5 ms·

Actually the primary correlate of SAT scores is not intelligence but wealth.

thomasz 13y ago
I'd guess that there exists a causal relationship between "intelligence" as measured by standardized tests and the sum of dollars poured into someones education.
- epo 13y ago
  The causal relationship is with "success", i.e. exam results and college acceptance rather than "intelligence" per se.
smsm42 13y ago
I suspect the actual correlation is not with wealth (i.e. giving money so somebody with low SAT scores would not actually improve their scores - unless he would have enough money to bribe whoever is overseeing the test of course ;) but with some things that correlate with wealth.
- barrkel 13y ago
  It sounds like you heard "causation" when parent said correlation. Correlation is observed in past samples; what you describe is a mechanism for trying to disprove causation, but it won't remove any correlation from the past samples, and it probably won't remove the correlation with historical wealth of the family etc.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Parent said "primary correlate". Primary implies some special-ness, that is not like the others. I do not see any way "historical wealth" could directly - without intervening variables - influence one's SAT scores. Of course, having affluent parents may mean certain value given to quality education, certain amount of care and access to development tools and so on - but then those should be primary factors considered, not wealth per se.
- dagw 13y ago
  Money buys access to tutors and training materials. It buys access to free time for practicing for your SAT. It also buys opportunity to repeatedly retake the SAT until you get a grade you like.
  - truthteller 13y ago
    ...but none of that makes much difference: "Does test preparation help improve student performance on the SAT and ACT? For students that have taken the test before and would like to boost their scores, coaching seems to help, but by a rather small amount. After controlling for group differences, the average coaching boost on the math section of the SAT is 14 to 15 points. The boost is smaller on the verbal section of the test, just 6 to 8 points. The combined effect of coaching on the SAT for the NELS sample is about 20 points." http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Briggs_Theeffectofadmissionstestpreparation.pdf http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Briggs_Theeffectofadmissionst...
  - bolder88 13y ago
    OR, those people are wealthy because they have a high IQ, and are likely to give birth to children with a high IQ. I would bet that's far more likely.
    - walshemj 13y ago
      I think the number of dumb but rich people in American politics dis proves your thesis.
      - smsm42 13y ago
        Maybe they aren't as dumb - at least in the area that made them rich - as it seems. I can imagine someone bing smart in the university hall and dumb on the street, or vice versa.
        dagw 13y ago
        Depressingly many people confuse someone making decisions they disagree with or don't understand and someone being "dumb".
nostrademons 13y ago
Aren't intelligence and wealth correlated with each other, and both are correlated with SAT and IQ tests? I thought the explanation for the mysterious "g-factor" in intelligence that IQ is supposed to measure isn't that it exists in and of itself, but that a number of measurable outcomes (income, wealth, test scores, GPA, job prestige, etc.) are all positively correlated, and then that correlation is called g.
- atmosx 13y ago
  We need to define some terms. Education != intelligence. The IQ tests are silly and heavily judged as nonsense. These tests are focused on math mostly, but math alone is hardly the only area that matters. However, in this context, math matters, because in many ways it is correlated to programming.

I'd guess that there exists a causal relationship between "intelligence" as measured by standardized tests and the sum of dollars poured into someones education.

epo 13y ago
The causal relationship is with "success", i.e. exam results and college acceptance rather than "intelligence" per se.

smsm42 13y ago

I suspect the actual correlation is not with wealth (i.e. giving money so somebody with low SAT scores would not actually improve their scores - unless he would have enough money to bribe whoever is overseeing the test of course ;) but with some things that correlate with wealth.

barrkel 13y ago
It sounds like you heard "causation" when parent said correlation. Correlation is observed in past samples; what you describe is a mechanism for trying to disprove causation, but it won't remove any correlation from the past samples, and it probably won't remove the correlation with historical wealth of the family etc.
- smsm42 13y ago
  Parent said "primary correlate". Primary implies some special-ness, that is not like the others. I do not see any way "historical wealth" could directly - without intervening variables - influence one's SAT scores. Of course, having affluent parents may mean certain value given to quality education, certain amount of care and access to development tools and so on - but then those should be primary factors considered, not wealth per se.
dagw 13y ago
Money buys access to tutors and training materials. It buys access to free time for practicing for your SAT. It also buys opportunity to repeatedly retake the SAT until you get a grade you like.
- truthteller 13y ago
  ...but none of that makes much difference: "Does test preparation help improve student performance on the SAT and ACT? For students that have taken the test before and would like to boost their scores, coaching seems to help, but by a rather small amount. After controlling for group differences, the average coaching boost on the math section of the SAT is 14 to 15 points. The boost is smaller on the verbal section of the test, just 6 to 8 points. The combined effect of coaching on the SAT for the NELS sample is about 20 points." http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Briggs_Theeffectofadmissionstestpreparation.pdf http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Briggs_Theeffectofadmissionst...
- bolder88 13y ago
  OR, those people are wealthy because they have a high IQ, and are likely to give birth to children with a high IQ. I would bet that's far more likely.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    I think the number of dumb but rich people in American politics dis proves your thesis.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      Maybe they aren't as dumb - at least in the area that made them rich - as it seems. I can imagine someone bing smart in the university hall and dumb on the street, or vice versa.
      - dagw 13y ago
        Depressingly many people confuse someone making decisions they disagree with or don't understand and someone being "dumb".

nostrademons 13y ago

Aren't intelligence and wealth correlated with each other, and both are correlated with SAT and IQ tests? I thought the explanation for the mysterious "g-factor" in intelligence that IQ is supposed to measure isn't that it exists in and of itself, but that a number of measurable outcomes (income, wealth, test scores, GPA, job prestige, etc.) are all positively correlated, and then that correlation is called g.

atmosx 13y ago
We need to define some terms. Education != intelligence. The IQ tests are silly and heavily judged as nonsense. These tests are focused on math mostly, but math alone is hardly the only area that matters. However, in this context, math matters, because in many ways it is correlated to programming.