<p>With regard to the correlation between scores and parental income levels, there is a link earlier on this thread to a study by Glenn Ellison of MIT and NBER and Ashley Swanson of MIT, on Heterogeneity in High Math Achievement across Schools. This study focuses on schools where the AMC exams are offered, and then within those schools, on the number of students scoring in excess of 100, and separately in excess of 120 on the AMC12.</p>
<p>The interesting finding of the authors is that at this high level of math achievement, “there are fewer high-achieving math students in more affluent areas.” Later in the report, the authors note that broadly speaking, there is a positive correlation between math achievement and income, but that the relation between “income and investments in reaching high levels of math achievement . . . may . . . turn down at the very top.”</p>
<p>The studies of the correlation between SAT and parental income tend to truncate the income scale at a point where the average SAT score is still well sub-Ivy level (although it is noticeably higher than the average score of the very economically disadvantaged groups). It would be interesting to know how far (in terms of income) the positive correlation continues, and whether a similar turn down at the top is found for the SAT.</p>
<p>I have been on a scholarship committee for a small pool of people where some were designated as financial need but a majority as merit based. It was by a religious organization and the applicants tend to be high achievers and the pool ranged from lower middle class to upper middle. </p>
<p>The score was required to be above 1800. The high achievers were all over 2200 (several close to being perfect). The low achievers were all asking to be considered under FA and under 2000. Makes me believe that quest bridge level incomes put kids at a disadvantage on SAT for whatever reasons, may be just being able to afford the prep or even paying attention to the test?</p>
<p>This is probably true, and I did mention that these were advanced/honors classes. Nevertheless, there are lots of very smart kids who are used to a lifetime of being at the top of the class – when suddenly confronted with a situation where they are no longer among the very best, many will decide to instead select another major where one can get high grades without endless hours of prep time (say, business rather than math or engineering). It may be true that these students could opt for the more basic versions of the class, but surely it must occur to them that if they are struggling at the beginning, it will only get worse by junior year.</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.
Then first year of high school, they did testing again. "</p>
<p>Yes, let’s make sure you treat your own high school experience as universal. You really don’t get that it’s done 30,000 different ways in the 30,000 different high schools in this country. Not everyone tracks, not everyone puts kids at the same levels in the same grades. Your hs experience is not universal.</p>
<p>I hope I didn’t come across as contradicting you, LoremIpsum. My point is that one needn’t be inhumanly gifted in math to succeed in a STEM field, which is what some people seem to be suggesting. I think you’re right about some people not wishing to struggle, although some clearly do plug away. I dated a guy like that. He is a smart guy, a working electrical engineer who has been steadily employed since he graduated more than 20 years ago. He was, in his words, “perfectly happy being an average student at Johns Hopkins.” I think he was also a better-than-average partier, but that’s another story.</p>
<p>LOL, should have put the “only” in quotation marks, I meant it that way. I thought it was a fine score then and a fine score now. I did retake the SAT - I got “only” a 720 the first time. :D</p>
<p>This has been an interesting discussion, but we’re far afield from the original post and the length has become unwieldy.</p>
<p>As a point of reference, we don’t do new “merits of AA” discussions at CC because the topic has been beaten to death so many times. These threads become soapboxes for opinionated people to vent, and often require mod intervention to avoid TOS violations.</p>
<p>We DO encourage discussions of individual AA issues, e.g., how an individual’s chances might be affected by their URM status, whether a student qualifies as a URM, etc. In those topics, though, please avoid turning them into a referendum on the merits or evils of AA.</p>
<p>Closing this thread, but thanks for participating in this vigorous exchange of ideas!</p>