It's far easier for rich students to game GPA, college essays and extracurriculars than it is for them to game the SAT.
For GPA, they can hire a private tutor in the subject they're struggling with. There are services out there that will basically write your english essay for you / do your math/science homework.
For college essays, they can hire college counselors to help them draft a compelling essay.
For extra curriculars, they can hire a private coach, etc.
However, there is very limited evidence that SAT coaching actually increases your SAT score. The NACAC did a study on this and they found that average gains of test-prep students is ~30 points (this was when the SAT was 2400 points).
A 30 point increase out of 2400 points is not material to college admissions.
Out of the college essay, gpa, extracurriculars, etc. the SAT is the least influenced by your socioeconomic status. There obviously is an influence, but removing the SAT means more reliance on even more skewed factors.
The rich kids in my (public) school were the ones afforded not only tutors, but also just the insight into extra-curriculars. They were the ones who had parents who knew to sign them up for college courses at ~15-16 years old to ensure they could maximize their GPA (5.0 scale, so getting a 5.0 was literally impossible unless you did this). This created a competitive disadvantage for kids who just really didn't realize these resources existed (plus, having parents that would support it + take you to the local college to take additional courses).
Not to mention that, but there were sports our school didn't participate in, but the richer kids had levels of access to that looked great on college applications - rowing and lacrosse specifically come to mind.
So, essentially - rich kids have many easier ways to pad their college applications. It's not that they aren't working hard(er) - they are. But they have easily acccessible opportunities that middle-to-lower-class students (like myself) did not have access to.
--
Coming to the SAT, I'm not surprised by that study. I wasn't afforded the same opportunities as these richer kids, but my SAT score was highly competitive with them. I was ranked 50th in my class with a 4.55 GPA (my 4.0s were gym each year, and I think one or two electives that weren't AP), but my SAT score was a 2300, which was relatively similar to most of the hyper-performant, wealthier kids.
--
This is all super anecdotal. I was definitely upset by all of this at the time - but it didn't affect my life very negatively. I still was able to get into a great school, and have a great career now. But these disadvantages certainly persist against others, and re-adding standardized tests likely will help level the playing field in my mind.
> Not to mention that, but there were sports our school didn't participate in, but the richer kids had levels of access to that looked great on college applications - rowing and lacrosse specifically come to mind.
Exactly. I went to smallish rural school. We had soccer, basketball, baseball. Youth soccer in my area was a rigged game where only people who were enrolled in the coaches summer camp would make the varsity team. Basketball had 75 kids try out for 12 spots. Baseball is ruthlessly competitive, and while I was a really good little league player, I had no chance against kids who were in multiple travel leagues, etc. I probably played 50 baseball games from age 9-12. The best players played at least 500.
My cousins went to a fancy private school. Everyone played on a varsity team; it was how they did gym. My older cousin did fencing, the middle one did basketball, the younger twins played squash. The squash guys sold themselves as a package and ended up getting a couple of ivy league places fighting for them.
I think we have a similar outlook on this. For me, getting good SAT/ACT scores let me "punch higher", and got me into some really good schools that I would not have be admitted to. Ultimately, I went to a state school, but was able to parlay the competitive nature of things to get a better grant package.
> Baseball is ruthlessly competitive, and while I was a really good little league player, I had no chance against kids who were in multiple travel leagues, etc. I probably played 50 baseball games from age 9-12. The best players played at least 500.
Same thing drove me out of baseball after age 12 or so. I had more than a little natural talent and put in some time drilling with my parents, so I could keep up with the kids doing the traveling leagues and such until (a little before) then. After that it became clear that my parents and I were gonna have to devote hundreds more hours per year (plus not a small amount of money), realistically, for me to keep playing. The gap was just growing way too fast, otherwise. What was left were bad teams/leagues where few players were really trying, so that's no fun, and ones for which I couldn't make the cut. Someone who liked it but just wanted to put in a high-side-of-normal amount of time and effort for a youth sport, had no place.
As far as extra-curricular activities go, like sports, etc., those aren't really the point. The point is for the candidate to demonstrate that they can accomplish significant things other than academics.
This can be anything. For me, I didn't do sports, or any school extracurriculars. What I did do was run a small business (paper route), used the money to fund my hotrodding efforts, was an Eagle scout (back in the days when that was something), etc.
Basically, you just gotta find something non-trivial to do that demonstrates motivation.
I went to MIT 20 years ago. Plenty of people smarter than me failed out. MIT seems to do a pretty good job of screening out people who won't pick up the material fast enough. In my experience, the ones who failed out were the ones who were plenty smart but didn't adjust fast enough to having to work hard for the first time in their lives. If you get into MIT, you've probably gotten special treatment from teachers your whole life, and not really had to work hard before.
My high school had just shy of 4,000 students in 4 grades. My senior year, I took slightly over a "full course load" at the local state university, plus went to high school 1/4 time. Technically, that wasn't supposed to happen, but administrators look the other way for smart kids. I wasn't really competing against others in my grade. People asked if I was smarter than the girl a year ahead of me who went to Harvard. She was my competition. I'm sure something similar happened with a kid a year behind me.
I knew that at MIT, I'd probably just be an average student. However, I really underestimated how hard it is to learn to work hard when you've been able to coast through your first 18 years, despite taking honors courses at the nearby state university, etc. I think the SATs are probably generally pretty good at measuring how quickly students learn, but there's a certain grit it takes to succeed at MIT that the SATs don't cover at all.
Edit: I'm also an Eagle Scout, but I came through after it became significantly easier. It seemed to me that probably at least 10% of the men at MIT were Eagle Scouts. If nothing else, it shows an ability to stick with something for at least a few years, despite it being uncool for most of your peer group.
I, too, had a disastrous freshman year due to my attempts to laze through it like I had all through public school. Fortunately, I was able to change before I was forced out.
I also got my comeuppance about being "smart".
At the time, being an Eagle wasn't cool anymore, either, and I never talked about it. I was reluctant to even mention it here. Also, these days, it seems that being an Eagle is a project for dad, while the kid is along for the ride. My parents had zero involvement with scouting.
MIT has a ~95% graduation rate, so most students really do graduate. And for the 5% that don't it's unclear how many dropped out due to the workload vs dropped out to found a company, etc. MIT has tons of internal resources to help you if you're struggling.
The shock for entering freshman is very real. I really like the practice of making your first semester Pass/No Record so that there's less pressure to try and get an A, and if you do fail it won't even be on your transcript. Second semester still treats F as No Record as well.
There's a certain subtle ego disorder that creeps up on you slowly when you're used to regularly being introduced as the smartest person someone has met, and you let that slowly become part of your identity. The people I knew who failed out had too big of an ego to seek help, and even were afraid to work too hard, because that made them feel less smart. They didn't outright brag, but were used to others doing their bragging for them, and had a kind of false modesty about them.
> What I did do was run a small business (paper route), used the money to fund my hotrodding efforts, was an Eagle scout (back in the days when that was something), etc.
If I were a college admissions officer strapped for time, I'd let the app through on proof of "Eagle Scout" and ignore the other two.
The only easier bet would be seeing the words "I'm Hungarian" on an app for a secret world-saving advanced math project.
Intention is irrelevant, the outcome is the same. A parent driving a kid to lacrosse practice every Wednesdays and Fridays shows as much potential to accomplishments as a parent asking their kid to help them with their under the table car mechanic job every weekend. Yet I bet only the former is evaluated as significant. I wonder why that is.
And was your extra-curricular activity both broadly available to lower class students (in time, cost, culturally, etc.) and a significant contributor to your acceptance?
There was no cost to joining the Boy Scouts. All you had to do was show up. About half of the troop was poverty kids. You didn't have to buy the uniform, most of the scouts never bothered acquiring one.
Your bet is based on anything? The second story is a potential sob story that plays better, barring subjective classist biases counteracting. That only points to objective test scores being a better measure.
Nope, just a feeling which is further reinforced by other posts on this thread (i.e. confirmation bias) such as:
> Standardized testing was pretty much the only reason I and many other working class folks I know could get into good schools -- I was never going to do a million side activities, and my summers were spent working, not building my academic resume.
> I grew up as a low-income minority in a single-parent household and I ended up getting into good schools pretty much only due to my high test scores, which has been a life changer. Other than test scores, I couldn't afford to do any fancy extra-curriculars.
Of course this is (somewhat) testable. I could ask different collage admission boards to summarize anonymized admission records of students where extra-curricular actives was weighted favorably for admission. And then group these activities based on how accessible they are to various wealth classes before counting them up. I don’t know if that has been done, and I’m not in a position to do it my self... so the best I can do is make a bet.
If I was in the admissions dept, I'd look favorably on an applicant who worked at a job.
I had a paper route, which was run as an independent business. I had a territory, I signed up people in it to subscribe, I delivered the papers, I collected the money, I paid for the newspapers the newspaper company dropped off. How much money I made was entirely up to how I operated. If I was sick or out of town, I had to find someone to cover for me.
There's also a lot of room to disagree as to whether playing sports counts as a meaningful accomplishment. Professional sports are pure entertainment, and succeeding even at that is extremely rare. The best argument for caring about it is that it's better than nothing, and it's something that ensures more average people have a chance to get to MIT too, even if they aren't all that intellectually minded.
I disagree completely. You could literally give zero effort, focused or not, and sit on the bench of a winning team. On top of that, your parents could have 100% made you do those things.
You could. You can just phone it in at work too, but most people don't. Sports are a place where kids figure out who they are. Not the only place, but an important one to many.
My son is 11 and loves baseball, I've coached a few times as well and it's been a great shared experience. There are definitely kids in Little League / Cal Ripkin who are there because mom & dad said so. But... I've gotten to see my son and a few of his teammates build friendships and mentor relationships with the kids ahead of and behind him that are difficult to do in a school setting.
It's a big deal. When a ten year old stops and is there to help teach an eight year old how to do something, etc those are valuable skills/processes/habits to build. They learn to lose and how to practice.
Part of the "package" a student brings to an application is how they apply those experiences. You can send a laundry list of things, or use your essay/interview to tie it together.
I don't really have evidence for this, but it's always felt like SAT/ACT coaching doesn't improve scores so much as get rid of some of the "dumb mistakes" that cost you score.
It's gonna help you when the test writer was playing some gotcha tricks with phrasing or whatever, but if you don't understand the material, even narrowing it down to a 50/50 isn't going to get you a good score, and if you truly don't understand the material you probably won't be able to eliminate half the answers anyway. And they are absolutely aware of the "answer b/c if you don't know" nugget, that's nothing special either.
Also "adaptive difficulty" systems where the system throws harder questions at you after successfully answering the easier ones are basically the "elo rating" of academics. Everyone hates elo but... it slots you into a very statistically accurate ranking. If you score highly on Level 600 questions but you are failing on the Level 700 questions, odds are good you are somewhere between 600 and 700. My understanding is that's what SAT/ACT were moving towards about 10 years ago, that it would be computerized and "everyone's test is personalized" by the elo system probing your exact knowledge level from a bank of questions with difficulty scores dynamically based on how "similar ranked" students performed on that question.
>> I don't really have evidence for this, but it's always felt like SAT/ACT coaching doesn't improve scores so much as get rid of some of the "dumb mistakes" that cost you score.
As i learned in college, the real "coaching" was rich parents getting rich kids more time on the SAT by getting psychiatric diagnostic classifications that give you more time.
Time has been the real challenge on SATs for most people beyond a certain score threshold, and money can buy time.
I finished the SAT early, and used the extra time to go back to the beginning and verify each answer. More time wouldn't have done much. If you can answer the questions, there's enough time to complete the test.
I understand your perspective-- my test memories were all breezing through tests with copious extra time... But as an educator I've noticed that there is a wide variation in the amount of time needed for a test between students. For some tasks it is nearly an order of magnitude.
The students who are quick and on the competitive math team finish something in 6-7 minutes and some other students are doing correct work but not quite done in 45 minutes. More practice doesn't seem to make them much quicker, either.
And this is in students without a formal diagnosis that allows them to spend extra time.
[There was one time I crashed and burned on a test and ran out of time... where I didn't memorize enough of a big table of identities for a trig test and ended up having to derive everything from scratch]
I hypothesize that the student who took 8 times longer isn't going to do so well at MIT.
A typical exam at Caltech would be 4 problems and 2 hours.
I never memorized the trig identities. I simply knew them from using them a lot. And having worked enough algebra/trig problems, you can just see the answer in your head as you read the problem. (This turns out to be a big timesaver at Caltech, where every course was a math course. When you're dealing with calculus, you really need to have moved past struggling with trig.)
At some point in the last 40 years, however, they've slipped my mind.
> I hypothesize that the student who took 8 times longer isn't going to do so well at MIT.
Sure. But the grandparent's point was: if you're the student taking 3x longer, your parents can buy you a disability diagnosis that gets you extra time.
> I never memorized the trig identities. I simply knew them from using them a lot.
Yah, a reasonable course would make this possible. My analytical trig class was pretty heavy on obscure identities, and the first exams I was like-- no big deal, I know how these are derived, I can figure these out as I need them... For the purpose of that class, nope.
Are you suggesting that wealthy people can bribe the profs to bestow better grades on their students?
Or the grad students who do the test grading?
BTW, Caltech's testing was done on the honor system. That meant no proctoring, and it was entirely up to the student to adhere to the time limits, and any other instructions on the test.
You didn't need wealth to cheat. Any student could, and with half a brain not get caught.
I recall one physics midterm which 2/3 of the sophomore class failed, including me. I suppose that precludes there being large scale cheating going on.
>> Are you suggesting that wealthy people can bribe the profs to bestow better grades on their students?
>> Or the grad students who do the test grading?
Not bribe. Hire as tutors with $. This happened pretty regularly at my college (Cornell) where ex-grad TAs were hired as tutors. You could focus on just what you needed to study if you could afford to hire them.
Here in the US we just went thru four years with President Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump) who could not even communicate with clarity and rattled barely coherent ideas. He graduated from Wharton, the most prestigious finance program in the US. He is just one case I thought of. Does everyone really think he was the most qualified candidate to be in the very small inbound class at Wharton? Does everyone thing he was actually qualified to graduate based on merit?
For students in the category of "exam easy. finished the exam w/o any time issues", the whole sub-thread is irrelevant. You're going to ace the exam rich, or poor.
The sub-thread and discussion is about wealth bias for exam scores.
Coaching and studying improves SAT scores. People learn the type of questions they do poorly on and can study to improve. The SAT is a test you can study for.
The SAT is a test of your academic preparation, not Raven's progressive matrices. That you can study for it is not inherently a bad thing. Portions that are highly susceptible to coaching are bad, and that's why there aren't analogies any more.
If students learn the vocabulary and practice the math to do better on the test, at some point it just becomes the Key and Peele Heist sketch: "That's called a job!"
Agreed. I spent a bunch of time a few years ago doing home-coaching for our two teenagers as they rolled into SAT time. The way you get better at the math section is to genuinely fix whatever gaps might exist in your knowledge of algebra and geometry. As OP says, that "is not an inherently bad thing."
There's probably another 20 points that can be picked up by learning to read the questions very carefully -- so that you don't race to show how quickly you can spin-up an off-task answer that precisely matches the wrong question. Getting that right also "is not an inherently bad thing."
The verbal section is a bit more of a swamp, and there might be a larger element of gamesmanship there. But for schools like MIT, where math aptitude is the main event, I think keeping a math-focused role for the SAT can help a lot.
It identifies not just the elite-school wizards with lots of AP and math SAT 800s -- but also the teens from humbler public schools that didn't have an AP track, but whose 790s on the (pre-calc focused) math SATs speak to their ability to play at a higher level.
Apropos of analogies, I think the test-takers got rid of those because they can be ridiculously skewed to particular (affluent) cultures. For some people, it's obvious if yacht-to-dingy is akin to symphony-to-quartet. For people who grew up with less money, it is a total WTF moment.
I remember an analogy question that required knowledge of alcoholic drink formulations. I was way under drinking age, and had no idea what went into a martini.
You might be under drinking age, but you should have years of practice making mummy and daddy martinis at the end of their work days if you want any chance of succeeding at $PRESTIGIOUS_OLD_INSTITUTION
The top link is a study that shows that the improvement is pretty marginal in practice.
It does miss something: in specific ethnic enclaves SAT coaching is much more effective, perhaps because of a culture of out-of-school schoolwork and teaching beyond SAT prep. Those enclaves aren't particularly wealthy either (if I recall correctly it was a Korean enclave). Even then we're talking 70 points -- not nothing, but also not a radical transformation.
I wouldn't be surprised if those improvements were mostly moving below-average scores toward the average, by giving deprived students basic skills that their "education" didn't.
And there are books available to help with a lot of that. (And I actually agree with the point that doing some amount of test prep/sample tests is helpful. But it doesn't need to be super-expensive/time-consuming. I do understand that the playing field has probably upleveled over the decades but it's still probably as democratized as any such thing is.
My own anecdotal experience confirms that sat and act tests are very studiable. Honestly even more than average tests just because there is so much material available to study with.
Yeah, I have found that it improves 3 things. (this is for GRE, which is similar)
1. Basics: If you don't know standard permutations and combinations then knowing those formulae off the top of your head is nice to have. The language portions in particular, take a lot of preparation for non-native speakers.
2. Speed: Giving a decent number of sample tests helps put you in game mode for the real thing. It also acquaints you to the manner in which questions are phrased and their intended meanings. (big deal for non-native speakers) Lastly, it helps ease anxiety.
3. Gotcha-proofing: Every examination has some familiar gotcha patterns. Some training helps in looking out for them helps.
I'd say one of the valuable things an SAT tutor could teach is an attitude: to take initiative, and reject resignment to failure.
The biggest difference I noticed in how I would take a test versus other people I tried to coach is that I viewed the test as a fun game like a challenging video game level. And those who struggled on the test viewed it as dreadful judgement being rendered on them.
It's like when you can tell someone is extremely self-conscious while dancing: Beyond teaching them any actual dance moves, you have to turn off the part of their brain which is blocking their natural mental resources for problem solving, and that's often the fear they are inadequate to the task, will disappoint their supporters, and that it will hurt their future prospects.
> My understanding is that's what SAT/ACT were moving towards about 10 years ago, that it would be computerized and "everyone's test is personalized" by the elo system probing your exact knowledge level from a bank of questions with difficulty scores dynamically based on how "similar ranked" students performed on that question.
That is indeed where they're moving. They've recently announced that the SAT will be transitioning to a digital, adaptive test in the next 1-2 years. [1]
Notably, the upcoming iteration of the test will only be semi-adaptive, adjusting the version of the second half of the test based on your performance on the first half, rather than adapting to your performance on a question-by-question basis.
I suspect overall this will be an improvement in the accuracy of the results. As it stands, for students with a strong math background, a majority of the math questions on the current test are far too easy and cloud their results on the rest. With the recent removal of the CollegeBoard's math subject tests, high-level math students have very few opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge using a standardized metric.
I think that is great. Once you get past a certain threshold, the test loses prediction value. Giving the kids in the top 5% a way to differentiate is great.
My kid didn't get to take an SAT/ACT due to Covid. They did end up with a substantially lower PSAT score due to one of those dumb mistakes. They missed one "easy" question on the math portion while nailing almost everything else. The difference between National Merit Scholar Finalist and a "really good score".
They're doing great at a top 50 university now but it probably was the difference between waitlist and admit at two top 15 schools.
> SAT/ACT coaching doesn't improve scores so much as get rid of some of the "dumb mistakes"
If so, that still doesn't imply that rich kids with access to private tutors will necessarily do better on these tests than poor kids - just that anybody with the motivation to read a test-prep book will.
I live in a very rich town, like super rich. I work in tech so am rich by the standards of general population, but by the standards of Silicon Valley.
My child did very well on the ACT. All she did was buy a $35 practice book, which almost anyone can do. Literally this was it. Furthermore, she doesn’t know of a single friend or acquaintance that hired a private tutor.
All the nay-sayers belly-ache about this but for most children, even the “rich” ones, this simply isn’t true. It’s most definitely not necessary.
Considering the weight of the SATs/ACTs you would figure a student would at least buy a cheap book and put in two hours per week for a few weeks in practice. In practice, the vast majority of students who do this do quite well. The improvement is dramatic.
Everyone wants to always blame “the system” which yes, has an influence, but nobody wants to put ANY responsibility on the student themselves.
As one of those private tutors that the ultra-rich hire, I can definitely support most of what you've said here.
The greatest service that private tutoring provides is structure, accountability, and guidance. A dedicated student working independently through quality practice materials (many of which are cheap or free) can absolutely attain most if not all of the beneficial outcomes of preparing with a tutor/service.
I think when people look at inequity in college admissions, standardized testing ends up being an easy, tangible target, but not a particularly important one. If you want to look at how wealth impacts standardized test scores, focusing on paid preparation programs is missing the larger picture.
Wealthy students have had literate parents who can afford books and have the time to read to them when they're toddlers. They've gone to safe schools where the teachers can focus on teaching rather than making sure the students are well fed. They are surrounded by adults who have gone to college and can serve as role models for positive academic behavior. They have friends who are all taking the same tests and applying to the same schools to provide emotional and thoughtful support.
The collegeboard markets the SAT as measuring preparedness for secondary education. These students have been preparing for college their entire lives; is it any wonder that they score higher?
Thank you. You absolutely validate my own observations.
I went to college. My parents did, as did my extended family on one side. I saw both sides and chose this one.
I picked a town where my children would be surrounded by an environment where cool was defined as “good at school”. I didn’t want external influences contradicting my influence.
My child is dedicated, but I taught that dedication.
A parent doesn’t have to be rich to understand the importance of a good education. My mother came from a dirt poor background.
People never say it’s an advantage to have parents that care about education. They always put the blame somewhere else. The parents worked too hard, whatever. For different traits, some parents are just better than others. Academics is just one trait. Is the most important? No, but it’s one that’s easy to measure.
I agree. I spent some time as a Kaplan tutor. The students in my experience fell into a few buckets:
1. They already know the material/are serious and would do fine without tutoring (maybe some small help here and there)
2. They kind of care, but need structure to study. They probably wouldn't study or study effectively without being in a class or having someone for accountability.
3. They don't care and their parents are paying for someone to babysit them to study
IQ is quite heritible. This is especially so when upbringing is not neglectful. People who land very high paying tech roles are probably average higher in IQ than the general population.
Your daughter likely has the benefit of strong academic genetics. A child like that who puts in effort (i.e. works through a book) is going to do amazingly well. I'd also argue that families who value academics are also more likely to buy the books to do a couple hours per week in.
The $250k to put a totally unqualified student through school would pay for a lot of test prep hours at some impoverished schools.
It would likely take about 10 contact hours (1h/week, 10 weeks), basically enough coaching so that the result is not artificially low through under-preparation.
Let’s say it costs $100/hr all-in to coach 10 kids. So for $1k you can get 10 applications from motivated, underprivileged kids whose SATs are representative of their ability.
For one $50k annual ride you could run this in 50 low income schools and get 500 underprivileged applicants and then actually admit some of them who might benefit.
Rather than refusing to test, and wasting those resources supporting some kid who obviously won’t hack it.
Do you honestly believe that if you were from a very poor town, poor by the standards of african american neighborhoods in Detroit, that giving your child a $35 practice book would have a similar outcome?
My mother was an orphan at 15 in Honduras. When she had me, she shared a 400 square foot house with six of her sisters.
Look up the crime stats for Honduras and try again.
Also, looking at the very worst situations is not a valid argument. By that rational, what about the poor girl who is kept a sex slave in her basement by her father for twenty years?
Do you think sending your African American example to SAT prep will make a difference? Coming from the poorest and sketchiest towns in America? Such a child would likely be better served by starting at a community college. After that, SATs are not accepted.
My experience with "10 Sample SATs" which was my only prep was about 500 points of improvement. IIRC I was about a 1050-1100 on my first, and my best V/M combo was 1450 (back in early 90s, so pre-recentering). I actually did about 1380, I had a so-so actual one.
It probably is the best bang for the buck, if you're already 1-2 standard deviations on general intelligence. Because the test is a game like admissions is a game, so if you're smart enough to see the game, it's easier and most effective to practice with that.
For the "normals", I have no idea if it will work. But we're specifically discussing MIT, who do NOT want normals, I'm not good enough. They want 2-3 standard deviations people.
MIT should be able to weight for socioeconomic and location/environment given the amount of information required for financial aid and "the internet".
If this becomes ubiquitous, I can see suburbanites getting ghetto apartments for the address to game the weights :-)
Those places are sadly lacking even in the most basic standards of education, so their potential ACT scores are frankly irrelevant as is admission to MIT. You gotta learn to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run.
Not only is this analogy wrong (there are plenty of animals that run the moment they are born) but it is also deeply insensitive.
The reason people do worse from underprivileged is not only the lack of quality education, but a fundamental difference in the quality of life. Everything from the diet, to available time, and noise pollution, all makes a difference on education level. Our education system relies heavily on outside help, and poorer neighborhoods often don’t have the time and energy to give their kids even the most basic help with their homework.
> Everything from the diet, to available time, and noise pollution, all makes a difference on education level. Our education system relies heavily on outside help, and poorer neighborhoods often don’t have the time and energy to give their kids even the most basic help with their homework.
The analogy is correct because we’re talking about people.
Parents are the primary educators. When they aren’t educating, or need to educate on too many other things, academics suffer. This is news to nobody. It would be highly suspicious if environment had no influence on educational outcomes.
As a middle class going poorer higschool student (dad lost his desk job, mom had to start working again to keep the house, tried moving to cheaper city and it didn't work out, had to apply for scholarships for stuff, never had money to go out weekends, etc, etc) I think the thing resourceful people overlook that "rich" kids have in higschool and "poor" kids don't, is a space to study. Just a personal quiet space where you can deploy your book or laptop and write some stuff maybe with headphones maybe not but definitely without your parents screaming or the TV blasting stuff about social protests or whatever.
In college most of my other "poor" friends that made it either also had a space like that or were taught by their parents to study in public libraries or other spaces designed for concentration.
You aren't rich if you have to work and you're relying on what a high school student tells you who doesn't know all the details of the lives of other students, just what they tell her. In my experience as a student, other students will keep their tutoring and hand-ups under wraps.
>It's far easier for rich students to game GPA, college essays and extracurriculars than it is for them to game the SAT.
Disagree. I worked for the Princeton Review while in college back in the day. We would outright guarantee 99th percentile for one on one tutoring. If you didn't get 99th percentile the course was refunded or you could take it again. For classroom tutoring we would guarantee some improvement of I believe 200 (out of 1600) with the same refund or take it again option. Candidly, no one would pay for a prep course for a 30 point gain. These course are expensive. Some of them hundreds of dollars per hour.
The cited research is pretty fundamentally flawed.
"Although extensive, the academic research base does have limitations. Most notably, few published studies have been conducted on students taking admission tests since 2000. Only two studies have been published on the effects for ACT scores, and no studies have been published since the 2005 change to the SAT, which added the Writ- ing section among other changes."
This position also doesn't pass the sniff test. GPA is accumulated over four years of study. SAT/ACT is a single test. You can't retroactively improve your GPA by doing better in the past. But you can dramatically improve your SAT/ACT results.
> If you didn't get 99th percentile the course was refunded or you could take it again
Plenty of other domains have study programs with similar guarantees where the program has little to no effect-- it's a simple economic calculation: Set your rates so you make a good profit even if the program has no effect (even if you allow retaking the course, students won't be willing to waste their time and yours forever).
It would be more informative if you knew the actual before/after performance for the program. Elsewhere this has been studied (see links in the thread) and the improvement wasn't that substantial.
> You can't retroactively improve your GPA by doing better in the past.
Indeed, which means that people who's families have been carefully shepherding their education since they were much younger have an _insurmountable_ advantage in the GPA game. For people people who don't come from highly educated families, they only learn about the GPA boosting games as they start thinking about college years to late to take full advantage of them.
>Plenty of other domains have study programs with similar guarantees where the program has little to no effect-- it's a simple economic calculation: Set your rates so you make a good profit even if the program has no effect (even if you allow retaking the course, students won't be willing to waste their time and yours forever).
They offer a refund or to retake the course. It is indeed a simple economic calculation. The company would quickly go bankrupt if a sizable percentage of students were refunding. The company itself, and the location I worked, had excellent reviews. Even today it has a 4.9 star rating on Google Maps. Quite a high rating for a service that people in this comment section proclaim has no impact.
Intuitively, how could it be correct that people pay thousands of dollars on these courses and receive zero or near to zero benefit from them? If this were true no one would take the courses, the courses would be rated poorly, and the underlying business would fail.
>Indeed, which means that people who's families have been carefully shepherding their education since they were much younger have an _insurmountable_ advantage in the GPA game.
Sure, but the context is "which is easier to game." To game the GPA takes four years of study and prep and you must start doing it at the beginning of grade 9. Tens of thousands of dollars and preparation+work over multiple years. To game the SAT or ACT you must spend a few thousand dollars during grade 11 or grade 12.
> To game the SAT or ACT you must spend a few thousand dollars during grade 11 or grade 12.
"Or check out a SAT book or two for free from the library.", says my partner from an extremely poor family who got into college on the basis of her perfect SAT score and whom never would have qualified to a prestigious school on a GPA basis. (And whom was also admitted to law school on the basis of a nearly perfect LSAT, which she studied for only with free and extremely low cost used materials)
> Intuitively, how could it be correct that people pay thousands of dollars on these courses
People, particularly those to whom a thousand dollars isn't a big deal, spend all kinds of money on speculative and outright ineffective treatments. Including mystical mumbojumbo, quack medical treatments, and products and services which accomplish nothing except contributing to the 'identity' they present to themselves and others. ("I am a parent who cares, look I spent $zillions getting Jr the best opportunities!").
> To game the GPA takes four years of study and prep and you must start doing it at the beginning of grade 9. Tens of thousands of dollars and preparation+work over multiple years. To game the SAT or ACT you must spend a few thousand dollars during grade 11 or grade 12.
I think on this point we're agreeing to a great extent but we're drawing opposite conclusions. I agree SAT improves with focused study, though I believe that improvement is available for free (other than time and knowing you should do it).
You seem to agree with me that it is very expensive to hyper-optimize GPAs, requiring costs and actions extremely early and on a sustained basis.
My conclusion from this is GPA optimization relatively more available to students with more affluent families, because it takes more time, more money, and requires it earlier and more speculatively. -- we don't have an option where you can't improve your performance with the input of time,money, care but we can choose metrics where the available improvement is available to more people.
> Intuitively, how could it be correct that people pay thousands of dollars on these courses and receive zero or near to zero benefit from them?
Because the people paying have a sample size of n=1?
Look, any test will be subject to random measurement noise. If you got a bad night's sleep, got lost on the way to the test, had an argument with your parents or broke up with your boy/girlfriend, you're probably going to do worse. Conversely, if you had a nutritious breakfast or take a version of the test with lots of questions similar to the ones you practiced on you'll do better. Some people get "lucky" (for lack of a better word), while some get "unlucky".
The thing is, unlucky people are far more likely to retake the test and pay for test prep. So people enrolled in you test prep class are NOT a random sample of high school students. The sample is biased to include more unlucky people and fewer lucky people.
People paying for your service don't know whether their child was unlucky or not.
I used the work "lucky" for a reason. It is less likely that those negative factors would affect the student both times they take the test than just one time. So someone who encountered a confluence of unlucky factor for the first test might score higher on the second test simply by having fewer unlucky factors--or even just being more familiar with the test, having taking it previously.
> If this were true no one would take the courses, the courses would be rated poorly, and the underlying business would fail.
Your course doesn't need to actually help anyone. Your customers just need to believe it helped them. How do they know whether you actually helped, or whether the improved test scores are down to luck?
Does your average customer have 20 grandchildren who they can randomly split into test and control groups? Or do they have an imperfect understanding of statistics?
Glad you mentioned this. I went to a strong wealthy public high school with a high asian population (~50%?). When I was there, a lot of my friends were 2nd generation immigrants and their parents still spoke their native language at home. Their kids (my friends) were perfectly fluent/native in English but didn't do as well in the "edge vocabulary" parts of the SAT and I always figured that was why (in comparison to me and my english-at-home parents).
> Candidly, no one would pay for a prep course for a 30 point gain.
My understanding of the research in this area is that the 30 point gain is if you compare people who take a prep course to people who put in an equivalent amount of time preparing on their own with the widely available (e.g. can check them out of the local public library in many cases) preparation materials.
The 200 point gain is if you compare people who did the prep to people who have not done any prep.
The set of people who can't make themselves put in the time without the structure of a course would benefit by a lot more than 30 points from the course, and would pay for it. And do.
I vaguely recall a question on the Duke University application about what assistance you received with your college application efforts. (I can’t remember if test prep was included specifically.) I’m sure that some people lie by omission, but maybe asking this question is better than not asking it.
This times 10. GPAs have been rendered close to useless, especially at identifying above average ability, due to grade inflation, and also extreme variability between schools. Same for valedictorian and other appellations.
yeah this is a really hard problem and I don't see a fix outside of standardized testing. Every school is individually incentivized to use every trick - grading out of 5.0, grading loosely, giving a bonus score for AP/IB courses "because of difficulty", etc and teachers are obviously very sympathetic to the future of their students and the impact that being a Grading Nazi could have. And parents are obviously incentivized to find the school that's going to make Little Billy look best (best educated is great but not sufficient, that's why we're discussing testing).
You need a uniform grading system, which means a uniform material and a uniform grading process, which is... standardized testing, or at least AP/IB courses.
i came from a rural high school that didn't have any ap/ib courses. i wonder how much that affected my college applications.
i still got to go to the college of my choice (fire up chips!) but i have to wonder -- if i was able to boost my gpa using ap/ib courses, would i have received more scholarship opportunities/better offers from other schools?
That assumes the AP classes would have boosted your GPA. If the harder class knocked you from an A to a B then it would have been a net negative, at least at my high school (AP counted as a 1.2 weighting, so an A in a regular class is 4.0 and a B in an AP class is 3.0 * 1.2 = 3.6).
Admissions officers will tell you they are aware of what programs schools have, and take that into account. If your school has no AP with GPA inflation your 3.x is the same as a 4.x at some bigger high school. How true that is idk.
that may be true for colleges looking at local feeder schools ("northwestern knows that my high school doesn't have grade inflation"), but I don't know how that idea scales nationwide or internationally. To steal an example, how does a college in Seattle know that a high school in Illinois has grade inflation or not? is that tracked anywhere centralized?
you could certainly look at past performance of students from that school but that turns into a "legacy system with more steps"...
Anecdotal, but it seems universities have solved this by figuring out which schools have grade inflation. I went to a gifted school in Chicago that was quite competitive and did not have grade inflation. 20% of the school went to Northwestern every year because they'd accept every B student.
For one thing, if a school has grade inflation so bad that even an A+ from that school isn't enough to get into Yale - is that a problem?
For another example, if adjustment for grade inflation means Yale will ask for an A+ from Martin Luther King High, Detroit while they'll accept a B from Phillips Academy, Andover - is that a problem?
Well the thing is I went to an inner city public high school. It was much closer to "Martin Luther King High, Detroit" than it was to a prep school. Majority of students were below the poverty line, yet almost half were accepted to Northwestern every year, many with full rides.
I've met people from elite private day schools. Their education in a different world than 99.99% of public high schools, except maybe a few like Stuyvesant in NYC and Lowell in SF, or the fortunate few where 3/4 of the kids have parents who are doctors or college professors (why not both?).
Exactly. What teacher is going to fight for the B when the parents are complaining to the administration she’s keeping their precious angel from Harvard?
The SAT, ACT, and even IQ tests, were originally created in part to help identity promising students who weren't from upscale backgrounds.
I'm not 100% sure that the tests can't be coached, but certainly not like the "leadership", etc.
And even if they can't be raised by coaching, the scores can certainly be lowered by poor education and a chaotic living situation.
EDIT: Most people who can pay for coaching are already sending their kids to the kind of high schools that serve to get them ready, so they are close to their peak already.
Even things like summer public service, there are consultants who can tell you, based on your target school, the best one for that school, like is it better to work on a clinic project in Honduras, or teach basic literacy in Burkina Faso.
Never mind that the plane fare to get your youth group to Burkina Faso would pay the school fees for an entire village, with enough left over to pay 1/2 the teacher's salary for a year.
Being a poor student myself, the EC is way more expensive and challenging for poor families(can not afford those at all), comparatively, SAT/ACT is actually much easier, a few books and keep bugging teachers can carry a long way at extremely low-cost. Comparing to EC's cost(and time), SAT/ACT mentor(online or offline) is still fairly affordable.
Living in internet era, I am jealous that nowadays 'poor' students can find so much resources online, most for free, even MIT courses! All you need is an ordinary computer and maybe internet access, which are quite affordable for nearly all families in US.
I will vote up for SAT/ACT and vote down on those EC from a socioeconomic perspective if I have to pick one.
I took one of those expensive SAT prep courses and yes, I agree that those don't increase scores very much, the program I took was awful.
However, I totally disagree that rich people can't game the SAT. I used to be a moderator at /r/SAT and /r/ACT on reddit. All of the questions and answers for all of the exams, including subject tests are known and published online. Both SAT and ACT routinely reuse exams from prior years, and anyone who puts in enough time to study the old exams can do well on the exams. And rich people have the luxury of more time to study, because they don't have to work second jobs or cook for their families or clean the house after school and have more services that can save them time.
> And rich people have the luxury of more time to study, because they don't have to work second jobs or cook for their families or clean the house after school and have more services that can save them time.
Unlike tricks for getting into university like studying after school for classes, hiring private tutors, or taking extracurriculars like lacrosse or rowing, which are great levelers equally accessible to the rich and the poor.
> And rich people have the luxury of more time to study
Those rich students, they cheat by studying harder!
Btw, I don't actually think being rich correlates with better academic achievements. It's better to be in the middle, not rich, not poor. To keep motivated.
Did you bother to read the letter? This is directly addressed:
"This may seem like a counterintuitive claim to some, given the widespread understanding that performance on the SAT/ACT is correlated with socioeconomic status. Research indeed shows some correlation, but unfortunately, research also shows correlations hold for just about every other factor admissions officers can consider, including essays, grades, access to advanced coursework (as well as opportunities to actually take notionally available coursework), and letters of recommendations, among others. Meanwhile, research has shown widespread testing can identify subaltern students who would be missed by these other measures."
Why do you say rich kids have more time? I grew up in an underprivileged area and I very much disagree that poorer kids are getting their free time hammered.
Thanks for the interesting link. However, based on the paper, it seems like a "30 point increase out of 2400 points" could be significant. The study says:
"A survey of NACAC-member colleges unexpectedly revealed that in a substantial minority of cases, colleges report either that they use a cut-off test score in the admission process or that a small increase in test score could have a significant impact on an applicant’s chances of being admitted." (p. 2)
The paper later notes:
"These results indicate that in some cases more than one third of postsecondary institutions agreed that a score increase on the SAT-M of 20 points, or a score increase on the SAT-CR of 10 points, would 'significantly improve student’s likelihood of admission.' This proportion tends to rise as the base level of the SAT score before the 20 or 10 point score improvement rises. This is especially true for the more selective institutions. At lower scores on the SAT scale, a small score increase does the most to improve a student’s chances of admission at less selective institutions; at higher scores, the same increase appears to have an equally large or even larger impact at more selective institutions." (p. 19)
The graphs on pages 18 and 19 give more detail.
The paper also notes that "The College Board gives a specific example of a use that should be avoided: 'Making decisions about otherwise qualified students based only on small differences in test scores'." So it appears that up to a third of the institutions surveyed are not following this guideline. It would be interesting to know who they are.
I agree with your comment about rich kids gaming GPA, essays, and extracurriculars. Daniel Markovits addresses many of these points in "The Meritocracy Trap". Since I don't see how you can prevent gaming GPA, essays, or extracurriculars, given the alternatives, you're probably right that the tests may be better in this respect.
I used to take the ACT for people, they'd pay me in beer (which I wasn't old enough to buy for myself). You'd get ID'd at the entrance, but nobody kept track of whether the name on your test was the name on your ID, so you'd just take each other's tests.
This was in 2004. I was 17, they were in their mid 20's.
I know that one was training to be a dental hygienist, or at least wanted to be training for that. The other few didn't share as much, but they all knew each other so maybe it was the same thing?
I highly doubt I've harmed anyone by enabling their hygienist to get where she was without knowing the formula for the volume of a cone. As far as I'm concerned the gumption necessary to hack your way in is worth just as much as the gumption needed to pass authentically.
And 18 year olds aren't taking the ACT. Or if they are, there are other reasons why they aren't getting into certain schools and they aren't as concerned with getting good ACT scores.
Not to mention, the drinking age being 18 was for a window of about 14 years in the 70s and 80s. (Unless he's from Louisiana)
No this was my older co-workers. My academics were fresh because I was still in high school, theirs was rusty because they had graduated several years prior without bothering to take the ACT.
Kids who aren't coached on the test strategy do worse. My high school did no SAT prep, and my parents weren't really aware of it. I was lucky in that I had an AP History teacher whose goal was for every kid to get a "5", that meant incorporating test strategy into the flow.
You needed to know stuff as the ante, but knowing the magic bullshit that would give you a good essay score was the key to get the top score. I increased my score ~120 points from taking the PSAT blind in 10th grade to the SAT because I understood at that point that strategy was key and found out about it.
All of this stuff is a red herring though. The nut of the controversy is that standardized tests correlate to IQ. IQ, rightly or wrongly, is perceived to be culturally biased.
Anecdotally I think it raised my scores by maybe 100 points. Not coaching so much as just doing practice tests to learn that, especially for the reading, the questions were actually pretty dumb. Lots of them are asking for the most basic insights. This is surprisingly non obvious or at least was not to me at the time. Many questions were filled with "traps" of answers that felt more insightful and more broadly relevant; but less relevant to the specific passages being questioned on.
I'm not so sure about that. About 20 years ago, counselors advised taking the SAT/ACT only once, since your score wouldn't really change.
I took the SAT several times. Each time my score went up significantly. My high school ended up creating a new award category for "greatest score increase", or something to that effect. I believe it was ~200 points.
I'd taken a prep course being offered by a local instructor. However, the biggest benefit was from dedicated self-study (Kaplan books, as I recall).
> A 30 point increase out of 2400 points is not material to college admissions.
Not so sure about that. Beyond the fact that that number is an average, the question is from where to where. So many kids get perfect 2400 scores that going from 2370 to 2400 might be the difference of getting eliminated from competitive admission pools altogether. Whereas nobody will care about you going from 1850 to 1880.
P.s. I am dating myself a bit with the 2400 range, which seems to have changed at some point. Transform accordingly :-)
Are there really that many kids getting perfect scores?
I got a pretty low/average score, but took the test early in junior year so I hadn't taken some of the more advanced math courses yet. I never took it again since I got into everywhere I applied to (didn't apply to ivy league, obviously). Seemed like most other kids I knew did similarly with the smartest kids maybe 150 points higher (2400 time-frame). Nobody I know got a perfect score, or even close to it.
Edit: man, after talking about this I want to see what my score was exactly. No way am I paying $30 for an archived score though. I want to say it was only 1200/1600 (the schools only wanted 2 of the sections). But I'm not sure I trust my memory for something so inconsequential from that long ago.
Extra edit: found my old score report. It's worse than I thought. The writing was 570 (74th percentile) and math was 510 (47th percentile). I'm a lot dumber than I remember.
Looks like it's 1% between 1550-1600. I couldn't find stats for an actual perfect score. Saying it's crowded I guess is ok, but is a matter of perspective. Like the top 1% of income earners saying their yacht club is crowded. Maybe true, but only for a very small number of people who could choose to go somewhere else if they actually wanted to.
Yeah no the study was definitely not about test prep getting people from 2370 to 2400 lmao. There is no test prep service in the world that will claim they can get you from a 2370 - 2400.
The mean SAT score is ~1600, so it's a 30 point increase for students scoring in that range.
If you're already capable of getting a 2350+, that means you know everything and it's just down to variance and not making a silly mistake.
A perfect 2400 score is actually really rare. From a stat in 2009, the collegeboard reported that 1 student out of every 5,000 taking the SAT gets a 2400.
I took it back when it was out of 1600 and missed a perfect by one question; however I don't think I was exceptionally brilliant or anything.
The SAT does not operate in the way the LSAT or some other computerized tests work where it keeps giving you harder and harder questions until you start getting them wrong.
I suspect more people could get a 2400 if those who get really close bother retaking it.
But test prep is marketed to people who are average or below average. Saying you can gain hundreds of points is clearly misleading/deceptive advertising.
I have a family friend who does consulting for rich kids w/ college admissions.
You basically have someone who's on the board of an elite university coaching kids on their essay, clueing them into extra-curriculars, etc. They get paid pretty well.
I also had a dinner conversation from a lady with two children in Ivy league universities who said she emphasized with the parents who went to jail for bribing schools to get their childrens admitted and would do it herself if her children couldn't get in the school. She also personally knows one of the people doing jail time for bribery.
I had basically no adult academic/university guidance growing up. I just liked reading books in the library and studying things I liked. I was able to receive a scholarship to my university through my SAT scores. I'm not sure how I would square up in the current academic environment when I see the sheer amount of parent involvement in the application process. I also went to a smaller university where the level of tactics and skullduggery is limited.
> The NACAC did a study on this and they found that average gains of test-prep students is ~30 points (this was when the SAT was 2400 points).
> A 30 point increase out of 2400 points is not material to college admissions.
There must be some subset of students who gain much more from "test prep" than others? Even if its benefits for the average student are marginal, maybe there is a certain type of student for whom it is much more beneficial?
Not American so never did the SAT, but I honestly think I would have done much better in high school if I had one-on-one private tutoring. I struggled with focus and one-on-one attention helps keep me focused. Our son is similar – he's gifted and demonstrates his giftedness when the teacher focuses on him one-on-one, but then the teacher has to go spend time on the rest of the class, and as soon as that happens he stops doing any work.
>However, there is very limited evidence that SAT coaching actually increases your SAT score. The NACAC did a study on this and they found that average gains of test-prep students is ~30 points (this was when the SAT was 2400 points).
IIRC SAT's equivalent of Matura in Poland, so I'll be talking about my case
I've been taking advanced math exam and I had some time + some money (like 10% of minimal wage) during winter break and I decided to buy 3 lessons on analytical geometry cuz I've been terrible at geometry, but since that was analytical, then I've seen a chance to get into that
I've attended those 3 lessons, did some exercises and guess what
on official exam there actually was a task from analytical geometry and I managed to do it and receive full points, which basically increased my score by 10 percentage points (that's a lot, I'd say)
Saying that 10% of minimal wage spent was equal to 10 perc. points is naive, but you get the point
What if I were attending those for whole year? 2? 3? hard to say.
>Rich students don't need to game anything. They simply get admitted because their family name is on a building.
The mean parental income for Ivy League students is 170k, which is above middle class, but not Bezos-level rich.
What is considered to be rich is a huge spectrum. The difference between 7 figure rich vs. 9 figure rich..is up to a factor of 1000. Those whose parents can donate enough to be commemorated on a building, is an outlier even for the rich. Unless your parents are dynastically rich, being rich is not that much of an advantage for admissions.
> instead to guarantee a standard distribution of scores
Which is precisely what you want in an assessment test. Any assessment test.
You only want a normal distribution if the quality under assessment is normally distributed, but you do want a test where the worst candidate does better than chance, and exactly one candidate gets a perfect score. That's an ideal which is only approximated, but it is the ideal.
For context I graduated high school in the late nighties (I took the paper/scantron test).
At the time, the SAT was purported to provide a score that predict ability to perform academically at higher learning institutions.
Along with other factors such as GPA, and participation in extra curricular activities, a school could reasonably determine how well a student would do.
In practice, the normal distribution for scores correlated with the distribution of college performance. It was a reasonable predictor of success, but it did penalize students from certain backgrounds.
Because the test was devised by psychologists and statisticians, uncovering the pattern to the types of questions and the expected answered allowed test prep people to devise tricks to improve scores beyond the expected deviation.
Your first post claims it isn't a test of scholastic aptitude, and then this one says that it does predict scholastic success, and what could reliably predict scholastic success other than a test of scholastic aptitude?
Sure, a big donation by the student's dad, but that's a known quantity. I took the same SAT you did if it matters.
Which certain backgrounds are you referring to? I'd ask you for the references to show the supposed boost that test prep gives to SAT scores, but then I'd have to find the papers that fail to reproduce it...
I wonder how much taking the SAT multiple times plays a role. Personally I took it at least three times, and my score improved each time (don't remember by how much).
Which is also tied to socioeconomic status. If you can pay, your score will go up the more you take it, according to my experience, and the college board.
If you can't pay, you take it the one time it's offered for free if your school offers that. Then you get what you get.
I think we should learn from the gaokao and only test once a year. The fact that you can pay for more tests (and pay more for "score choice") is the most unjust part of the whole thing.
Counterpoint, you don’t want being sick or having a bad day to ruin your chances at what you’ve been working for for years. Also, being under pressure is generally not good for people’s ability to reason calmly - another reason not to make it so high stakes. So I really hope what you’re suggesting doesn’t come to pass.
We should probably make the SAT nearly free, though, if that price actually keeps people who’d otherwise go to college from taking it more than once.
A: Should your entire future job prospects be dictated by something that an abstract employer in the future might want? Or should the test we use try to get at what is really important; actual knowledge and skill?
It's been decades, but back when I was in high school rich kids paid people to fake their identity to take the tests (with fake IDs). I heard rumors that it was a dozen kids in my graduating class, and witnessed 2 myself. 1 was caught.
Does anyone know if they have better checks for this now?
I am all for reinstating the SATs, but it’s a stretch to say that it’s not impacted by socioeconomics. While test prep may have limited value, a lifetime of wealth provides more educational opportunities.
As a counterargument, a fake ID is all that a rich person needs to put a smart kid in their place at the testing center. Those places are usually huge, nobody knows anyone, and if you flash a legit looking ID, you will have no trouble sitting the test. GPA and such require effort over years to game (and maybe the kid actually learns something from all that tutoring, who knows).
Do you speak from experience? I attended it for grad school and not undergrad, but there was the expectation that you stand on your own. I was in one of the rare programs that was a terminal masters and you had to reapply for the PhD, and only 50% were accepted to the PhD.
I think there probably aren't too many failing out of undergrad simply because they do a great job of filtering in the first place. But I know people who attended that certainly struggled... one who came a C student and still want on to a great medical school and a successful career. There isn't grade inflation.
That depends on your definition of grade inflation. I think most of my undergrad classes at MIT had a median grade somewhere in the B range, maybe B-. Edit: I know some people consider a non-inflated grade curve to be C-centered.
I came to MIT with more than a year's worth of credits from the U of MN, including 6 trimesters of honors level math[0] (multivariable calc, linear algebra, diff. eq.). I had all As, except a B in my Intro to World Politics class. My senior year of HS, I was actually taking a bit over a "full course load" at the U of MN, plus 1/4 time at my HS.
I could sleepwalk through nearly straight A's at a pretty well regarded school's honors program. I was a B/C student at MIT. I like to think that a lot of it was that some "wise" uperclassmen had sat me down my freshman year and explained that once you had a degree from MIT, nobody would ask for your GPA. (The were wrong, BTW. Work for those grades.) I taught myself most of a CS degree while earning a degree in Mechanical Engineering. However, I was also too slow to put my ego in check and admit to myself that I really needed to work hard.
Sounds like you’re effectively saying there wasn’t grade inflation. You were an A student elsewhere and then become a B/C student at MIT despite working hard. That’s my point — now imagine you were only an A student because you were rich and somehow swindled those good grades in high school. Imagine what would happen at MIT.
Note that Harvard undergrad has something like an A- average. That’s grade inflation.
I certainly agree with your broader point: nobody is handed a degree from MIT. If they have a degree, they've put in the work and have a good grasp of the subject matter. (Also, MIT doesn't give out honorary degrees.)
I also attended it for grad school only. Nobody was even close to failing out. I don't think MIT did a lot of grade inflation and generally regard it as a very strong academic institution.
That's not incompatible with weaker students being able to pass by with lower grades. Getting bare minimum grades just isn't that difficult.
edit: teammwork also seemed to be strongly encouraged. It wasn't a place that wanted you to fail. It wanted to help you succeed, which is by all means a good thing.
Well, Trump did it, that's one data point. Also, he did fine at U Penn, an Ivy, so why should we assume MIT is so awesome that another rich kid couldn't cheat his way through there?
I'm just saying that U Penn, being an Ivy, has as much "reputation" as MIT, CalTech, etc. Until someone pipes up with some sort of proof that it is actually better (which I doubt it is), then why should U Penn's reputation allow a Trump to go through, but at MIT such a thing could never occur? I'm not seeing it frankly.
MIT is absolutely harder and more rigorous than UPenn (and, for that matter, HYP). If you compare the GPAs of people from those schools and e.g. MCAT scores, MIT students exhibit a much stronger positive correlation.
This is pretty common knowledge, in the same way people know that Berkeley and CalTech have tougher classes than Stanford.
As an MIT grad with many friends at other Ivies, I can tell you that it is more rigorous than pretty much all of them. Princeton is probably the closest.
1) The solution to that is to improve security measures. Not to remove the SAT entirely.
2) It is significantly harder to find someone who can score well on the SAT and is willing to take the test for you compared to gaming GPA, extra curriculars, etc.
I've heard of tons of instances of people hiring homework-help services, their dad paying $5k to get their extra-curricular club going, private tennis lessons, etc.
But I've never personally heard of someone paying someone else to take the SAT for them.
I'm sure it occasionally happens, but it's a lot harder to pull off compared to manipulating GPA, extracurriculars, college essay.
> It is significantly harder to find someone who can score well on the SAT and is willing to take the test for you compared to gaming GPA, extra curriculars, etc.
Idk about that. I found people to pay me for taking the ACT for them through my alma mater's subreddit. Top schools are full of people who got 35/36, I'm sure there are plenty of other people who scored there and would be willing to take the standardized test for 10k too. In fact, in some ways it's easier to find someone to take the test for you than it is to find someone to boost your extracurriculars because you can structure the payout around the score obtained. I got 10k for a 36, 7k for a 35... no guarantees with tutors and coaches.
If the parents/students are willing to cheat on the SAT, they're probably going to have no issue manufacturing extracurriculars. The schools for the most part aren't auditing run of the mill activities (student org leadership, fundraisers, mission trips, local awards), and a lot of local newspapers basically let you write your own articles for them so cheaters can build up documentation if they're really motivated.
Some years ago in high school others offered me significant amounts of money to take the SAT for them. I didn't do it, but based on the security arrangements at the time I'm pretty sure I could have done it without getting caught. So I have to assume there has been some of that cheating going on.
For GPA, they can hire a private tutor in the subject they're struggling with. There are services out there that will basically write your english essay for you / do your math/science homework.
For college essays, they can hire college counselors to help them draft a compelling essay.
For extra curriculars, they can hire a private coach, etc.
However, there is very limited evidence that SAT coaching actually increases your SAT score. The NACAC did a study on this and they found that average gains of test-prep students is ~30 points (this was when the SAT was 2400 points).
A 30 point increase out of 2400 points is not material to college admissions.
Out of the college essay, gpa, extracurriculars, etc. the SAT is the least influenced by your socioeconomic status. There obviously is an influence, but removing the SAT means more reliance on even more skewed factors.
Here's the study -> https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505529.pdf