Hacker News Reader

Comment by Invictus0 | Hacker News Reader

I took one of those expensive SAT prep courses and yes, I agree that those don't increase scores very much, the program I took was awful.

However, I totally disagree that rich people can't game the SAT. I used to be a moderator at /r/SAT and /r/ACT on reddit. All of the questions and answers for all of the exams, including subject tests are known and published online. Both SAT and ACT routinely reuse exams from prior years, and anyone who puts in enough time to study the old exams can do well on the exams. And rich people have the luxury of more time to study, because they don't have to work second jobs or cook for their families or clean the house after school and have more services that can save them time.

View on HN

> And rich people have the luxury of more time to study, because they don't have to work second jobs or cook for their families or clean the house after school and have more services that can save them time.

Unlike tricks for getting into university like studying after school for classes, hiring private tutors, or taking extracurriculars like lacrosse or rowing, which are great levelers equally accessible to the rich and the poor.

> And rich people have the luxury of more time to study

Those rich students, they cheat by studying harder!

Btw, I don't actually think being rich correlates with better academic achievements. It's better to be in the middle, not rich, not poor. To keep motivated.

Nah, there is a straight linear correlation between parental income and sat score.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/08/27/business/economy/...

Did you bother to read the letter? This is directly addressed:

"This may seem like a counterintuitive claim to some, given the widespread understanding that performance on the SAT/ACT is correlated with socioeconomic status. Research indeed shows some correlation, but unfortunately, research also shows correlations hold for just about every other factor admissions officers can consider, including essays, grades, access to advanced coursework (as well as opportunities to actually take notionally available coursework), and letters of recommendations, among others. Meanwhile, research has shown widespread testing can identify subaltern students who would be missed by these other measures."

I'm very aware and don't disagree with you, I'm responding to the comment above this one that said there's no correlation at all.

What's great is /r/SAT and /r/ACT are available to basically everyone, even with a very slow internet connection. Extracurriculars, not so much.

Why do you say rich kids have more time? I grew up in an underprivileged area and I very much disagree that poorer kids are getting their free time hammered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com