4 ms·

Then you just normalize the scores based on socioeconomic indicators like is done in the article. Of course, this highly advantages well groomed students from b

Then you just normalize the scores based on socioeconomic indicators like is done in the article. Of course, this highly advantages well groomed students from bad demographics, and horribly disadvantages neglected students from good demographics. That's why China worked hard to ban test prep. But either way, it's a pretty good proxy for IQ.

abeppu 3y ago
I think we're missing each other. Propensity to study may be a different attribute than IQ, which is a predictor for both standardized test scores and academic success. Normalizing for socioeconomic factors does not in itself disambiguate these possibilities. Someone with low motivation to study is not necessarily 'neglected'. I've seen years ago a highly cited paper showing relatively high correlations between SAT scores and IQs, but critically its data was from the late 1970s, when norms around test prep, and access to prep resources, were meaningfully different.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  Propensity to study is highly correlated with socioeconomic factors. Kids from good homes are provided the support and encouragement needed to get it done.
sudosysgen 3y ago
I think the real reason China banned many forms of test prep is because it's a zero sum game. Rich students are already advantaged by going to better schools, but too much test prep ends up forcing every student to study 14 hours a day to compete, with no actual advantage beyond that, so everyone poor and rich alike suffers from excessive test prep.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  Fair enough. However I think the consequences of that is a China like situation. Education is increasingly competitive, and early achievements sort you into a caste for the rest of your life. Of course, race based discrimination will become even more problematic as lower class Asian Americans are fast tracked into the China style rat race to get into a good school.

abeppu 3y ago

I think we're missing each other. Propensity to study may be a different attribute than IQ, which is a predictor for both standardized test scores and academic success. Normalizing for socioeconomic factors does not in itself disambiguate these possibilities. Someone with low motivation to study is not necessarily 'neglected'. I've seen years ago a highly cited paper showing relatively high correlations between SAT scores and IQs, but critically its data was from the late 1970s, when norms around test prep, and access to prep resources, were meaningfully different.

zeroCalories 3y ago
Propensity to study is highly correlated with socioeconomic factors. Kids from good homes are provided the support and encouragement needed to get it done.

sudosysgen 3y ago

I think the real reason China banned many forms of test prep is because it's a zero sum game. Rich students are already advantaged by going to better schools, but too much test prep ends up forcing every student to study 14 hours a day to compete, with no actual advantage beyond that, so everyone poor and rich alike suffers from excessive test prep.

zeroCalories 3y ago
Fair enough. However I think the consequences of that is a China like situation. Education is increasingly competitive, and early achievements sort you into a caste for the rest of your life. Of course, race based discrimination will become even more problematic as lower class Asian Americans are fast tracked into the China style rat race to get into a good school.