You’ll need to cite your sources because this has been studied and it seems to be!
Here, from a book chapter subtitled "The case for eliminating the SAT and ACT at the University of California":
Table 1.1. Correlation of socioeconomic factors with SAT/ACT scores and High School GPA
+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Family Income | Parents' Education | Underrepresented Minority |
+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------------------------+
| SAT/ACT scores | 0.36 | 0.45 | -0.38 |
+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------------------------+
( https://cshe.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/geiser_chapter... )
I also read the page in the PDF you linked that was the source of the table and became more confused, because it very clearly writes out that:
>What this means is that 40% of the variation in students’ SAT/ACT scores is attributable to differences in socioeconomic circumstance.
I think you are either:
1. Misunderstanding correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients range from -1 to +1, implying a 100% negative or positive correlation. 0.4 and -0.4 are moderately positive and negative correlation values. That table is saying that if you are an underrepresented minority, you are expected to do 40% worse on the SAT/ACT.
2. Quibbling over the "thing that correlates highest with SAT score" claim, because you feel like 0.4 is not high enough of a number. The only factors with higher correlation values than 0.4 in SAT/ACT scores would be stuff like "Was the student currently injured?" or "Did the student make it to the testing center?"
They said "highest", not "solid". Family income isn't the highest factor there.
Is that really what you think? In reality, the possession of a brain can't have any correlation with SAT scores at all, because there is zero variance in the trait.
This is separate from the main point, but "underrepresented" minorities are defined by their lower performance on the SAT, so 0.4 isn't impressive at all for that cell.
Also, you've made a gross mathematical error; "you are expected to do 40% worse on the test" is a statement about the effect size, not the correlation.
That's true.
> This is not the gotcha that you think it is.
But your point makes the guy I'm responding to look much worse. After controlling for parental education, the effect of parental income is radically diminished. Most of that 0.36 correlation is just confounding. Parental education isn't even a great indicator itself; it's a proxy for intelligence. It's just a much better proxy than parental income is.