Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion SAT not an affluence test

All high-quality academic tests look as if they’re affluence tests. It’s inevitable. Parental IQ is correlated with children’s IQ everywhere. In all advanced societies, income is correlated with IQ. Scores on academic achievement tests are always correlated with the test-takers’ IQ. Those three correlations guarantee that every standardized academic-achievement test shows higher average test scores as parental income increases.

But those correlations also mean that a lot of the apparent income effect is actually owed to parental IQ. The SAT doesn’t have IQ information on the parents. But the widely used National Longitudinal Survey of Youth contains thousands of cases with data on family income, the mother’s IQ, and her children’s performance on the math and reading tests of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test battery, which test the same skills as the math and reading tests of the SAT.

For the SAT, shifting to more than $200,000 of family income from less than $20,000 moved the average score on the combined math and reading tests to the 74th percentile from the 31st—a jump of 43 percentiles. The same income shift moved the average PIAT score to the 82nd percentile from the 30th—a jump of 52 percentiles.

Now let’s look at the income effect in the PIAT when the mother’s IQ is statistically held constant at the national average of 100. Going to a $200,000 family income from a $1,000 family income raises the score only to the 76th percentile from the 50th—an increase of 26 percentiles. More important, almost all of the effect occurs for people making less than $125,000. Going to $200,000 from $125,000 moves the PIAT score only to the 76th percentile from the 73rd—a trivial change. Beyond $200,000, PIAT scores go down as income increases.

Going to a $200,000 family income from a $1,000 family income raises the score only to the 76th percentile from the 50th—an increase of 26 percentiles.

Beyond $200,000, PIAT scores go down as income increases.

Some may say it is the behaviors which tend to lead to educational, academic, and career achievements... and that the behaviors reveal the broad range of underlying values, such as work ethic, held by different families.

Buy low and sell dear.

Practice usury and fraud.

Indeed, some do get ahead financially by abandoning ethics, however the point made was reaping the benefits of positive work ethic, to achieve beyond what may be predicted for one's modest SES level, which applied to the example given of the Carson family.

To stay on topic, do you believe there is a correlation between usury and fraud, SES, and SAT test results?

1) Notice the wording which implies correlation means causation: "... family income raises the score..."
2) Interesting as some wealthy families who own their family business have paid themselves $0 annual salary, to gain financial advantage.

Obviously, capping salaries at 200K USD would raise the intelligence of the kids whose parents are plagued by excessive salary. To aid in redistribution, why not cap salaries at 125K USD!

Some may say it is the behaviors which tend to lead to educational, academic, and career achievements... and that the behaviors reveal the broad range of underlying values, such as work ethic, held by different families.

People love a rags-to-riches success story, championing the underdog is part of the American dream. Many find the story of Dr. Ben Carson, "Gifted Hands" to be highly inspirational. His mom was divorced, had only a third grade education, was functionally illiterate, but possessed great dignity and worth ethic. In limiting her sons' TV viewing and encouraging use of the local public library, she raised their expectations of what their lives could be.

Some may say that a problem with dire reports about correlation between SES and achievement is that such reports may tend to become a negative self-fulfilling prophecy... an excuse for not pushing the boundaries and creating opportunity where there was none.

I think the bolded part is a huge problem. Schools cannot solve everything that is wrong with the society, but they have to have some value added. It cannot all be SES or mother's IQ.

Life *is* like a box of chocolates.

Yes, Forrest Gump did not seem to make use of the identification guide which comes inside the lid of many a box of chocolates, nor did he seem to learn from experience what would likely be inside a similar-looking chocolate truffle. Possibly because Mama influenced him by saying, "... You never know what you're gonna get." Despite the LDs and modest SES of the portrayed character, he had what some may consider a rather fulfilling life.

Schools cannot solve everything that is wrong with the society...

... but they have to have some value added.

It cannot all be SES or mother's IQ.