This is a commonly repeated myth but it's untrue. For example, SAT coaching makes a minimal difference in test scores: https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size

In contrast, holistic measures like looking at extracurriculars are much more correlated to wealth and social status.

People always point to coaching to refute this argument but that isn't really what makes the difference. I never had any professional coaching for the SAT, but I did have:

- Access to unlimited test prep material (from College Board, Princeton Review, Kaplan, others). Each book was $100+, and I must have easily spent a few thousands on books, sample tests, vocabulary lists and other material.

- A laptop and stable internet connection.

- My own quiet and comfortable room to study in.

- No other real responsibilities taking up my time. I didn't have to cook or take care of younger siblings. Didn't have to work part time jobs after school and late into the evening/night.

- Access to private counselors through my school which was in an expensive and well-funded school district.

All of this made a huge different to my test score, and I don't see how anyone can argue that someone in a worse financial condition won't be adversely affected.

That myth comes from the test prep industry, which makes exaggerated claims about their importance.

"Once scholars control for all these factors as best they can, they find that coaching has a positive but small effect: Perhaps 10 or 20 points in total on the SAT, mostly on the math section, according to careful work by Derek Briggs of the University of Colorado Boulder and Ben Domingue of Stanford University.

...a 20-point improvement to a score in this range would have no practical meaning for students who are trying to get into more selective schools. Even when it comes to less selective schools, just 20 percent of the counselors said a boost from 430 to 450 would make a difference. In other words, research has debunked the myth that pricey test prep gives a major bump to students’ scores, but it’s also hinted that whatever modest bumps they do provide are more likely to help the people who are already at the top."

https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...

> For example, SAT coaching makes a minimal difference in test scores

I really don't understand how this statement is even remotely true.

The only thing I can think of is that "coaching" is too broad--ie. includes both students who spend 100+ hours and students who spent an hour at a talk by the guidance counselor.

Doing nothing other than taking a couple sample tests has to net you a bunch of points because you don't have to waste time reading the directions.

Simply drilling basic mathematics so I could do "1+1" and come up with 2 regularly netted me almost 250 points in Math (standardized tests like the SAT are really nasty about having answers that match the common mistakes).

Going through 6000 vocabulary words pulled my verbal up almost 250 points (and had a dramatic effect on my writing). But that's far beyond "coaching" ... that's a multi-year commitment.

You're comparing coaching to not preparing at all. The question is how much more effective is preparation with a coach, versus the same amount of preparation without one.

That's practice, right? Coaching would be practice directed by a tutor.

Coaching can help kids who otherwise wouldn't have the discipline to practice themselves (SAT prep is very boring).

Isn't the whole point of things like this to help edge cases? I grew up poor and did badly in school, but I was smart enough to score in the top 3% of SAT scores and that allowed me to get in to many colleges that I wanted, something I would not have had based on my grades and ability to pay.

“students from families earning more than $200,000 a year average a combined score of 1,714, while students from families earning under $20,000 a year average a combined score of 1,326.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat...

Correlation != Causation

Do you have a citation for the causation that you seem to strongly imply?

The article I linked above has a bunch of the sources you want if you read it.

More importantly, why use the SAT when your highschool grades are more accurate? This is what I'm really annoyed about! Why put everyone though a stressful test when your grades are more accurate?

https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/predicting-college-suc...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2018/06/11/what-...

Meaning what?

Meaning that if you have money you will get a better score than if you don't. If that's not a problem to you then fine but I think its a little messed up.

Is it just owning the money which grants you a better score? In that case that's the problem indeed. But if you think that investing money in your or your kids development is a problem I tend to disagree. That's the whole point of having money.

I understand what your trying to say but paying for a tutor to specifically train you for the SAT is not giving your child a better education. (Well it kind of is because they'll get into a better college from a better SAT score but training for the test itself doesn't really make you more educated)

If if just getting a better education gives you a better score on the SAT then that is a "problem" impossible to fix. However, teaching kids tips and tricks to do better on the SAT would have minimal effect on their actual intelligence. That right there is the main problem: Preparing for the SAT has no substantial increase in intelligence but does make it seem like you do.

I don't have much time when I'm writing this so if your confused by something just ask

I see your point now, and I do agree with it. Sorry, but it was rather difficult to get it from the original message.

Hey thanks for reading it! I thought it was a misunderstanding! (I'm sometimes not very clear)

> Isn't the whole point of things like this to help edge cases?

No, just that's a marginal side effect. The whole point of standardized testing is the "standardized" part - to provide a common metric upon which to base large scale institutional decisions.

The edge cases (and also the large biases in the system) are handled by other criteria, like weighing other aspects of a candidate's background against their academic performance.

This is why it's important that you can submit test scores if you want.

I expect a lot of people will anyway, if the test scores are good.

You can still submit test scores, this just means that the colleges don't require them.

You're right-- there will never be a metric that the rich won't find a way to game. SATs will get tutoring (and in rare cases, cheating). If colleges focus on grades, there will be grade inflation. Essays will be bought. Interviews will be coached for. Expensive family trips will be turned into stories about personal growth.

If we accept all that, the question becomes this: if you were a poor but talented kid, which metric would you like them to focus on? I was a poor immigrant raised by a single parent, and to me the answer is that I want them to focus on the SAT.

We could never afford the prep courses, but the prep books were cheap at the local bookstore and free at my high school library. I took advantage of that. Now there are even more options, such as the Khan Academy's free prep course. There's even some data suggesting the free course produces outcomes that rival the paid courses[1].

Bottom line, the SAT gave people like me a fair shot. It can be gamed a little, but I worry that replacing it with a "holistic approach" will just become a proxy for social/class status that will penalize people like me.

[1] https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/new-data-links-20-hours-pe...

How's that exactly? I studied in school, took the tests, and received a score. I didn't have SAT tutors. I took the PSAT, and I sort of remember some practice workbooks. How did my receiving decent scores on those tests indicate my social status or parent's wealth?

I think the argument is that someone whose parents are richer can afford to boost their kids' scores through tutoring, prep classes etc. So, if there are two identical kids, one whose parents have more resources will come out ahead.

I think one needs to be careful of survivorship bias here -- "the system worked for me, so it is fine".

The issue with banning SAT/ACTs, etc. is that is the system they're using in its place with actually better?

However, many well off parents will feel like they worked hard to move up, and provide their kids with best educational opportunities... but now the rules are changing. It is definitely a hard problem to try to equalize for wealth and at the same time not overly penalizing somewhat wealthy parents that also care about kids' education.

> So, if there are two identical kids, one whose parents have more resources will come out ahead.

This is true of pretty much every single thing they can use to measure students, though. Test scores, classwork scores, sports, extracurricular activities, social interactions; all of these things are easier for children in wealthier families.

And SATs are the ONE thing that has to be performed openly when it counts without any kind of coaching, proofreading, parental persuasion, or social connection.

Indeed, it is not an easy problem

He said macro level. In other words, statistically kids do better when they are in a wealthier household or have higher educated parents.

You also never mentioned what exactly your social status or wealth was then. Were you living in poverty when you got those scores?

My exeperience has much less to do with what level of poverty one was considered. Back when I was in school while Moses was in his cradle and dirt was being invented, there were no specialist tutors for taking tests. Teachers taught subjects, students learned said subject to the best of their abilities, and then took tests. Tutors were typically older students that did well in the subject matter, or even extra time with teachers before/after school. My parents would have laughed at me to ask for testing tutors, and would have rather less politely to put my nose back in a book and study harder.

Cool story and all, but it does have to do with poverty level. Did you have to worry about food or housing situations, have to take care of the household and siblings cause parent's were working, deal with substance abuse of parents, or any number of things that are common experiences among poor families?

You're basically saying your material conditions didn't matter, which is just untrue for most things.

>Cool story and all, but it does have to do with poverty level

Somethings I just don't volunteer as they are private, but since you asked in this very public forum:

>Did you worry about food or housing situations

yes

>have to take care of the household and siblings cause parent's were working

yes

>deal with substance abuse of parents

luckily, no. but abuse from parent, yes. parents with undiagnosed medical conditions, yes.

>or any number of things that are common experiences among poor families

yes

>You're basically saying your material conditions didn't matter, which is just untrue for most things.

To quote the Dude, "that's like, your opinion, man". There were definite obstacles to overcome. I was able to, others are not. I'm not judging anyone for not being able to as situations are different, yet you seem to be wanting to judge me. My economic situation changed as did the economy dictated the earning ability of parent's jobs. I was taught how to talk to people that came to the door looking for the "adults" or called on the phone (before we finally went without a phone all through my high school years). Did I live in the ghetto? No. One of the better financial decisions my parents made and were able to do was built their own house. Not paid a builder, my dad and grandfather cut the wood, swung the hammers.

What was your situation like?

Alcoholic and abusive father, enabling and abusive mother. Lived adjacent to the 'ghetto' neighborhoods in a city with a high violent crime rate. Things got a little better financially in my mid teens, but the damage had been done on a mental level.

I didn't go to college until I was 26, mostly because it never seemed like an option. Now that I've been through it and have a job and career and have been able to work through the mental damage from my childhood, I feel a huge amount of empathy for kids who are coming from similar situations.

Anyway, didn't mean to be judgmental, so apologies for that. I just feel strongly about the topic.

Wealth means that a student can receive all the advantages of the best tutoring and preps that money can buy.

They didn’t, at least not anymore than doing good in school does in general.

intelligence has a hereditary component; social status and wealth correlate with intelligence.

> on a macro level

The nature of these tests ensures that they are easy to score highly on through rote practice with a coach. Coaches cost money.

That must by why all those children of Asian immigrants excel on standardized exams, who btw also happen to be the poorest group in places like NYC. Many of them still send their kids to cram schools for coaching, however dire their financial situation, and their kids in turn sacrifice after-school, weekends, and summers vacation toiling with tutors/coaches.

This insane unfairness has to end.

That there is more than one way to excel at a standardized test does not mean that economic inequality doesn't play a big role.

Note that never at any point did I claim that _only_ money could lead to success on these tests. It's then irrelevant that a group of children from specific socio-economic and cultural circumstances and backgrounds happen to succeed on them. It doesn't matter—I didn't say it couldn't happen.

Money plays a role because of the nature of the test. It's an unescapable reality that children who would otherwise score much lower scores highly simply because their parents can afford a tutor to hammer questions into their child and resolve doubts every day. They don't learn many life skills, true mathematical appreciation, scientific knowledge, or real literary analysis skill from the 'tutoring'—the test, then, is purely a reflection of the tutoring money they spent and not their actual college readiness.

the fact that you have to exclude inconvenient evidence to justify your argument very weakens it. I'm sick of racists comments that Asians don't matter, or they are always outliers as if they are invisible, especially when it comes to education.

I don’t appreciate your characterization of my criticism of the SAT as racist.

I didn’t say that “Asians are outliers”. I said that the fact that some people don’t pay to excel at a test doesn’t make the test inherently fair.

Intelligence, on a macro level, is a measure of proper nutrition throughout childhood, which is a measure of social status and wealth.

Life, on a macro level, is not fair.

but what are the alternatives to SAT/ACT? In my mind they're even worse:

1. number of AP/IB classes student took (mostly dependent on how rich the school and how attentive and educated their parents are)

2. participation in extra-curriculars (again, participation in things Model United Nations are highly highly correlated with wealth)

3. volunteer experience or other outside of school experience (again highly correlated with wealth, students working pizza delivery at 16 don't have time for volunteering)

I'm not saying the SAT/ACT is perfect, but at least everyone can easily get free or very cheap study materials and practice exams online and from libraries.

Putting more weight on the math section than the reading/writing section which favors native speakers and those with more social context to interpret reading passages.

The purpose of standardized testing is identify the most worthy candidate. It is meant to be colorblind. Certainly it is not perfect, and wealthy families can help their kids game the system, but it is at least something. If you remove standardized testing, what will you replace it with?

Yes, but this doesn’t imply that SATs unfairly favor rich people. The most recent shared ancestor in this causal graph is “parents’ intelligence”, which causally influences both their expected wealth and their children’s intelligence. SAT is basically an IQ test.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/734/the-campus-tour-has-bee... is a good podcast explaining how

So is studying for math, or anything really.