Originally Posted by Bostonian
Originally Posted by Mana
http://www.forbes.com/sites/natalie...rewrite-the-rules-of-college-admissions/
From the article:
Quote
Although standardized test scores were initially implemented to put students on a level playing field for aptitude assessment in the college admissions game, they have since become a divisive factor among applicants. Students with more money to spend on tutors and prep books have an advantage over others who cannot afford to pour money and resources into their preparation. This socioeconomic divide polarizes students, equally prepared for college, by their SAT/ACT scores and puts underprivileged applicants at a disadvantage when up against their privileged peers in the applicant pool. Consequently, the tests have been criticized for failing to serve as an indicator for success in college; a recent National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) study has confirmed that view.
In reality, differential access to test prep explains very little of the SES gap in standardized test scores, as discussed in the following blog post:

The SAT, Test Prep, Income and Race
by Alex Tabarrok
March 11, 2014


The other factor that I think is all-too-often overlooked in discussions of SES and correlations to high-stakes standardized testing is twofold. Income matters VERY much in terms of:

1. Ability to shop for a specialist that can get to the bottom of quirky, subtle, or unusual LD/disability issues-- therefore leveling the playing field for those students who have documented and approved accommodations. Most of those students will NOT be those below the median income. Odds are reasonably good, in fact, that low-income students have had little meaningful intervention aimed at mitigation or management either if their parents lack the awareness or resources to argue for it, so they may be at an even greater disadvantage than those of higher SES.

2. Ability to afford to take tests enough times to super-score. When the cost of taking the ACT or SAT is a sacrifice on a family's standard of living (that is, families have to forgo some other necessities, or make changes to spending patterns to afford it), odds are very good that those students are not going to be taking the test more than once.

Both of those factors just seem SO obvious to me, and yet the people/agencies that look at income disparity, equality, and want to drive college opportunity for low-income students-- well, they just seem to be blind to both things. Nothing could say more clearly that people analyzing the problem have no first-hand experience of living that way (low income, I mean). Failure to understand the structural barriers present in low-income homes, and how pervasively those barriers prevent access to programs intended to assist such families and their children-- well, that explains so very much about why such programs seem to have very little impact on the target communities. Free meal programs don't understand that the kids of working parents can't access those sites because they lack independent transportation to get there during the summer... Free "prep" or "academic coaching" programs fail to grasp that the target students may be WORKING weekends/evenings to help their family make ends meet, etc. etc. etc.

It's not really about who can afford a private tutor. It's about everything.




Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.