the x-axis (bottom) and "standardized test scores" on the y-axis (left side), the direction of association would be positive. You would see that above average values along the x-axis would tend to accompany above average values along the y-axis. The association would be strong, close to linear, and positive. And outliers will always exist - these are the kids who over or under perform, in relation to their household income.
You should tell that to the thousands of kids (especially immigrants) studying their asses off that they can’t improve their score until their parents make more money.
Especially since this is a 3-year trial to evaluate impacts. Other schools’ success with this suggests it will be a good move but if for some reason it doesn’t lead to favorable outcomes, it can be changed.
This is a meaningless post. Find some data to suggest that there is not a strong correlation between the two. Outliers can occur, but on a whole, wealthier kids will perform better.
Not really. Those parents cheated because their priveleged kid couldn’t test well. What about that same parent having someone write papers for their kid? Does that mean grades don’t count either?
Absolutely can do it legally, with SAT prep classes
Paying someone to take the tests is an extreme example. SAT prep classes are another way the privilege materializes
They also make huge adjustments in admissions to admit the children of alumni, also called "legacy students." The children of the educated don't need more help. I am speaking of myself. The fact that my parents went to a school should have no bearing on whether or not that schools admits me. It's basically an institutional affirmative action policy for the middle and upper class.
Nonsense, unless you define privilege as knowing how to read and do math. Putting too many idiots into college that don’t belong there.
You're clearly missing the point, whether it's intentional or not I have no idea. Nobody is saying only privileged kids can do well on the SAT. Access to better resources gives people advantages in so many aspects of life, it's not just testing
I don’t disagree. Of course they have advantages. but those same advantages apply to the classroom. So, why is it ok to discount sat scores but not classroom scores? They both have the same underlying bias.
Private schools do not have the curriculum restraints that public schools have. The school I attended spent 30 days out of a 150 day academic year on test prep and practice. We were graded on our progress.