3 ms·

For what it’s worth, test prep has little effect on scores, wealthy families use it at (at most) only a slightly higher rate than poor families, and black stude

For what it’s worth, test prep has little effect on scores, wealthy families use it at (at most) only a slightly higher rate than poor families, and black students use it at a slightly higher rate than white students. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/the-sat-test-prep-income-and-race.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/th...

rahimnathwani 5y ago
"test prep has little effect on scores" You can consider SAT performance reflects: A) SAT test prep B) Other things that only more wealthy/affluent parents can easily provide. C) Other stuff. It's possible that A (test prep) has little effect on its own, but that A+B has a massive impact. The linked article talks only about the impact of test prep. I can't access the cited sources, so don't know whether they've attempted to control for any correlation between those students who received test prep, and those students who received other special advantages that may also have increased their SAT scores.
- tfehring 5y ago
  I completely agree! It's well established that the impact of (B) is substantial, I just wanted to make the (somewhat tangential) point that wealthier students' empirical advantage at standardized tests is mostly not due to test prep, contrary to popular belief and to the GP comment's example.
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  What if B is being smart and well educated?
  - rahimnathwani 5y ago
    Then there is room for disagreement about what is fair. Some folks believe that fair is measuring everyone on the same objective criteria. Others believe that students shouldn't lose higher education opportunities just because they were poor or disadvantaged through no fault of their own. There are good arguments on both sides. But, as other commenters have pointed out, the conflict only exists because: 1. We rely on university degrees as a credential to filter people for jobs and other desirable opportunities. 2. To maintain the value (and price) of the credential, the best universities must restrict supply. 3. Outcomes from the USA's public grade/high school systems vary widely, and no one has figured out how to give everyone a good (if not equal) shot. So perhaps there's no perfect solution possible from tweaking one thing (university undergraduate admissions). The whole system needs work, from K onwards. But such an overhaul would need people to agree on what they're trying to optimize for.
    - JamesBarney 5y ago
      1. We do this because jobs are looking for smart well educated people. I.e. B 2. The school's credential is valuable because it's a proxy for smart, well educated people. If Harvard stopped looking at grades and sat scores and instead just picked 400 people at random the degree would be worthless.
      - rahimnathwani 5y ago
        "If Harvard stopped looking at grades and sat scores and instead just picked 400 people at random the degree would be worthless." This would not be the case if either: A. There are high standards for graduation, OR B. Attending Harvard for 4 years makes you more capable. If you're suggesting that 400 applicants picked at random would all graduate, then maybe the standards need to be raised. If the degree signals only that you were good enough to get in, then the 4 year gap between matriculation and graduation seems like waste.
        JamesBarney 5y ago
        A. That's true if you failed out a significant portion of your class you could effectively achieve the same thing. I was assuming the grading was on a curve. B. I doubt that the Harvard educational material makes you significantly more capable than any equivalent one. Same text books, doubt teachers are that much more capable than a good state school.

rahimnathwani 5y ago

"test prep has little effect on scores" You can consider SAT performance reflects: A) SAT test prep B) Other things that only more wealthy/affluent parents can easily provide. C) Other stuff. It's possible that A (test prep) has little effect on its own, but that A+B has a massive impact. The linked article talks only about the impact of test prep. I can't access the cited sources, so don't know whether they've attempted to control for any correlation between those students who received test prep, and those students who received other special advantages that may also have increased their SAT scores.

tfehring 5y ago
I completely agree! It's well established that the impact of (B) is substantial, I just wanted to make the (somewhat tangential) point that wealthier students' empirical advantage at standardized tests is mostly not due to test prep, contrary to popular belief and to the GP comment's example.
JamesBarney 5y ago
What if B is being smart and well educated?
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  Then there is room for disagreement about what is fair. Some folks believe that fair is measuring everyone on the same objective criteria. Others believe that students shouldn't lose higher education opportunities just because they were poor or disadvantaged through no fault of their own. There are good arguments on both sides. But, as other commenters have pointed out, the conflict only exists because: 1. We rely on university degrees as a credential to filter people for jobs and other desirable opportunities. 2. To maintain the value (and price) of the credential, the best universities must restrict supply. 3. Outcomes from the USA's public grade/high school systems vary widely, and no one has figured out how to give everyone a good (if not equal) shot. So perhaps there's no perfect solution possible from tweaking one thing (university undergraduate admissions). The whole system needs work, from K onwards. But such an overhaul would need people to agree on what they're trying to optimize for.
  - JamesBarney 5y ago
    1. We do this because jobs are looking for smart well educated people. I.e. B 2. The school's credential is valuable because it's a proxy for smart, well educated people. If Harvard stopped looking at grades and sat scores and instead just picked 400 people at random the degree would be worthless.
    - rahimnathwani 5y ago
      "If Harvard stopped looking at grades and sat scores and instead just picked 400 people at random the degree would be worthless." This would not be the case if either: A. There are high standards for graduation, OR B. Attending Harvard for 4 years makes you more capable. If you're suggesting that 400 applicants picked at random would all graduate, then maybe the standards need to be raised. If the degree signals only that you were good enough to get in, then the 4 year gap between matriculation and graduation seems like waste.
      - JamesBarney 5y ago
        A. That's true if you failed out a significant portion of your class you could effectively achieve the same thing. I was assuming the grading was on a curve. B. I doubt that the Harvard educational material makes you significantly more capable than any equivalent one. Same text books, doubt teachers are that much more capable than a good state school.