<p>I know of no students at our high school who did exceptionally well on the SAT and underwent test prep. That is generally regarded as something for the straggler kids - the ones worried about admission to our public U or less well known regional privates. The only families I know who signed their kids up for test prep did it because their kids GPAs were weak and they were trying to bolster an already less than stellar application.</p>
<p>The really uncomfortable truth about the SAT is that it measures very basic skill in mathematics and reading/writing. If a student has been an avid reader (most important thing of all) and applied themselves diligently to math class throughout their education, then they will be most likely to score quite well. </p>
<p>Thereading issue is really at the crux of all the hand-wringing. For the family that does not instill a love of books in their kids, the battle is just going to be very, very tough to win. And as far as I am concerned, it doesn’t take a lot of wealth to encourage your kid to read and provide them with plenty of books. </p>
<p>I believe that the critical reading section of the SAT actually does quite a good job of identifying the students who are good critical readers. If colleges abandon this criterion for selecting students, then I will seriously thing about abandoning such colleges when my second kid starts her applications. I want my kids to go to college with other kids who can read extremely well. I don’t care what their socio-economic status might be but if they can’t read well then they really don’t belong at college, let alone prestigious ones.</p>
<p>Unplug the ipod and the video games and the internet and hand them a book or even better a newspaper.</p>
<p>So, I checked with a relative who works at a very successful prep school on the east coast, who simply laughed and said everyone of their students receive extensive paid test prep beginning as a freshman. She said she guessed the average amount parents spent on their kids for all four years for summer programs, tutoring, etc. was about $45,000. Almost all the kids go to Ivy or similar schools.</p>
<p>^ She works there, huh. Right. My kids also attend an East Coast prep school (on academic scholarship, partially) and my kids and their peers at this school have NO TIME to take SAT prep courses. They are way too busy taking upwards of eight APs, maintaining very high gpa’s where the competition to get good grades is truly fierce, and pursuing their music, sports and myriad other activities. The few getting the prep are the ones struggling just to survive the rigors of high school, not the ones aiming high in their applications for college. The SAT is the least of their concerns.</p>
<p>The article is just more nonsense attempting to stir up class warfare. The concern should be directed at the parents who do not take their kids to the library. The SAT is not a road block to the poor, it is their ticket to opportunity.</p>
<p>What counts as test prep? Books or actual classes?</p>
<p>Because on average, a test prep book is $20…so I can figure out how much I’ve spent on testing (and I do <em>not</em> come from a wealthy family.)</p>
<p>SAT: $45 + The Official Guide $20 + Math SAT sparknotes $10
ACT: $46 + Testing guide (Kaplan) $20
APs: [Last year] AP World $83 + Guide Book $20 + Flashcards $20
[This year] AP Eng Lang, Env Sci, US Hist $86x3 + $20x3 [all flashcards]</p>
<p>I’ve spent $582 on what’s ‘basic test prep’. I’m a low income minority student, so basically any money I get goes to ‘test prep’. Next year I’m taking another 3 APs and if they continue to raise in price by $3/year my expenses will be: $327 <em>at least</em> [That’s $909 total, for anyone whipping out their calculators with me. Ideally, I’m going to add a 4th self-taught AP which would even out the price to $1,018 for four years of testing.]</p>
<p>The ‘blue book’ is the same price as all the other books they have out there, and having money does help. I’ve had to space out my buying this year, and all those prep books are coming from my personal funds. I didn’t realize I could get my SAT fee waived, and I didn’t score as high as I wanted, so I’m going to try and retake with the waiver- which will allow my application fees to be waived. And at 70 or so bucks a pop, I can’t afford it at all, otherwise. </p>
<p>Of course, you can say I wasted my money and should’ve checked out books from the library, but I pose this: They don’t have all the test guides for all the tests I’m taking at the library. The best way to review is to have a guide or flashcards. </p>
<p>It’s hard to have the playing field leveled.</p>
<p>sewhappy: She is the dean of students. The tutoring is not just SAT prep, but involves many other facets of high school success and college preparation. They begin the freshman year with a plan built individually for each student depending on the school(s) they are targeting and each student’s strengths and weaknesses. The plan is continually reevaluated and adjusted based on changing conditions at the target school(s). They are wildly successful. The principal has been known to fly to a college to meet personally with college officials about students.</p>
<p>Why would officials at any college agree to meet personally with a representative from such an elite high school? I thought their mandate is to usher in the under reperesented and disadvantaged at their institutions.</p>
<p>I’d say Fitzsimmons at Harvard quoted in the article is a tad hypocritical if his institution is accepting droves of kids from such an absurd high school. And I feel very sorry for those kids. Sounds like their youth is spent in abject misery and my guess is that at some point they will begin to rebel.</p>
<p>The sat was invented to help Harvard find brilliant students in obscure places, ie, not at Exeter, Andover, Deerfield and St Pauls. Ironic that it’s so widely considered the opposite of that: a way to buy your way in to college. But really, before opining about the sat, take one, and you’ll have a pretty good understanding of what it tests for: reasoning, the ability to concentrate, etc.</p>
<p>My kid goes to an inner-city public school. The school has a grant to offer a Kaplan course to anyone who wants it. Some take it, some don’t. The school offers in-school subject prep (and SAT prep) every Saturday so students can come when they feel the need. The principal requires that every student take at least one class on the English side and one on the Math side so they will be familiar with the format of the SAT in case they haven’t already been exposed.</p>
<p>^ lol - Yes, idler, it tests for all those elitist qualities!</p>
<p>I get the feeling people like the one at Wash Post who just alerted us all to this disgraceful state of affairs perhaps attended an Exeter or Andover and didn’t do so well on the SAT . . . His article, imo, displays very little “reasoning or the ability to concentrate”.</p>
<p><quote>I think colleges should be informed if a student got test prep or not. </quote></p>
<p>This is a bad idea, and another chance for students to lie. Almost everyone uses some kind of test prep, but many would report that they did not. Also, what if you used it on one test, and not another, etc…</p>
<p>I agree that poor people do not have a “god given right” to attend private schools. Neither do schools have an obligation to base admissions on test scores. One thing I have observed over and over again on cc is the near constant parental belief that whatever their child does best is really the best objective measure for admissions. Those with fabulous test takers think standardized test scores are clearly the best measure, parents of 4.0 students think test are a blip and that the best objective measure is gpa, parents of students with a singular stunning gift argue that genius at x should be valued, etc., etc.</p>
<p>The reality is that SAT scores are linked to afluence. So are most other easily measured achievement/intelligence markers. Colleges that are interested in finding talent that has not been nurtured by a supportive environment must look beyond those measures.</p>
<p>People get outraged about expensive test prep courses, but here in our middle class Southern Calif. high school almost no one does that sort of thing. Maybe those courses are an east coast thing. Most of the college-bound kids near the top of the class here that I’m aware of buy a prep book or two and self-study. Friends trade the books around with each other. The self-studying seems to help. My D1 raised her SAT 70 points on the old 1600 point test with a self-study book and a retake. D2 raised hers 260 points (2400 pt. test) using the same method.</p>
<p>The only kid I know who paid for an expensive formal SAT course was a recruited athlete who needed to get his score up to the NCAA minimum in order to qualify for his scholarship. He succeeded.</p>
<p>Well! What I want to know is where the riches that I’m apparently supposed to have, based on my kid’s SAT score, are! I also want to know where the multimillion contract that precedes a rotator cuff injury, because I have one of those, too, is hiding! </p>
<p>Where’s that big ol’ fat wad o’ cash I’m supposed to have? I want my money, dangfrazznabit!!</p>
<p>It was in our case. D2 took the SAT in Oct of her junior year. Did significantly better on the verbal/wirting in June of her junior year. She claims that the difference was junior year English…</p>
<p>Read Origin of the Species summer before junior year - yup, all 650 pages. Put this math/science kid into the 800 CR zone without passing go. The book was in his grandpa’s basement. Who knows what it cost? No flash cards. No spark notes. </p>
<p>Yes - he did use the Blue Book. Every last 20 dollar page of it.</p>
<p>1.SO wealthier students have a better environment and thus are more intelligent and have better reasoning skills</p>
<p>2.poorer students have a worse environment and thus are less intelligent and have worse reasoning skills.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>colleges want intelligent students therefore wealthier students are better off, so is this article asking for colleges to lower their standards and over look the SAT when it clearly does assess reasoning skills which poorer students dont have the opportunity to develop?</p></li>
<li><p>therefore the problem is not the SAT, but the POVERTY. The SAT is just a symptom. HOWEVER there will always be poverty in any civilization (minus socialism/communism where everyone is poor) therefore THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT IT.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Dumb *<strong><em>heads keep blaming the system and saying its not fair. Life isnt fair, but the system does help those people without resources if they try hard (Questbridge, Ivy financial aid). And ITS NOT LIKE EVERY RICH PERSON IS A GENOIOUS THE GUY IN THE ARTICLE GOT A 1920 FOR *</em></strong>S SAKE.</p>
<p>The difference between a 490 and a 560 may be the product of tutoring, but the difference between a 660 and an 800 is not. Thirty/Twenty points is not that much in the grand scheme of things, and NO colleges dont use a magical formula to calculate acceptances though the article clearly states they do.</p>
<p>AND TEST PREP IS A SCAM (IMO) AND SO IS COLLEGE COUNSELING TO A CERTAIN EXTENT</p>
You seem to be forgetting the genetic component of his intelligence (likely 2+ standard deviation above the mean) which can not be practiced. It’s called luck. And when the intelligence genes are doled out the lucky ones get more of it.</p>