5 ms·

i.e. socioeconomic status is correlated with SAT performance because socioeconomic status is also correlated with stronger basic academic skills.

Amezarak 3y ago
Yeah, the article ends with: > In conclusion, our work focuses on the predictive power of admissions tests and shows that this power is not an artifact of SES. There is a substantial SES–test relationship, though it is important to note that test scores reflect far more than SES. About a quarter of the variance in test scores is shared with SES, and thus there is large variability in test scores at any given level of SES. Thus, claims that tests are merely proxies for SES are unfounded I've never understood the model of the world that people who don't agree with this. If you believe that a) genetics exist, and traits such as intelligence are therefore hereditary; and b) socioeconomic success is correlated to intelligence Then the inevitable conclusion is that wealthy people will be more likely to have higher SAT scores. Of course this is obviously just a correlation; lottery winners are rich but with no correlation to intelligence, children of two intelligent parents tend to regress to the mean, two average parents can produce intelligent children, families might be poor simply through bad luck or some particular emotional/mental block they have, and a million other factors. But nevertheless we'd expect test scores to be our best available wealth-blind predictor of college success and later success. Certainly it's hard to imagine children with money-poor - or maybe mildly abusive - parents having a shot without test scores. They'd be less likely to have a deep extracurricular involvement or anything else requiring parental involvement.
- noodlesUK 3y ago
  I think that the strength of point b) is the point that a lot of people question. I think for people like me who question the SES - intelligence link, the point of testing is to provide any opportunity for bright people who have lower SES to have a shot, which they would be otherwise denied due to their status. If anything, testing is one of the things that can help create that link between SES and intelligence.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    Right, it's only a correlation, not a guarantee. And people who don't end up part of the correlation have maybe their best shot of becoming successful (assuming they pursue a career requiring a degree) via test scores. Anything else likely has a much stronger correlation with SES or might be very noisy: extracurriculars require money and parental involvement, high school grades can be worthless depending on the school, filtering by school rules out a lot of poor people, etc.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    I think the OP has the arrow of causation pointing the other way from what you suggest: that is to say that higher intelligence leads to higher SES because knowledge work tends to be higher SES and those with higher intelligence are more likely to be able to find employment in knowledge work professions. That is probably predicated on the existence of at least some social mobility though.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  I've never understood the model of the world that people who don't agree with this. My take is people question the tests because wealthy/powerful people have a history of "gaming the system" in order to retain that wealth/power. It's not unreasonable to ask "is the test predictive of anything other than the parent's ability to hire a tutor?" While a test is, in theory, easy for a poor student to pass through independent studies/library, etc, reality gets in the way - that student needs transport to the library, time to study (many work), etc. But, based on this research, it seems the answer is "Yes, the test is actually predictive of something other than parent's SES."
  - gitfan86 3y ago
    A more common term is "Victim Mentality". It is the world view that all injustices or inequality is due to an oppressor group victimizing the oppressed class.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  > Yeah, the article ends with: > > In conclusion, our work focuses on the predictive power of admissions tests and shows that this power is not an artifact of SES. There is a substantial SES–test relationship, though it is important to note that test scores reflect far more than SES. About a quarter of the variance in test scores is shared with SES, and thus there is large variability in test scores at any given level of SES. Thus, claims that tests are merely proxies for SES are unfounded > I've never understood the model of the world that people who don't agree with this. If you believe that > a) genetics exist, and traits such as intelligence are therefore hereditary; > and > b) socioeconomic success is correlated to intelligence That is only true up to a certain level though. The correlation plateaus and even decreases above 1% https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230208125113.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230208125113.h...
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Top 1% is very high though, correlation up to top 1% is very good.
- fallingfrog 3y ago
  Regression to the mean is a real thing though. The reason why is this: every gene in your body is also in the bodies of millions of other people. Your genes are not unique. It’s the combination that’s unique. And the combination is diluted 50% with each generation. So Einstein was a prodigy and a genius, but his great grandchildren are pretty ordinary. That’s just the way it goes.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
underlipton 3y ago
It's ironic to conclude this, without skepticism, knowing that it's a study sponsored by College Board which shows that the tests which College Board administers are definitely efficacious.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  Sure; but do you disagree with the method or the conclusions?
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Their study makes a link between test scores and first-semester performance. Even if we accept that link is real, that doesn't imply first-semester performance is indicative of academic success over the typical 4+ year undergraduate timeline. I'd like to see independent corroboration of their study. Plus a longer term follow-up tracking these students through graduation or withdrawal.

Amezarak 3y ago

Yeah, the article ends with: > In conclusion, our work focuses on the predictive power of admissions tests and shows that this power is not an artifact of SES. There is a substantial SES–test relationship, though it is important to note that test scores reflect far more than SES. About a quarter of the variance in test scores is shared with SES, and thus there is large variability in test scores at any given level of SES. Thus, claims that tests are merely proxies for SES are unfounded I've never understood the model of the world that people who don't agree with this. If you believe that a) genetics exist, and traits such as intelligence are therefore hereditary; and b) socioeconomic success is correlated to intelligence Then the inevitable conclusion is that wealthy people will be more likely to have higher SAT scores. Of course this is obviously just a correlation; lottery winners are rich but with no correlation to intelligence, children of two intelligent parents tend to regress to the mean, two average parents can produce intelligent children, families might be poor simply through bad luck or some particular emotional/mental block they have, and a million other factors. But nevertheless we'd expect test scores to be our best available wealth-blind predictor of college success and later success. Certainly it's hard to imagine children with money-poor - or maybe mildly abusive - parents having a shot without test scores. They'd be less likely to have a deep extracurricular involvement or anything else requiring parental involvement.

noodlesUK 3y ago
I think that the strength of point b) is the point that a lot of people question. I think for people like me who question the SES - intelligence link, the point of testing is to provide any opportunity for bright people who have lower SES to have a shot, which they would be otherwise denied due to their status. If anything, testing is one of the things that can help create that link between SES and intelligence.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  Right, it's only a correlation, not a guarantee. And people who don't end up part of the correlation have maybe their best shot of becoming successful (assuming they pursue a career requiring a degree) via test scores. Anything else likely has a much stronger correlation with SES or might be very noisy: extracurriculars require money and parental involvement, high school grades can be worthless depending on the school, filtering by school rules out a lot of poor people, etc.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  I think the OP has the arrow of causation pointing the other way from what you suggest: that is to say that higher intelligence leads to higher SES because knowledge work tends to be higher SES and those with higher intelligence are more likely to be able to find employment in knowledge work professions. That is probably predicated on the existence of at least some social mobility though.
alistairSH 3y ago
I've never understood the model of the world that people who don't agree with this. My take is people question the tests because wealthy/powerful people have a history of "gaming the system" in order to retain that wealth/power. It's not unreasonable to ask "is the test predictive of anything other than the parent's ability to hire a tutor?" While a test is, in theory, easy for a poor student to pass through independent studies/library, etc, reality gets in the way - that student needs transport to the library, time to study (many work), etc. But, based on this research, it seems the answer is "Yes, the test is actually predictive of something other than parent's SES."
- gitfan86 3y ago
  A more common term is "Victim Mentality". It is the world view that all injustices or inequality is due to an oppressor group victimizing the oppressed class.
cycomanic 3y ago
> Yeah, the article ends with: > > In conclusion, our work focuses on the predictive power of admissions tests and shows that this power is not an artifact of SES. There is a substantial SES–test relationship, though it is important to note that test scores reflect far more than SES. About a quarter of the variance in test scores is shared with SES, and thus there is large variability in test scores at any given level of SES. Thus, claims that tests are merely proxies for SES are unfounded > I've never understood the model of the world that people who don't agree with this. If you believe that > a) genetics exist, and traits such as intelligence are therefore hereditary; > and > b) socioeconomic success is correlated to intelligence That is only true up to a certain level though. The correlation plateaus and even decreases above 1% https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230208125113.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230208125113.h...
- Jensson 3y ago
  Top 1% is very high though, correlation up to top 1% is very good.
fallingfrog 3y ago
Regression to the mean is a real thing though. The reason why is this: every gene in your body is also in the bodies of millions of other people. Your genes are not unique. It’s the combination that’s unique. And the combination is diluted 50% with each generation. So Einstein was a prodigy and a genius, but his great grandchildren are pretty ordinary. That’s just the way it goes.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

underlipton 3y ago

It's ironic to conclude this, without skepticism, knowing that it's a study sponsored by College Board which shows that the tests which College Board administers are definitely efficacious.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
Sure; but do you disagree with the method or the conclusions?
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Their study makes a link between test scores and first-semester performance. Even if we accept that link is real, that doesn't imply first-semester performance is indicative of academic success over the typical 4+ year undergraduate timeline. I'd like to see independent corroboration of their study. Plus a longer term follow-up tracking these students through graduation or withdrawal.