[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/08/07/335285098/rich-kid...
[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/poverty-disturbs-c...
*Edit: Other comments have pointed out the difficulties in just having Internet access, skills to use the Internet, awareness of free online training, cognizance that training can improve your SAT outcomes, understanding that SAT outcomes are tied to many other positive life outcomes, etc.
(1) An internet ready device.
(2) Reliable internet service.
(3) A quiet environment where they're able to study undisturbed.
(4) Have the time available to study, no younger siblings to watch over, and don't have a strenuous paid job.
For many lower income kids studying for the SAT isn't practical, even if the material is available at no cost. Khan Academy certainly helps a lot of students that can't afford expensive tutors or private classes, but it's by no means a complete solution. We need to do more as a society to help disadvantaged students prepare for college.
(6) Are in a culture where being studious is not considered a bad thing.
There are probably more, too.
Even though the show is obviously meant to be entertainment first, I feel it does a good job to show how frustratingly often the characters' actions are not a direct result of bad decisions alone, but always at the very least also to do with their lack of education (and 'learned' self-discipline), random events, precarious and stressful living situations, societal issues, and basically anything else that is 'external' and by definition not the characters' faults.
And being reminded of that makes me empathize more, despite the fact that I cringe at how stupid so much of the stuff is, and how superficially easy it seems to avoid much of it.
The gap between "rich kid" and "poor kid" performance on the SATs is much, much bigger than just "this SAT studying source or that one"
Really though there's probably always going to be some level of education outcome gap between rich and poor kids, having an easier and more stable home life is a substantial leg up.
[0] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fix-broken-high-schooler-fou...
The real world doesn't have tests, it has continuous collaboration to solve problems.
This may sound trite but it was my experience and reflects many real-world data points of my friends. Tests and University were a colossal waste of time, and we would mostly be in better positions today [financially, career] if we had done almost anything else with our youth.
Seriously, parents matter. That's why it bugs me when parents are used as an excuse for underperforming students. As difficult as it may be, schools must take full responsibility for their students, and not share it with their parents. That is the ONLY way those students will get what they need.
Responsibility must come with authority. As schools cannot legally take full authority over students, and must share it with parents, it is impossible for them to take full responsibility.
I think there is a good argument that society ought to consider means to mitigate disadvantages due to parenting, and consider the extent and circumstances in which greater intervention is appropriate, that's a discussion which goes far beyond the schools to broader policy questions, and which I can't see ever being resolved in favor of general and total community responsibility -- and thus authority -- unshared with parents, whether via the schools or any other mechanism. As such, I think talk of schools taking unshared responsibility for outcomes is overly simplistic and ill-considered.
In the US many public libraries having computers that are available for use by anyone and are often open till 8 or 9 at night(and many schools also allow students access to computers during their "free/study" period(s)). And with the Labor laws restricting the hours a minor can work on a school day; only situations at home that require their presence would prevent a self-motivated "poor" student from studying for this test.
Now how a "poor" student would be able to afford to take this test much less the crazy expensive colleges/universities in the US is an entirely different matter.
It's technically true. It rarely affect the ability. But it does affect the result anyway. Wealth is a known good predictor in results: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/08/29/the-correla...
Being rich or poor has a strong, fairly direct, causal relationship to being relatively free from or subject to various environmental and other conditions -- both proximate to the time of the test and at earlier developmental stages -- that have adverse impacts on ability to score highly on any standardized test.
(For a dramatic demonstration that is in the news right now see Flint, Michigan.)