SAT Scores And Family Income
- Posted by: cshapiro
- on October 28, 2009 at 2:54 pm
GOOD.is
GOOD is a collaboration of individuals, businesses, and nonprofits pushing the world forward. Get involved.
This Week In Blogs
- Is Newsweek’s Sarah Palin Cover Sexist?
- Transparency: The Effects of Bike Commuting on Obesity
- Prison and College: California’s Ridiculous Priorities
- Are You Raising a Furkid?
- The GOOD 100: Cowpooling
- Sad or Cute: Hermit Crab Makes Home in Broken Bottle
- Tips on How to Reduce Food Packaging Waste
- New School: How the Web Liberalized Liberal Arts Education
- Singularity 101: What Is the Singularity?
- Charging Forward with Mission Motor’s Electric Superbike
- New School: How the Web Liberalized Liberal Arts Education
- The Charter for Compassion
- The GOOD Guide to COP15: The Fire this Time: Copenhagen and the War for the Future
- Tips on How to Reduce Food Packaging Waste
- Singularity 101: What Is the Singularity?
- Picture Show: Breach
- Prison and College: California’s Ridiculous Priorities
- Charging Forward with Mission Motor’s Electric Superbike
- Intermission: Eye-popping 3D Building Projections
- The Changing Music Business: The Chart
DISCUSSION: 3 Comments
In history today we were learning about Tang/Song China, and they had imperial civil service exams much more important than the SAT for them, and the rich people back then always did better.The privileged have more time to study and nothing to worry about. Also they are surrounded by very little bad things, and their parents push them because their parents are doctors, lawyers, ect.. and put their kids up to high standards. Everyone has a equal opportunity, but sometimes it seems like the rich just get everything. I don’t find this surprising in the least.
So here’s my question: Does this still hold if you look at kids who all go to the same school? Or is this trend largely explained by the fact that kids from families with more money tend to end up in better schools?
Regardless, I think at this point there’s way more than enough evidence to dispel the idea that the SAT measures innate ability.
A lot of it is because the rich kids can afford the super overpriced review classes. I know my school offers SAT camps for underprivileged children, and I think that’s the best we can do at this point. How else can you compare how much academic potential students from different schools have? An average student at a strong magnet school might have been the valedictorian at any other school. I do think the format of the SAT can be changed to veer away from simply test-taking ability, but I personally am a fan of it. And what of the ACT? That’s becoming more and more popular and arguably is a better test.