6 ms·

About the many comments here about rich kids having an advantage on the SAT, I have to remind everyone that the free online service Khan Academy is the official

About the many comments here about rich kids having an advantage on the SAT, I have to remind everyone that the free online service Khan Academy is the official test preparation service for the new SAT,[1] endorsed by the College Board, the publisher of the test. Moreover, my children, who all score well on the SAT even when they take it at young ages for Talent Search (see my other comment on this thread for more details) are not disadvantaged by NOT taking pricy test-prep courses. They have been homeschooled or have attended the local public schools, apart from some supplementary courses we have looked for for each child based on each child's interests, and they have never needed test-prep-as-such from any external teacher. No one else needs that anymore either, now that Khan Academy has full practice materials for the newly revised SAT test. [1] https://www.khanacademy.org/sat https://www.khanacademy.org/sat

MrApathy 11y ago
Your comment is based on the presupposition that lower income kids have: (1) An internet ready device. (2) Reliable internet service. (3) A quiet environment where they're able to study undisturbed. (4) Have the time available to study, no younger siblings to watch over, and don't have a strenuous paid job. For many lower income kids studying for the SAT isn't practical, even if the material is available at no cost. Khan Academy certainly helps a lot of students that can't afford expensive tutors or private classes, but it's by no means a complete solution. We need to do more as a society to help disadvantaged students prepare for college.
- e40 11y ago
  (5) Have parents that push them to study. (6) Are in a culture where being studious is not considered a bad thing. There are probably more, too.
- mercer 11y ago
  Despite the fact that it's a comedy, I find that the show Shameless does a pretty good job showing how difficult it is for a bright kid to have a fitting education in that kind of environment.
  - jbob2000 11y ago
    I can't watch that show, it makes me so angry; The characters just make bad decision after bad decision. If that is a window into what underprivileged society is, then I don't feel sorry for them at all.
    - mercer 11y ago
      The anger/frustration I get. But I find it interesting that it makes you empathize less, where for me it has the opposite effect. Even though the show is obviously meant to be entertainment first, I feel it does a good job to show how frustratingly often the characters' actions are not a direct result of bad decisions alone, but always at the very least also to do with their lack of education (and 'learned' self-discipline), random events, precarious and stressful living situations, societal issues, and basically anything else that is 'external' and by definition not the characters' faults. And being reminded of that makes me empathize more, despite the fact that I cringe at how stupid so much of the stuff is, and how superficially easy it seems to avoid much of it.
chipgap98 11y ago
But not all households have internet access and not all kids are being told they can use this resource. I think we're moving in the right direction, but rich students are still going to have an advantage on these types of tests
- tjr 11y ago
  What would you recommend? What do you think an ideal solution would look like?
  - rtkwe 11y ago
    Cheap and easier access to free online prep courses would help. Also there's a lot that can be done by bringing kids into a community and giving them a group to belong to that encourages education. Freakonomics did a pretty good podcast about a project in Toronto that cut the dropout rate by ~15 percentage points. [0] The whole thing is worth a read but the basics are they provided support advocates, transportation, a scholarship if they kept with the program, tutoring, and group activities. Really though there's probably always going to be some level of education outcome gap between rich and poor kids, having an easier and more stable home life is a substantial leg up. [0] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fix-broken-high-schooler-four-easy-steps-freakonomics-radio-rebroadcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fix-broken-high-schooler-fou...
  - ccvannorman 11y ago
    Do away with testing [for the purposes of going to Uni] entirely. While you're at it, don't go to Uni either. The real world doesn't have tests, it has continuous collaboration to solve problems. This may sound trite but it was my experience and reflects many real-world data points of my friends. Tests and University were a colossal waste of time, and we would mostly be in better positions today [financially, career] if we had done almost anything else with our youth.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      I imagine many folks who go to University, wasted their time and public money. There are some whom I would not want to skip that trial however. Medicine, Engineering, Science cannot simply be done by any set of folks in a study group. At some point, somebody in the group has to know what they're talking about.
MisterBastahrd 11y ago
If you think that simply having access to an online resource is as good as having personal tutors and a lifetime of educated parental involvement, then you are pathetically tone deaf. Most poor kids don't have a computer. If they have internet access, it's through a cheap cell phone.
xythian 11y ago
Unfortunately, the 'rich kid' advantage starts ~18 years before they take a free online SAT prep class. Reasons are vast and entangled with race, geolocation, socio-economic status, health, and even fundamental differences in brain development during adolescence. But, the problem is most certainly not as simple as having access to the Internet and a free online course (this is also fraught with its own perils that are easily overlooked).* [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/08/07/335285098/rich-kid-poor-kid-for-30-years-baltimore-study-tracked-who-gets-ahead http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/08/07/335285098/rich-kid... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/poverty-disturbs-children-s-brain-development-and-academic-performance/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/poverty-disturbs-c... *Edit: Other comments have pointed out the difficulties in just having Internet access, skills to use the Internet, awareness of free online training, cognizance that training can improve your SAT outcomes, understanding that SAT outcomes are tied to many other positive life outcomes, etc.
unabst 11y ago
Not all children have YOU as their parent :) Seriously, parents matter. That's why it bugs me when parents are used as an excuse for underperforming students. As difficult as it may be, schools must take full responsibility for their students, and not share it with their parents. That is the ONLY way those students will get what they need.
- miranda_rights 11y ago
  I agree. I've always thought that "preparation" for the vocabulary and critical reading for the SATs starts in early high school or in middle school. Sitting down and memorizing ~200 new words that you hope will be on the exam isn't as helpful or effective as simply growing up in a home where college educated parents use "SAT" words in daily conversation. I say "simply" because the children who do have that advantage gain it merely by absorbing what's around them, in comparison to other children who don't have that advantage.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > That's why it bugs me when parents are used as an excuse for underperforming students. As difficult as it may be, schools must take full responsibility for their students, and not share it with their parents. Responsibility must come with authority. As schools cannot legally take full authority over students, and must share it with parents, it is impossible for them to take full responsibility. I think there is a good argument that society ought to consider means to mitigate disadvantages due to parenting, and consider the extent and circumstances in which greater intervention is appropriate, that's a discussion which goes far beyond the schools to broader policy questions, and which I can't see ever being resolved in favor of general and total community responsibility -- and thus authority -- unshared with parents, whether via the schools or any other mechanism. As such, I think talk of schools taking unshared responsibility for outcomes is overly simplistic and ill-considered.
foobarqux 11y ago
Intuitively you should expect rich kids to have an advantage in every endeavor because they have more resources. Rich kids can afford private tutors (which provides a 2 standard deviation improvement compared to 1 for Khan style learning), have more time and are less distracted by problems that can be solved with money. That's to say nothing of the behavioral differences that result from a privileged upbringing and which are arguably more important than extrinsic factors.
dementis 11y ago
Being rich or poor has no bearing on someones ability to score highly on any standardized test. Its entirely about motivation which can be somewhat externally supplied by many factors such as parents, teachers or their peers; or it can be supplied by the person who is going to be taking the test. In the US many public libraries having computers that are available for use by anyone and are often open till 8 or 9 at night(and many schools also allow students access to computers during their "free/study" period(s)). And with the Labor laws restricting the hours a minor can work on a school day; only situations at home that require their presence would prevent a self-motivated "poor" student from studying for this test. Now how a "poor" student would be able to afford to take this test much less the crazy expensive colleges/universities in the US is an entirely different matter.
- viraptor 11y ago
  > Being rich or poor has no bearing on someones ability to score highly on any standardized test. It's technically true. It rarely affect the ability. But it does affect the result anyway. Wealth is a known good predictor in results: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/08/29/the-correlation-between-income-and-sat-scores/ https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/08/29/the-correla...
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Being rich or poor has no bearing on someones ability to score highly on any standardized test. Being rich or poor has a strong, fairly direct, causal relationship to being relatively free from or subject to various environmental and other conditions -- both proximate to the time of the test and at earlier developmental stages -- that have adverse impacts on ability to score highly on any standardized test. (For a dramatic demonstration that is in the news right now see Flint, Michigan.)
erroneousfunk 11y ago
I don't think you think rich kids have an advantage on the SATs for the reasons you think. I've met high school kids that didn't know the SATs were multiple choice, or when/where/how to take them. They didn't know that they needed to go to a website to sign up, or that they'd have to figure out transportation to the testing site. Parents of high school kids that were confused between the SATs and the federally-mandated high school tests, and didn't know what they needed to do, if anything, to get their children registered for the test -- much less how to help them prepare. Many schools don't provide any sort of guidance about taking them -- they're too worried about the test prep that actually reflects on their school and don't want to take class time to teach more tests. The gap between "rich kid" and "poor kid" performance on the SATs is much, much bigger than just "this SAT studying source or that one"

MrApathy 11y ago

Your comment is based on the presupposition that lower income kids have: (1) An internet ready device. (2) Reliable internet service. (3) A quiet environment where they're able to study undisturbed. (4) Have the time available to study, no younger siblings to watch over, and don't have a strenuous paid job. For many lower income kids studying for the SAT isn't practical, even if the material is available at no cost. Khan Academy certainly helps a lot of students that can't afford expensive tutors or private classes, but it's by no means a complete solution. We need to do more as a society to help disadvantaged students prepare for college.

e40 11y ago
(5) Have parents that push them to study. (6) Are in a culture where being studious is not considered a bad thing. There are probably more, too.
mercer 11y ago
Despite the fact that it's a comedy, I find that the show Shameless does a pretty good job showing how difficult it is for a bright kid to have a fitting education in that kind of environment.
- jbob2000 11y ago
  I can't watch that show, it makes me so angry; The characters just make bad decision after bad decision. If that is a window into what underprivileged society is, then I don't feel sorry for them at all.
  - mercer 11y ago
    The anger/frustration I get. But I find it interesting that it makes you empathize less, where for me it has the opposite effect. Even though the show is obviously meant to be entertainment first, I feel it does a good job to show how frustratingly often the characters' actions are not a direct result of bad decisions alone, but always at the very least also to do with their lack of education (and 'learned' self-discipline), random events, precarious and stressful living situations, societal issues, and basically anything else that is 'external' and by definition not the characters' faults. And being reminded of that makes me empathize more, despite the fact that I cringe at how stupid so much of the stuff is, and how superficially easy it seems to avoid much of it.

chipgap98 11y ago

But not all households have internet access and not all kids are being told they can use this resource. I think we're moving in the right direction, but rich students are still going to have an advantage on these types of tests

tjr 11y ago
What would you recommend? What do you think an ideal solution would look like?
- rtkwe 11y ago
  Cheap and easier access to free online prep courses would help. Also there's a lot that can be done by bringing kids into a community and giving them a group to belong to that encourages education. Freakonomics did a pretty good podcast about a project in Toronto that cut the dropout rate by ~15 percentage points. [0] The whole thing is worth a read but the basics are they provided support advocates, transportation, a scholarship if they kept with the program, tutoring, and group activities. Really though there's probably always going to be some level of education outcome gap between rich and poor kids, having an easier and more stable home life is a substantial leg up. [0] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fix-broken-high-schooler-four-easy-steps-freakonomics-radio-rebroadcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fix-broken-high-schooler-fou...
- ccvannorman 11y ago
  Do away with testing [for the purposes of going to Uni] entirely. While you're at it, don't go to Uni either. The real world doesn't have tests, it has continuous collaboration to solve problems. This may sound trite but it was my experience and reflects many real-world data points of my friends. Tests and University were a colossal waste of time, and we would mostly be in better positions today [financially, career] if we had done almost anything else with our youth.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    I imagine many folks who go to University, wasted their time and public money. There are some whom I would not want to skip that trial however. Medicine, Engineering, Science cannot simply be done by any set of folks in a study group. At some point, somebody in the group has to know what they're talking about.

MisterBastahrd 11y ago

If you think that simply having access to an online resource is as good as having personal tutors and a lifetime of educated parental involvement, then you are pathetically tone deaf. Most poor kids don't have a computer. If they have internet access, it's through a cheap cell phone.

xythian 11y ago

Unfortunately, the 'rich kid' advantage starts ~18 years before they take a free online SAT prep class. Reasons are vast and entangled with race, geolocation, socio-economic status, health, and even fundamental differences in brain development during adolescence. But, the problem is most certainly not as simple as having access to the Internet and a free online course (this is also fraught with its own perils that are easily overlooked).* [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/08/07/335285098/rich-kid-poor-kid-for-30-years-baltimore-study-tracked-who-gets-ahead http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/08/07/335285098/rich-kid... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/poverty-disturbs-children-s-brain-development-and-academic-performance/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/poverty-disturbs-c... *Edit: Other comments have pointed out the difficulties in just having Internet access, skills to use the Internet, awareness of free online training, cognizance that training can improve your SAT outcomes, understanding that SAT outcomes are tied to many other positive life outcomes, etc.

unabst 11y ago

Not all children have YOU as their parent :) Seriously, parents matter. That's why it bugs me when parents are used as an excuse for underperforming students. As difficult as it may be, schools must take full responsibility for their students, and not share it with their parents. That is the ONLY way those students will get what they need.

miranda_rights 11y ago
I agree. I've always thought that "preparation" for the vocabulary and critical reading for the SATs starts in early high school or in middle school. Sitting down and memorizing ~200 new words that you hope will be on the exam isn't as helpful or effective as simply growing up in a home where college educated parents use "SAT" words in daily conversation. I say "simply" because the children who do have that advantage gain it merely by absorbing what's around them, in comparison to other children who don't have that advantage.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> That's why it bugs me when parents are used as an excuse for underperforming students. As difficult as it may be, schools must take full responsibility for their students, and not share it with their parents. Responsibility must come with authority. As schools cannot legally take full authority over students, and must share it with parents, it is impossible for them to take full responsibility. I think there is a good argument that society ought to consider means to mitigate disadvantages due to parenting, and consider the extent and circumstances in which greater intervention is appropriate, that's a discussion which goes far beyond the schools to broader policy questions, and which I can't see ever being resolved in favor of general and total community responsibility -- and thus authority -- unshared with parents, whether via the schools or any other mechanism. As such, I think talk of schools taking unshared responsibility for outcomes is overly simplistic and ill-considered.

foobarqux 11y ago

Intuitively you should expect rich kids to have an advantage in every endeavor because they have more resources. Rich kids can afford private tutors (which provides a 2 standard deviation improvement compared to 1 for Khan style learning), have more time and are less distracted by problems that can be solved with money. That's to say nothing of the behavioral differences that result from a privileged upbringing and which are arguably more important than extrinsic factors.

dementis 11y ago

Being rich or poor has no bearing on someones ability to score highly on any standardized test. Its entirely about motivation which can be somewhat externally supplied by many factors such as parents, teachers or their peers; or it can be supplied by the person who is going to be taking the test. In the US many public libraries having computers that are available for use by anyone and are often open till 8 or 9 at night(and many schools also allow students access to computers during their "free/study" period(s)). And with the Labor laws restricting the hours a minor can work on a school day; only situations at home that require their presence would prevent a self-motivated "poor" student from studying for this test. Now how a "poor" student would be able to afford to take this test much less the crazy expensive colleges/universities in the US is an entirely different matter.

viraptor 11y ago
> Being rich or poor has no bearing on someones ability to score highly on any standardized test. It's technically true. It rarely affect the ability. But it does affect the result anyway. Wealth is a known good predictor in results: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/08/29/the-correlation-between-income-and-sat-scores/ https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/08/29/the-correla...
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Being rich or poor has no bearing on someones ability to score highly on any standardized test. Being rich or poor has a strong, fairly direct, causal relationship to being relatively free from or subject to various environmental and other conditions -- both proximate to the time of the test and at earlier developmental stages -- that have adverse impacts on ability to score highly on any standardized test. (For a dramatic demonstration that is in the news right now see Flint, Michigan.)

erroneousfunk 11y ago

I don't think you think rich kids have an advantage on the SATs for the reasons you think. I've met high school kids that didn't know the SATs were multiple choice, or when/where/how to take them. They didn't know that they needed to go to a website to sign up, or that they'd have to figure out transportation to the testing site. Parents of high school kids that were confused between the SATs and the federally-mandated high school tests, and didn't know what they needed to do, if anything, to get their children registered for the test -- much less how to help them prepare. Many schools don't provide any sort of guidance about taking them -- they're too worried about the test prep that actually reflects on their school and don't want to take class time to teach more tests. The gap between "rich kid" and "poor kid" performance on the SATs is much, much bigger than just "this SAT studying source or that one"