Yep - but sadly, these exams end up being little more than an opportunity for families of means to spend money to get their kids ahead through familiarity with the exam, rather than through superior content area knowledge. And you can talk all you want about free prep opportunities and “just studying hard”, but if they were as effective as the boutique options, motivated families wouldn’t spend the extra money and would just use the free stuff. |
They are, and it’s by about $20,000 per capita. This isn’t a topic that’s up for debate among serious people. |
So their signature program was about $3000 a year over 2 years and it would get your kid into TJ? |
I don't know but I would guess that it might be that: 1. Low income asians in fairfax were competing with middle class asians with better educated parents. 2. There are not as many middle class asians that stay in the nyc and attend public schools so the low income asians crowd them out. 3. The low income asians in NYC getting into stuy are from confucian cultures or the indian subcontinentT the low income asians in fairfax are frequently from other parts of asia. 4. The holistic elements of the admissions process really discriminates against poor kids generally but especially against poor kids of an over-represented group. Summer STEM camps cost money, robotics cost money, math coaching for math competitions can cost a lot of money. |
Really where do they push it as the ultimate "test prep" option? I mean they seem to be going out of their way to say that this will not only prepare them for entrance exams but also for high school and college. |
Of the things to overemphasize, I think overemphasizing education is probably better than overemphasizing travel sports. |
If they can't cut it then they are less deserving. It's an objective test. Get gud son |
Nobody is studying the structure of the SHSAT or Quant Q for 6 years or even 2 years. The test prep part is about 2 weeks and cost an extra $300 at Curie. Testing is still the best method we have of measuring cognitive ability. In fact its so good that we have an entire branch of psychology dedicated to using tests to measure cognitive ability. And the results are so reliable that peer reviewed research from harvard and brown has concluded that standardized tests like the SATs are the best predictors of college academic performance and that predictive ability is not affected by the student's income. In other words a poor kid with a 1500 does almost exactly the same as a rich kid with a 1500. if the SATs were really measuring wealth in some way, you would expect the poor kids to overperform their SAT scores but they don't and you would expect the rich kids to underperform their SAT scores, but they don't. |
Once again, take the wealthiest 500 wealthiest people in fairfax and loudon combined and tell me how many indians are in that group? |