4 ms·

Not saying that correlation == causation, but damn.

by aditya 17y ago

3pt14159 17y ago
Comes down to the fact that IQ has a high correlation to your offspring's IQ (although regression to the mean happens there) and to your income (although incremental increases in IQs > 130 make no difference to income, the professor effect). That being said, it is clear to see why if your parents make more money you get better SATs. Of course there are other reasons too, like more stable families, more attention (because higher earners have less kids), more access to books, more mathematically inclined parents that can help you on homework, but in general, these things all come back to the parent's IQ.
tibbon 17y ago
There is a fairly logical chain of events here, and I'll agree that while not perfect causation this is interesting. Higher SAT scores generally mean better college education (on average) with more scholarships (enabling less student-loan slavery post-graduation), more grad school, better jobs, etc. People that got an 800 on their SAT (out of 1600 in my day) weren't really on the fast-track anywhere except mowing lawns. The kids pushing closer to 1400-1600 were generally headed to decent schools.
- aditya 17y ago
  Wait what? I took the chart to mean that if your parents make tons of money, your SAT score is going to be better, not that if your SAT score was good, you will make tons of money. Not sure where exactly that chart is coming from so I dunno what context the axes are in.
  - phamilton 17y ago
    I think you've got it right. Mostly because the writing section was added in 2005. So that would mean that anyone who did better than 560 on the writing is making $200,000 a year at the age of 21. And as a 21 year old who did do much better than 560 on the writing section (as well as the other two sections) I for one am not making $200k+...
  - elcron 17y ago
    I interpreted it that way too, x axis is normally the independent variable
ezy 17y ago
Yeah, you could interpret it the other way if you wanted to be contrarian. E.g. A rich family is a family with good genes. But that seems like it would be too categorical for a 15% difference (maybe, what's the min SAT score?). What makes it striking though is that the average(I assume?) test score isn't higher than 580 at the >$200k level. Granted, I haven't done the SAT's in 20 years, but that's certainly not genius territory there. It leads me to think that the carefully cynical hypothesis is the more correct one. :-) 15% of your SAT score probably measures your _proximity_ to wealth.

Not saying that correlation == causation, but damn.

by aditya 17y ago

Not saying that correlation == causation, but damn.

Comes down to the fact that IQ has a high correlation to your offspring's IQ (although regression to the mean happens there) and to your income (although incremental increases in IQs > 130 make no difference to income, the professor effect). That being said, it is clear to see why if your parents make more money you get better SATs. Of course there are other reasons too, like more stable families, more attention (because higher earners have less kids), more access to books, more mathematically inclined parents that can help you on homework, but in general, these things all come back to the parent's IQ.

tibbon 17y ago

There is a fairly logical chain of events here, and I'll agree that while not perfect causation this is interesting. Higher SAT scores generally mean better college education (on average) with more scholarships (enabling less student-loan slavery post-graduation), more grad school, better jobs, etc. People that got an 800 on their SAT (out of 1600 in my day) weren't really on the fast-track anywhere except mowing lawns. The kids pushing closer to 1400-1600 were generally headed to decent schools.

aditya 17y ago
Wait what? I took the chart to mean that if your parents make tons of money, your SAT score is going to be better, not that if your SAT score was good, you will make tons of money. Not sure where exactly that chart is coming from so I dunno what context the axes are in.
- phamilton 17y ago
  I think you've got it right. Mostly because the writing section was added in 2005. So that would mean that anyone who did better than 560 on the writing is making $200,000 a year at the age of 21. And as a 21 year old who did do much better than 560 on the writing section (as well as the other two sections) I for one am not making $200k+...
- elcron 17y ago
  I interpreted it that way too, x axis is normally the independent variable

ezy 17y ago

Yeah, you could interpret it the other way if you wanted to be contrarian. E.g. A rich family is a family with good genes. But that seems like it would be too categorical for a 15% difference (maybe, what's the min SAT score?). What makes it striking though is that the average(I assume?) test score isn't higher than 580 at the >$200k level. Granted, I haven't done the SAT's in 20 years, but that's certainly not genius territory there. It leads me to think that the carefully cynical hypothesis is the more correct one. :-) 15% of your SAT score probably measures your _proximity_ to wealth.