TJ entrance test answers were never for sale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Low income /= stupid

PSAT is generally not prepped.
Aside from the FARM kids, the SES of the TJ students hasn't changed that much.

The overall economic distribution has shifted down. Fewer private school admits, kids from all MSs, more kids who receive FRMs, etc.

Standardized test scores are correlated with income.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/11/new-study-finds-wide-gap-in-sat-act-test-scores-between-wealthy-lower-income-kids/
children of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans were 13 times likelier than the children of low-income families to score 1300 or higher on SAT/ACT tests.

You didn't read the article did you?

The article interviews one of the authors of the study and asks if the SAT is a wealth test and he says:

DEMING: I think that’s a little bit misleading. And the reason is that everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth, including the SATs. I think when people call it a wealth test, they mean to delegitimize it as a measure of who can succeed in school. And the reality is that the SAT test does predict success in college. The SAT does capture something about whether you’re ready to do college level work.

I would urge us to create conditions under which there are more low- and middle-income students who can do well on the test, not to get rid of the test. Getting rid of the test doesn’t make the disparity go away. It just makes it invisible in the eyes of the public. For me, that’s the wrong direction.

Also, if you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.

My worry is that if we get rid of the SAT, you’re getting rid of the only way that a low-income student who’s academically talented has to distinguish themselves. Getting rid of the SAT means those people don’t have the opportunity to be noticed. I don’t think the SAT is perfect, but I think the problem isn’t the test. The problem is everything that happens before the test.

The same people later published this peer reviewed study that says that a wealthy kid with a good SAT score does just as well as a poor kid with the same SAT score. if the SAT score was in part driven by wealth in a way that was divorced from academic ability, you would expect the poor kid with a 1500 to outperform the rich kid with a 1500 and yet they do almost exactly the same.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

You know what else correlates with high test scores? Being Asian.

Almost 10% of asians get above a 1500 ono the SAT

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

I did read it; my point stands: standardized test scores are correlated with income.

And as you quoted:
"everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth"
"those things are incredibly related to wealth"


So, as I originally said, TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Did you miss the part about how people like you try to use this correlation to try and delegitimize standardized tests? Standardized tests are the single best predictor of not only academic performance but a whole raft of lifetime outcomes because they frequently measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability affects almost everything.

Your point is true but it is meaninglessd. The fact that rich people tend to have smart kids is not news to anybody.

Rich people tend to have kids who benefit from their privilege.

I didn't say anything about the legitimacy or value of standardized tests. I am merely pointing out the fact that standardized test scores are correlated with family income. A shift in incomes naturally leads to a shift in scores.

Regardless of how they got there, the rich kids are smarter. Whether it's because they had smarter parents or because they had better instruction, the kids are smarter.

You can have a school full of smart poor kids (see stuyvesant), but you have to select for them using metrics that measure how smart they are.

Smarter? It’s debatable, depending on how you define “smart”.

Privileged? Definitely.

The TJ admissions process was clearly biased towards privileged, wealthy applicants when you compare against the Stuy admissions process.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from an economically-disadvantaged family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Low income /= stupid

PSAT is generally not prepped.
Aside from the FARM kids, the SES of the TJ students hasn't changed that much.

The overall economic distribution has shifted down. Fewer private school admits, kids from all MSs, more kids who receive FRMs, etc.

Standardized test scores are correlated with income.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/11/new-study-finds-wide-gap-in-sat-act-test-scores-between-wealthy-lower-income-kids/
children of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans were 13 times likelier than the children of low-income families to score 1300 or higher on SAT/ACT tests.

You didn't read the article did you?

The article interviews one of the authors of the study and asks if the SAT is a wealth test and he says:

DEMING: I think that’s a little bit misleading. And the reason is that everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth, including the SATs. I think when people call it a wealth test, they mean to delegitimize it as a measure of who can succeed in school. And the reality is that the SAT test does predict success in college. The SAT does capture something about whether you’re ready to do college level work.

I would urge us to create conditions under which there are more low- and middle-income students who can do well on the test, not to get rid of the test. Getting rid of the test doesn’t make the disparity go away. It just makes it invisible in the eyes of the public. For me, that’s the wrong direction.

Also, if you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.

My worry is that if we get rid of the SAT, you’re getting rid of the only way that a low-income student who’s academically talented has to distinguish themselves. Getting rid of the SAT means those people don’t have the opportunity to be noticed. I don’t think the SAT is perfect, but I think the problem isn’t the test. The problem is everything that happens before the test.

The same people later published this peer reviewed study that says that a wealthy kid with a good SAT score does just as well as a poor kid with the same SAT score. if the SAT score was in part driven by wealth in a way that was divorced from academic ability, you would expect the poor kid with a 1500 to outperform the rich kid with a 1500 and yet they do almost exactly the same.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

You know what else correlates with high test scores? Being Asian.

Almost 10% of asians get above a 1500 ono the SAT

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

I did read it; my point stands: standardized test scores are correlated with income.

And as you quoted:
"everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth"
"those things are incredibly related to wealth"


So, as I originally said, TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Did you miss the part about how people like you try to use this correlation to try and delegitimize standardized tests? Standardized tests are the single best predictor of not only academic performance but a whole raft of lifetime outcomes because they frequently measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability affects almost everything.

Your point is true but it is meaninglessd. The fact that rich people tend to have smart kids is not news to anybody.

Rich people tend to have kids who benefit from their privilege.

I didn't say anything about the legitimacy or value of standardized tests. I am merely pointing out the fact that standardized test scores are correlated with family income. A shift in incomes naturally leads to a shift in scores.

Regardless of how they got there, the rich kids are smarter. Whether it's because they had smarter parents or because they had better instruction, the kids are smarter.

You can have a school full of smart poor kids (see stuyvesant), but you have to select for them using metrics that measure how smart they are.

Smarter? It’s debatable, depending on how you define “smart”.

Privileged? Definitely.

The TJ admissions process was clearly biased towards privileged, wealthy applicants when you compare against the Stuy admissions process.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from an economically-disadvantaged family.

the key difference between Stuy's and TJ's admis process is that Stuy didn't try to hide past questions or make SHSAT prep a rich-people-only thing. TJ could choose to use Stuy's transparent process, but it won't. You should ask yourself why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Low income /= stupid

PSAT is generally not prepped.
Aside from the FARM kids, the SES of the TJ students hasn't changed that much.

The overall economic distribution has shifted down. Fewer private school admits, kids from all MSs, more kids who receive FRMs, etc.

Standardized test scores are correlated with income.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/11/new-study-finds-wide-gap-in-sat-act-test-scores-between-wealthy-lower-income-kids/
children of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans were 13 times likelier than the children of low-income families to score 1300 or higher on SAT/ACT tests.

You didn't read the article did you?

The article interviews one of the authors of the study and asks if the SAT is a wealth test and he says:

DEMING: I think that’s a little bit misleading. And the reason is that everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth, including the SATs. I think when people call it a wealth test, they mean to delegitimize it as a measure of who can succeed in school. And the reality is that the SAT test does predict success in college. The SAT does capture something about whether you’re ready to do college level work.

I would urge us to create conditions under which there are more low- and middle-income students who can do well on the test, not to get rid of the test. Getting rid of the test doesn’t make the disparity go away. It just makes it invisible in the eyes of the public. For me, that’s the wrong direction.

Also, if you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.

My worry is that if we get rid of the SAT, you’re getting rid of the only way that a low-income student who’s academically talented has to distinguish themselves. Getting rid of the SAT means those people don’t have the opportunity to be noticed. I don’t think the SAT is perfect, but I think the problem isn’t the test. The problem is everything that happens before the test.

The same people later published this peer reviewed study that says that a wealthy kid with a good SAT score does just as well as a poor kid with the same SAT score. if the SAT score was in part driven by wealth in a way that was divorced from academic ability, you would expect the poor kid with a 1500 to outperform the rich kid with a 1500 and yet they do almost exactly the same.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

You know what else correlates with high test scores? Being Asian.

Almost 10% of asians get above a 1500 ono the SAT

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

I did read it; my point stands: standardized test scores are correlated with income.

And as you quoted:
"everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth"
"those things are incredibly related to wealth"


So, as I originally said, TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Did you miss the part about how people like you try to use this correlation to try and delegitimize standardized tests? Standardized tests are the single best predictor of not only academic performance but a whole raft of lifetime outcomes because they frequently measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability affects almost everything.

Your point is true but it is meaninglessd. The fact that rich people tend to have smart kids is not news to anybody.

Rich people tend to have kids who benefit from their privilege.

I didn't say anything about the legitimacy or value of standardized tests. I am merely pointing out the fact that standardized test scores are correlated with family income. A shift in incomes naturally leads to a shift in scores.

Regardless of how they got there, the rich kids are smarter. Whether it's because they had smarter parents or because they had better instruction, the kids are smarter.

You can have a school full of smart poor kids (see stuyvesant), but you have to select for them using metrics that measure how smart they are.

Smarter? It’s debatable, depending on how you define “smart”.

Privileged? Definitely.

The TJ admissions process was clearly biased towards privileged, wealthy applicants when you compare against the Stuy admissions process.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from an economically-disadvantaged family.

the key difference between Stuy's and TJ's admis process is that Stuy didn't try to hide past questions or make SHSAT prep a rich-people-only thing. TJ could choose to use Stuy's transparent process, but it won't. You should ask yourself why.

At least it’s moving in the right direction. Previously, it was nearly impossible for kids from low-income families to get a seat at TJ.

Less than 1% of kids in the class of 2024 came from economically-disadvantaged families.