Banneker SAT averages: 494 Math; 502 Reading

[Anonymous]

There are absolutley NO legitimate excuses for "smart" kids to do poorly on the SAT. The SATs are set up to test reasoning and logic. Therefore, if you score poorly on those it indicates that the students have a poorly developed sense of knowledge integration. It is normal and expected in low SES students do to the failure to provide nuturing, stimulating, multi-modal learning environments in the early years. That is the ONLY reason why SAT scores are not as heavily weighted in minorities. It is a crutch to compensate for the early damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well stated, 21:12, and needed to be said.

Too often, while reading this thread, I felt like I was listening to clueless conservative Republicans after the election.

Because everyone who disagrees with you and your font of knowledge is obviously clueless? Or conservative? Or Republican? Do they all go hand-in-hand? And, it logically follows that everyone who agrees with you is brilliant?

When you make broad-based assumptions like that, you are not proving someone else's ignorance. You're just editorializing and proving your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But... willingness to sacrifice and do hard work also should correlate to ability to nail SATs. SAT test prep doesn't have to be a course, nor be an unaffordable expense for any household, if you are resourceful and willing to work at it.

Well, what you think should be the case and what the research shows don't always go together, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are absolutley NO legitimate excuses for "smart" kids to do poorly on the SAT. The SATs are set up to test reasoning and logic. Therefore, if you score poorly on those it indicates that the students have a poorly developed sense of knowledge integration. It is normal and expected in low SES students do to the failure to provide nuturing, stimulating, multi-modal learning environments in the early years. That is the ONLY reason why SAT scores are not as heavily weighted in minorities. It is a crutch to compensate for the early damages.

But SAT performance is not as closely correlated with academic success as GPA is. GPA is a better indicator of success than SAT scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But... willingness to sacrifice and do hard work also should correlate to ability to nail SATs. SAT test prep doesn't have to be a course, nor be an unaffordable expense for any household, if you are resourceful and willing to work at it.

Well, what you think should be the case and what the research shows don't always go together, eh?

What's the research? I killed this test as a Sophomore, having gotten 2 hours of sleep the night beforehand. I wasn't well-rested, I certainly took no prep courses, and I got a National Merit anyway. (The PSAT - Preliminary SAT is also the NMSQT - National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But... willingness to sacrifice and do hard work also should correlate to ability to nail SATs. SAT test prep doesn't have to be a course, nor be an unaffordable expense for any household, if you are resourceful and willing to work at it.

Well, what you think should be the case and what the research shows don't always go together, eh?

What's the research? I killed this test as a Sophomore, having gotten 2 hours of sleep the night beforehand. I wasn't well-rested, I certainly took no prep courses, and I got a National Merit anyway. (The PSAT - Preliminary SAT is also the NMSQT - National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test)

Congratulations on getting National Merit. So I take it you're saying that nailing the SATs is not necessarily correlated with working hard based on your personal experience?

Anyway, the pp I was responding to seemed to be suggesting that if Banneker students were willing to work hard and get good grades that they should also be able to nail the SATs. I took her implication to be that this meant they could have scored higher and the fact that they didn't meant that they weren't all that accomplished. My offhand comment was about the research showing that college success is more correlated with GPA than SAT scores and the research I cited can be found on page 10 of this thread. But now that I reread her comment, she may not have meant what I thought she did. At any rate, if I had to choose between high SAT scores and high GPA for my kid - and it's a ridiculous question because no one gets to choose these things but if I had to choose, I would definitely pick high GPA because that would give me more confidence that she would be a success in life.

(Not dissing your accomplishment at all, pp. I wish I could say the same. Fact is, I was so mad at the world at that age that when I went into the testing room and they told us to take our text books out of the room, it made me so mad that I deliberately wrote down all the wrong answers on the PSATs. I was really insulted that they would think we could actually cheat on a national test by looking at our textbooks. Now that I think about it, my adolescence is a perfect example of how being really smart intellectually didn't help me as much as good study habits and hard work would have!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But... willingness to sacrifice and do hard work also should correlate to ability to nail SATs. SAT test prep doesn't have to be a course, nor be an unaffordable expense for any household, if you are resourceful and willing to work at it.

Well, what you think should be the case and what the research shows don't always go together, eh?

There is no universal standard for what it takes to get a high GPA - it could also be that the disparity between low-SES high GPA and those same students not doing well on the SAT is that the schools where those low-SES students go have watered down their academic expectations, making it easier to get a high GPA. Researchers would want to have a control - something that is consistent across the sample - standards for hitting a certain GPA is inconsistent from one school to the next, but SAT scores are computed the same way no matter what SES or school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are absolutley NO legitimate excuses for "smart" kids to do poorly on the SAT. The SATs are set up to test reasoning and logic. Therefore, if you score poorly on those it indicates that the students have a poorly developed sense of knowledge integration. It is normal and expected in low SES students do to the failure to provide nuturing, stimulating, multi-modal learning environments in the early years. That is the ONLY reason why SAT scores are not as heavily weighted in minorities. It is a crutch to compensate for the early damages.

Did you bump your head on a rock, or do you work for the Heritage Foundation. Why does Kaplan and Princeton Review make so much money? Why do parents hire private SAT tutors if it doesn't make any difference? Of course it makes a difference. Doing well on the SAT has NOTHING to do with being "smart."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But... willingness to sacrifice and do hard work also should correlate to ability to nail SATs. SAT test prep doesn't have to be a course, nor be an unaffordable expense for any household, if you are resourceful and willing to work at it.

Well, what you think should be the case and what the research shows don't always go together, eh?

What's the research? I killed this test as a Sophomore, having gotten 2 hours of sleep the night beforehand. I wasn't well-rested, I certainly took no prep courses, and I got a National Merit anyway. (The PSAT - Preliminary SAT is also the NMSQT - National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test)

Congratulations on getting National Merit. So I take it you're saying that nailing the SATs is not necessarily correlated with working hard based on your personal experience?

Anyway, the pp I was responding to seemed to be suggesting that if Banneker students were willing to work hard and get good grades that they should also be able to nail the SATs. I took her implication to be that this meant they could have scored higher and the fact that they didn't meant that they weren't all that accomplished. My offhand comment was about the research showing that college success is more correlated with GPA than SAT scores and the research I cited can be found on page 10 of this thread. But now that I reread her comment, she may not have meant what I thought she did. At any rate, if I had to choose between high SAT scores and high GPA for my kid - and it's a ridiculous question because no one gets to choose these things but if I had to choose, I would definitely pick high GPA because that would give me more confidence that she would be a success in life.

(Not dissing your accomplishment at all, pp. I wish I could say the same. Fact is, I was so mad at the world at that age that when I went into the testing room and they told us to take our text books out of the room, it made me so mad that I deliberately wrote down all the wrong answers on the PSATs. I was really insulted that they would think we could actually cheat on a national test by looking at our textbooks. Now that I think about it, my adolescence is a perfect example of how being really smart intellectually didn't help me as much as good study habits and hard work would have!)

Agreed that hard work is important. The point was really that high SAT scores are ubiquitous in this area, as are Ivy League diplomas and law degrees. A lot of parents are so accustomed to them that we take them for granted. I know I do. It is disturbing to see low scores at a supposedly high-performing school, and the suggestion that it is because the students didn't take a test prep course doesn't hold water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are absolutley NO legitimate excuses for "smart" kids to do poorly on the SAT. The SATs are set up to test reasoning and logic. Therefore, if you score poorly on those it indicates that the students have a poorly developed sense of knowledge integration. It is normal and expected in low SES students do to the failure to provide nuturing, stimulating, multi-modal learning environments in the early years. That is the ONLY reason why SAT scores are not as heavily weighted in minorities. It is a crutch to compensate for the early damages.

Did you bump your head on a rock, or do you work for the Heritage Foundation. Why does Kaplan and Princeton Review make so much money? Why do parents hire private SAT tutors if it doesn't make any difference? Of course it makes a difference. Doing well on the SAT has NOTHING to do with being "smart."

Let me explain it in simple, easy to understand terms. Since you both negate and support my comments I can only assume one of two things: that either comprehension isn't your strong suit or your ability to construct a logical argument is lacking. The SAT tests reasoning. Reasoning is the ability to make judgements, apply logic and draw upon disparate pieces of information to form logical conclusions. Reasoning is what makes a person intelligent, not rote memorization, a GPA, a good work ethic or laundry list of courses. All of those things are factors for success, but without reasoning skills they are moot. The SAT weeds out the kids who can't reason well and separates them from the ones who have great GPAs and allows schools to have another metric for measuring potential success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are absolutley NO legitimate excuses for "smart" kids to do poorly on the SAT. The SATs are set up to test reasoning and logic. Therefore, if you score poorly on those it indicates that the students have a poorly developed sense of knowledge integration. It is normal and expected in low SES students do to the failure to provide nuturing, stimulating, multi-modal learning environments in the early years. That is the ONLY reason why SAT scores are not as heavily weighted in minorities. It is a crutch to compensate for the early damages.

Did you bump your head on a rock, or do you work for the Heritage Foundation. Why does Kaplan and Princeton Review make so much money? Why do parents hire private SAT tutors if it doesn't make any difference? Of course it makes a difference. Doing well on the SAT has NOTHING to do with being "smart."

Let me explain it in simple, easy to understand terms. Since you both negate and support my comments I can only assume one of two things: that either comprehension isn't your strong suit or your ability to construct a logical argument is lacking. The SAT tests reasoning. Reasoning is the ability to make judgements, apply logic and draw upon disparate pieces of information to form logical conclusions. Reasoning is what makes a person intelligent, not rote memorization, a GPA, a good work ethic or laundry list of courses. All of those things are factors for success, but without reasoning skills they are moot. The SAT weeds out the kids who can't reason well and separates them from the ones who have great GPAs and allows schools to have another metric for measuring potential success.

You didn't address my premise. Why do people pay thousands of dollars if the test is just based on "logic". Anyone can learn to take a test. People who take a test prep clearly do better. Ok, that's the only logical statement - and it was made by me. One can learn logic and how to answer a question in test prep. I took the bar and I didn't really know the material, but I knew how to answer the pattern of the question. I passed with a very high score. I didn't know what secured transaction was until I worked in an investment bank, but damn if I didn't know how to answer those questions.

SAT test prep companies would go out of business if they did not make an impact.

Besides, let it be a crutch. Something tells me that I make so much more money than you, you are not worth my time. Clearly, we are not peers.

[Anonymous]

True. I doubt we are peers, not because of your perceived SES status, but because of your idiocy. I do not maintain friendships with anyone who believes, in this day and age, that AAs deserve a crutch simply for being AA. How can you possibly even defend that position?
As for your premise, you agree that the test is about logic. So then can you explain what you are disagreeing with when I stated that the test is about logic? What you seemed to not understand is the (rephrased) statement: there is no reason for intelligent kids to do poorly on the SAT since it is a test of logic. Intelligent people naturally possess logic, though it certainly can be trained in when you don't have it. With or without test prep, kids in a selective admission school shouldn't be scoring this low. FWIW, I scored well into the 30s on my MCAT without test prep. Unlike the LSAT, the MCAT is heavy on applied knowledge in conjunction with logic and critical thinking. The test prep argument just doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True. I doubt we are peers, not because of your perceived SES status, but because of your idiocy. I do not maintain friendships with anyone who believes, in this day and age, that AAs deserve a crutch simply for being AA. How can you possibly even defend that position?
As for your premise, you agree that the test is about logic. So then can you explain what you are disagreeing with when I stated that the test is about logic? What you seemed to not understand is the (rephrased) statement: there is no reason for intelligent kids to do poorly on the SAT since it is a test of logic. Intelligent people naturally possess logic, though it certainly can be trained in when you don't have it. With or without test prep, kids in a selective admission school shouldn't be scoring this low. FWIW, I scored well into the 30s on my MCAT without test prep. Unlike the LSAT, the MCAT is heavy on applied knowledge in conjunction with logic and critical thinking. The test prep argument just doesn't cut it.

So again, if test prep makes no difference, why do people spend so much money on it. I took a bar review class and I learned how to answer the question. Great, you didn't take a test prep and did well. I don't know ANYONE who does that. In high school, every single kid I knew had a private SAT tutor.

Who said it was a crutch? I think the problem is growing up poor. I don't think the SAT has anything to do with intelligence. It's a test. If that was the case, why don't any studies support that? Man, sometimes I really wise we could say who we really are when posting.

I am finished with you. You are clearly someone that I would never want to befriend. Go forth, and be a jerk. Do you even know any black people? If you do, did you meet them at Clarence Thomas' house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True. I doubt we are peers, not because of your perceived SES status, but because of your idiocy. I do not maintain friendships with anyone who believes, in this day and age, that AAs deserve a crutch simply for being AA. How can you possibly even defend that position?
As for your premise, you agree that the test is about logic. So then can you explain what you are disagreeing with when I stated that the test is about logic? What you seemed to not understand is the (rephrased) statement: there is no reason for intelligent kids to do poorly on the SAT since it is a test of logic. Intelligent people naturally possess logic, though it certainly can be trained in when you don't have it. With or without test prep, kids in a selective admission school shouldn't be scoring this low. FWIW, I scored well into the 30s on my MCAT without test prep. Unlike the LSAT, the MCAT is heavy on applied knowledge in conjunction with logic and critical thinking. The test prep argument just doesn't cut it.

So again, if test prep makes no difference, why do people spend so much money on it. I took a bar review class and I learned how to answer the question. Great, you didn't take a test prep and did well. I don't know ANYONE who does that. In high school, every single kid I knew had a private SAT tutor.

Who said it was a crutch? I think the problem is growing up poor. I don't think the SAT has anything to do with intelligence. It's a test. If that was the case, why don't any studies support that? Man, sometimes I really wise we could say who we really are when posting.

I am finished with you. You are clearly someone that I would never want to befriend. Go forth, and be a jerk. Do you even know any black people? If you do, did you meet them at Clarence Thomas' house?

One more thing, I wasn't quite finished. I want you to know, that I will use my crutch and my son will be at Stanford. He will be taking your kids' place. You will be pissed and I won't care. I will use the race card all day every day. Because of people like you. Oh, and my kid will get a scholarship and you will pay. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True. I doubt we are peers, not because of your perceived SES status, but because of your idiocy. I do not maintain friendships with anyone who believes, in this day and age, that AAs deserve a crutch simply for being AA. How can you possibly even defend that position?
As for your premise, you agree that the test is about logic. So then can you explain what you are disagreeing with when I stated that the test is about logic? What you seemed to not understand is the (rephrased) statement: there is no reason for intelligent kids to do poorly on the SAT since it is a test of logic. Intelligent people naturally possess logic, though it certainly can be trained in when you don't have it. With or without test prep, kids in a selective admission school shouldn't be scoring this low. FWIW, I scored well into the 30s on my MCAT without test prep. Unlike the LSAT, the MCAT is heavy on applied knowledge in conjunction with logic and critical thinking. The test prep argument just doesn't cut it.

The LSAT is all logic.