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.