<p>SAT II Math II requires Precalc.</p>
<p>SAT II Math I requires at least Geometry if not Algebra II</p>
<p>SAT I Math requires some level of geometry to be able complete all the questions (not necessarily get them right).</p>
<p>In our school district, the advanced 8th graders get to preap algebra I. Some schools have finally gotten into cutting edge - it starts in 7th.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The average SAT score of students from families in the 80K-100K range (an arbitrary definition of middle class) exceeds that of poor kids (income < 20K) by 222 points, and rich kids (income > 200K) exceed middle class kids by 176 points, so income is correlated with SAT scores throughout the income range. Here are the raw numbers.</p>
<p>min<em>inc max</em>inc diff total reading math writing
0 20 0 1323 434 460 429
80 100 222 1545 515 527 503
200 1000 176 1721 568 586 567</p>
<p>So now it’s parental income? Not genetic superiority, hard work- and I don’t know where Alg fits in.</p>
<p>Do you just see how this endlessly swirls?</p>
<p>But, I will say this: take all the research findings and bottle them into a book. There will always be an audience, looking for the next secret to success. You’ll be rich, checking CC from your yacht. Only half kidding.</p>
<p>"That is why I said once you get to 700 it starts to suggest you actually couldn’t solve one of these very basic problems. "</p>
<p>"The SAT tests what should be junior high school level math for good students. A score of 700 IMO is equivalent to getting a B or B+ in junior high math – "</p>
<p>Hmmm…I think that’s how folks lose presidential elections. </p>
<p>What is " highest regular " track? How many tracks ARE there?</p>
<p>I often try to assimilate what I learn here to individuals in my practice and it is hard. To me, on an individual basis, it can completely change your trajectory depending on WHAT you are good at WHERE, in the second or third grade.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about “geniuses”, and “morons”, but for the rest of US.</p>
<p>One, at my kids’ hs.
But, I can see how anyone whose kids were tracked can have a perspective that there are levels of potential and/or achievement. And, that they are fixed. And that 7th grade is pivotal. Or some very early age.</p>
<p>shrinkrap - really? We all contradict each other so much around here how do you know anything we say here is right? :p</p>
<p>Most school systems seem to have a gifted track until middle school and then AP/IB vs regular track in high schools. Our kids’ HS has three tracks - AP/IB, honors and advanced (we are so cool we can’t have regular). AP/IB and honors classes have higher GPA (+1 point on a normal 4 scale).</p>
<p>Some things are “right” in certain situations. For certain kids, a random piece of information at the right time can change things. I never heard of S.A.T prep until I came here. I came here because my kids principal heard my D got some kind of award for black kids. I’ don’t remember ever hearing that before, but after coming here, I realized I’d gotten it too, thirty years earlier! I recently found a newspaper clipping about me in my mothers things.</p>
<p>I was in two tracks; voc and AP. Work, HBCU’s, and military time for schollys. Husband got Ivy and loans. 20 plus years and still paying.</p>
<p>All good though, because we are grateful, not resentful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My posts are consistent with each other. Income is correlated with IQ, and IQ is highly heritable. Therefore rich people tend to be smart and have smart kids who grow up to be high scorers on the SAT.</p>
<p>It’s the rich people resources that ultimately produce the smart kids.</p>
<p>And giving rich-people-resources to not-so-winderfulky-genetically-endowed kids will bring them closer to being on par with rich people in terms of educational achievement.</p>
<p>Then society will improve…!</p>
<p>(There’s also the fact that dumb people can give birth to smart kids who, in crappy situations, grow up to look like dumb kids who elitist rich people can call genetically inferior(when it comes to educational capacity) and deny access to top tier college resources to when it’s actually income/resource inequality that is hindering them.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I can’t fathom having a parent who went to an ivy league, to have that sort of background.</p>
<p>As for “tracks,” it’s not a term I invented. Usually when you get to junior high they start to separate people–it’s been awhile but I assume there was some kind of testing. In the math, the better-scoring people went from 6th grade math to pre-algebra while the others went to 7th grade math, which was basically a retread of 6th grade math.<br>
Then first year of high school, they did testing again. </p>
<p>I’m fine with everyone in the same class as long as it is fast and as rigorous as the top track would be if they split it up. When they put everyone together the class is geared toward the bottom 20%.</p>
<p>I think different tracks are great. It’s the closest we’ve come to recognizing and addressing the fact that every student has different educational needs. Advanced students shoukd take advanced courses, and lower level kids need remedial help and possibly preparation for skilled labor jobs.</p>
<p>Not all school systems have offical tracks; not all have G&T opportunities. It’s a matter of policy, funding and whatever impact from attention to things like no child left behind. Lots of complaints, depending on the state or local area.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The environment provided by educated and affluent parents has some impact on the IQ scores of young children, but adoption studies have found that by the time children reach their late teens, their IQs are more correlated to the IQs of their biological parents than of their adoptive ones, suggesting that genetic variation is more influential than environmental variation in determining intelligence in the United States.</p>
<p>The philosophy behind Head Start was similar to your own, but studies have found that it fails to raise IQ over the long term.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>source please.</p>
<p>Head Start wasn’t to raise IQ, but early school readiness- a catch-up program.<br>
Many believe IQ is a potential- that more experience with the sorts of tasks and testing that IQ specifically measures, leads to improved scores. Not a raw improvement in IQ, itself.
Similar to what many have said about the SATs.</p>
<p>Adding: in the long running argument about nature vs nurture, the very latest is a compromise of sorts- that nurture can have one heck of an impact on nature, in terms of behaviors, personality formation, motivations.</p>
<p>“Well, I can’t fathom having a parent who went to an ivy league, to have that sort of background.”</p>
<p>I couldn’t fathom practicing for an SAT. It was my husband, the Ivy grad, who suggested it. I thought he was crazy!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>-_-</p>
<p>Are you really trying to suggest that genes determine the vast majority of your future intelligence?</p>
<p>Why, I guess that means the whole idea of public education is flawed. People will be as smart as their genes say they will. Why the hell are there schools snyway?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think texaspg makes a good point, and one that people ought to think about with regard to the significance (or lack thereof) of SAT I scores for math achievement. It was my understanding that the SAT I math section is not intended to test math achievement but rather to test reasoning ability. Someone who breezes through the SAT I with high (99th-plus percentile) scores likely does not have much difficulty learning advanced math, but the SAT I is not intended to test achievement in advanced math. (I invite anyone who knows more about the test to expand upon or challenge my view!)</p>
<p>It would surprise me if someone who scores at the 90-plus percentile on the SAT I could not learn as much math as is necessary for the vast majority of STEM careers. Does that person have the same facility with the most recondite mathematical topics as someone testing at the 780-plus level? Probably not. That’s not the same thing as being marginal and academically unprepared. There are some people on these boards who always seem to be talking about people in the top half of one percent in terms of academic ability. </p>
<p>A class like the one LoremIpsum describes in post #1511 is obviously intended for people who are naturals at math. Those are not the only kind of math classes available even at elite schools, and they are not the only kind of math classes that prepare people for STEM careers. Even I know this, and I took my last math class in 1977.</p>
<p>I got an A at Harvard in Calculus and corrected Calc homework the following year with only a 730 in math. (Recentered still only a 730.) 
Got the same score twice, so not a fluke, but I didn’t practice either. (And yes I did much better on the SAT 2, 790 on that.)</p>
<p>I’m good at math, but no math genius. I enjoyed my engineering courses as part of architecture education and have been known to read stuff like Martin Gardener for fun.</p>
<p>“Only” a 730. Sheesh.</p>