Purdue Returning to Test Required

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

I heard multiple college admissions officers say that test optional was creating the most difficulty in their ability to determine which underprivileged kids would be likely to succeed once they arrived on campus. The discussions were considering whether they should bring back tests. These schools said they have enough information without tests to choose among applicants coming from privileged backgrounds or from high schools that they are familiar with. All of these kids will likely do just fine and they can choose among them based on other parts of the application. They said the harder part was evaluating a kid from a small town school that doesn't typically have applicants to their college or underprivileged kids applying. For these kids, they want to have them on paper as part of their student community but really want to make sure that the kid will have the academic skills to succeed. And apparently the test scores really help with that. They are not looking for some stellar score, but alternatively, a score above some lower threshold.

This sounds all well and good, but c’mon - that’s not why you have so many posters on this thread saying hallelujah over schools not being test optional. They like tests because they have privileged kids with high test scores that probably wouldn’t be as high as they are except for their privileged circumstances, and yet they still think those test scores should trump everything else. They view test scores as a scalpel and not an axe.

I have “bad test taking kids.” I know this bc they took entrance tests in middle school and even with paid prep never did that well. But test optional doesn’t help them either as there is confusion as to what it means and it has inflated the test scores significantly. It only muddies the waters bc the story is less complete. I am for a return to testing - even though that means my kids will be limited in their options - bc it seems to make sense to have that data. Doesn’t the rest of the world rely on it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

First gen college here, as an aside.

But I have a serious question for the lawyers on the board, why can’t admissions officers do what the Georgetown Dean claims: adjust score thresholds for zip codes/profiles? (He is quoted in the latest Selingo article as saying a 1200 from an underprivileged zip code should be viewed differ than a 1200 from a kid with lots of resources). Aren’t there studies out there on upward mobility that could prove certain profiles, including test scores below the the college range but above the range for a kid’s particular high school, often have a high rate of success in college, and are therefore worth admitting? Seems like you wouldn’t have to get into questions about race but rather opportunity.

Couldn't you also ask kids on an application if they enrolled in a prep class? Georgetown already asks to see all scores.

It seems to me more info is good rather than bad.

One thing I’ve heard is that it’s hard for admission officers to “unsee” bad scores. They may love a Black applicant with good grades and recs, but when they see the 1000 on the SAT, it’s just really hard to forget it. Then, they end up with fewer Black kids than they had desired in the class overall. If they never see the score at all, it’s a lot easier to admit the student.

But why shouldn't the score be considered? If a score of 1000 is lower than the school would like, in a competitive application cycle why should that score be okay for a black student and not for students of a different race? I believe in diversity, truly, but I don't like how colleges have to twist themselves into pretzels and make themselves blind to objective data points just to prove how diverse they are. It reaches a point where it's reverse racism and doesn't help anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

I heard multiple college admissions officers say that test optional was creating the most difficulty in their ability to determine which underprivileged kids would be likely to succeed once they arrived on campus. The discussions were considering whether they should bring back tests. These schools said they have enough information without tests to choose among applicants coming from privileged backgrounds or from high schools that they are familiar with. All of these kids will likely do just fine and they can choose among them based on other parts of the application. They said the harder part was evaluating a kid from a small town school that doesn't typically have applicants to their college or underprivileged kids applying. For these kids, they want to have them on paper as part of their student community but really want to make sure that the kid will have the academic skills to succeed. And apparently the test scores really help with that. They are not looking for some stellar score, but alternatively, a score above some lower threshold.

This sounds all well and good, but c’mon - that’s not why you have so many posters on this thread saying hallelujah over schools not being test optional. They like tests because they have privileged kids with high test scores that probably wouldn’t be as high as they are except for their privileged circumstances, and yet they still think those test scores should trump everything else. They view test scores as a scalpel and not an axe.

Yes people want the privileged kids with bad test scores to show them. Why does that offend you? Hopefully a deserving urm or first gen kid gets their spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

First gen college here, as an aside.

But I have a serious question for the lawyers on the board, why can’t admissions officers do what the Georgetown Dean claims: adjust score thresholds for zip codes/profiles? (He is quoted in the latest Selingo article as saying a 1200 from an underprivileged zip code should be viewed differ than a 1200 from a kid with lots of resources). Aren’t there studies out there on upward mobility that could prove certain profiles, including test scores below the the college range but above the range for a kid’s particular high school, often have a high rate of success in college, and are therefore worth admitting? Seems like you wouldn’t have to get into questions about race but rather opportunity.

Couldn't you also ask kids on an application if they enrolled in a prep class? Georgetown already asks to see all scores.

It seems to me more info is good rather than bad.

One thing I’ve heard is that it’s hard for admission officers to “unsee” bad scores. They may love a Black applicant with good grades and recs, but when they see the 1000 on the SAT, it’s just really hard to forget it. Then, they end up with fewer Black kids than they had desired in the class overall. If they never see the score at all, it’s a lot easier to admit the student.

But why shouldn't the score be considered? If a score of 1000 is lower than the school would like, in a competitive application cycle why should that score be okay for a black student and not for students of a different race? I believe in diversity, truly, but I don't like how colleges have to twist themselves into pretzels and make themselves blind to objective data points just to prove how diverse they are. It reaches a point where it's reverse racism and doesn't help anyone.

What’s your race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Please define "privileged?"

in the era of the internet all students who wants to prep for any test have access and available resources. Thank goodness for FREE internet resources for all of this.

Yea, right, and that’s why the privileged kids still pay for test prep. We all know free prep isn’t the same thing. Beyond that, you’re also assuming that the underprivileged kids even KNOW about the need to/benefits of, test prep. I will tell you this, when I was growing up in a first generation household, no one told me - and I had no way of knowing - that test prep was a good idea. So it never occurred to me.

You’re living in a bubble.

On this point, the only difference between using a paid source vs a free source was making sure my kid was staying on schedule. My kid could totally prep on their own using books and online (and they mostly did this) but having a handful of appointments with a tutor made sure it got done. In the end, they decided to take one test one more time to raise an ACT sub-score and for that they did it all on their own. They also did their own prep using books and online for AP tests (when class wasn't AP).

Of course, your other points about knowing to prep, having parents (like me) pay attention to prep, having classmates who are prepping etc. are spot on.

Was the tutor free?

Didn’t think so.

No of course not - but I'm saying if I didn't pay for the tutor my kid would have done just as well. I just would have had to nag more.

BUT to the LARGER point - the fact that my kid has parents that even know that prep matters and have parents who did things over many years that are beneficial to learning is a HUGE benefit. Parental educational attainment is a huge predictor of child achievement. It's not an even playing field at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

I heard multiple college admissions officers say that test optional was creating the most difficulty in their ability to determine which underprivileged kids would be likely to succeed once they arrived on campus. The discussions were considering whether they should bring back tests. These schools said they have enough information without tests to choose among applicants coming from privileged backgrounds or from high schools that they are familiar with. All of these kids will likely do just fine and they can choose among them based on other parts of the application. They said the harder part was evaluating a kid from a small town school that doesn't typically have applicants to their college or underprivileged kids applying. For these kids, they want to have them on paper as part of their student community but really want to make sure that the kid will have the academic skills to succeed. And apparently the test scores really help with that. They are not looking for some stellar score, but alternatively, a score above some lower threshold.

This sounds all well and good, but c’mon - that’s not why you have so many posters on this thread saying hallelujah over schools not being test optional. They like tests because they have privileged kids with high test scores that probably wouldn’t be as high as they are except for their privileged circumstances, and yet they still think those test scores should trump everything else. They view test scores as a scalpel and not an axe.

I have “bad test taking kids.” I know this bc they took entrance tests in middle school and even with paid prep never did that well. But test optional doesn’t help them either as there is confusion as to what it means and it has inflated the test scores significantly. It only muddies the waters bc the story is less complete. I am for a return to testing - even though that means my kids will be limited in their options - bc it seems to make sense to have that data. Doesn’t the rest of the world rely on it?

This is us. Test optional doesn't help my "average" kid in the slightest. Her scores are FINE by normal standards. But there are a couple of schools she is looking at where I can guarantee the published average is just not true. It makes her think she can't hang, when I know she could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

First gen college here, as an aside.

But I have a serious question for the lawyers on the board, why can’t admissions officers do what the Georgetown Dean claims: adjust score thresholds for zip codes/profiles? (He is quoted in the latest Selingo article as saying a 1200 from an underprivileged zip code should be viewed differ than a 1200 from a kid with lots of resources). Aren’t there studies out there on upward mobility that could prove certain profiles, including test scores below the the college range but above the range for a kid’s particular high school, often have a high rate of success in college, and are therefore worth admitting? Seems like you wouldn’t have to get into questions about race but rather opportunity.

Couldn't you also ask kids on an application if they enrolled in a prep class? Georgetown already asks to see all scores.

It seems to me more info is good rather than bad.

One thing I’ve heard is that it’s hard for admission officers to “unsee” bad scores. They may love a Black applicant with good grades and recs, but when they see the 1000 on the SAT, it’s just really hard to forget it. Then, they end up with fewer Black kids than they had desired in the class overall. If they never see the score at all, it’s a lot easier to admit the student.

But why shouldn't the score be considered? If a score of 1000 is lower than the school would like, in a competitive application cycle why should that score be okay for a black student and not for students of a different race? I believe in diversity, truly, but I don't like how colleges have to twist themselves into pretzels and make themselves blind to objective data points just to prove how diverse they are. It reaches a point where it's reverse racism and doesn't help anyone.

FYI schools have NEVER EVER said they use test scores and GPA to only choose the applicants with the highest of the two. Schools are building a community. A group of that community are competing on GPA and test score. But for other individuals, their contribution to the community is something else the college admissions "see" in that person. You should not assume this is only race. It's certainly also athletes....but it could be many many other things that catch the admissions about a person. So in these cases, they may use the test to see if this individual can also succeed among the others who are competing on GPA/test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

I heard multiple college admissions officers say that test optional was creating the most difficulty in their ability to determine which underprivileged kids would be likely to succeed once they arrived on campus. The discussions were considering whether they should bring back tests. These schools said they have enough information without tests to choose among applicants coming from privileged backgrounds or from high schools that they are familiar with. All of these kids will likely do just fine and they can choose among them based on other parts of the application. They said the harder part was evaluating a kid from a small town school that doesn't typically have applicants to their college or underprivileged kids applying. For these kids, they want to have them on paper as part of their student community but really want to make sure that the kid will have the academic skills to succeed. And apparently the test scores really help with that. They are not looking for some stellar score, but alternatively, a score above some lower threshold.

This sounds all well and good, but c’mon - that’s not why you have so many posters on this thread saying hallelujah over schools not being test optional. They like tests because they have privileged kids with high test scores that probably wouldn’t be as high as they are except for their privileged circumstances, and yet they still think those test scores should trump everything else. They view test scores as a scalpel and not an axe.

I have “bad test taking kids.” I know this bc they took entrance tests in middle school and even with paid prep never did that well. But test optional doesn’t help them either as there is confusion as to what it means and it has inflated the test scores significantly. It only muddies the waters bc the story is less complete. I am for a return to testing - even though that means my kids will be limited in their options - bc it seems to make sense to have that data. Doesn’t the rest of the world rely on it?

This is us. Test optional doesn't help my "average" kid in the slightest. Her scores are FINE by normal standards. But there are a couple of schools she is looking at where I can guarantee the published average is just not true. It makes her think she can't hang, when I know she could.

But in that case, why not just send the score? If you think she can hang, let the college see the score and decide for themselves. It's not like they don't know the average score has gone up as a result of lopping off the bottom scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

I heard multiple college admissions officers say that test optional was creating the most difficulty in their ability to determine which underprivileged kids would be likely to succeed once they arrived on campus. The discussions were considering whether they should bring back tests. These schools said they have enough information without tests to choose among applicants coming from privileged backgrounds or from high schools that they are familiar with. All of these kids will likely do just fine and they can choose among them based on other parts of the application. They said the harder part was evaluating a kid from a small town school that doesn't typically have applicants to their college or underprivileged kids applying. For these kids, they want to have them on paper as part of their student community but really want to make sure that the kid will have the academic skills to succeed. And apparently the test scores really help with that. They are not looking for some stellar score, but alternatively, a score above some lower threshold.

This sounds all well and good, but c’mon - that’s not why you have so many posters on this thread saying hallelujah over schools not being test optional. They like tests because they have privileged kids with high test scores that probably wouldn’t be as high as they are except for their privileged circumstances, and yet they still think those test scores should trump everything else. They view test scores as a scalpel and not an axe.

I have “bad test taking kids.” I know this bc they took entrance tests in middle school and even with paid prep never did that well. But test optional doesn’t help them either as there is confusion as to what it means and it has inflated the test scores significantly. It only muddies the waters bc the story is less complete. I am for a return to testing - even though that means my kids will be limited in their options - bc it seems to make sense to have that data. Doesn’t the rest of the world rely on it?

This is us. Test optional doesn't help my "average" kid in the slightest. Her scores are FINE by normal standards. But there are a couple of schools she is looking at where I can guarantee the published average is just not true. It makes her think she can't hang, when I know she could.

But in that case, why not just send the score? If you think she can hang, let the college see the score and decide for themselves. It's not like they don't know the average score has gone up as a result of lopping off the bottom scores.

She will! But those escalating "average" numbers are freaking her out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

I heard multiple college admissions officers say that test optional was creating the most difficulty in their ability to determine which underprivileged kids would be likely to succeed once they arrived on campus. The discussions were considering whether they should bring back tests. These schools said they have enough information without tests to choose among applicants coming from privileged backgrounds or from high schools that they are familiar with. All of these kids will likely do just fine and they can choose among them based on other parts of the application. They said the harder part was evaluating a kid from a small town school that doesn't typically have applicants to their college or underprivileged kids applying. For these kids, they want to have them on paper as part of their student community but really want to make sure that the kid will have the academic skills to succeed. And apparently the test scores really help with that. They are not looking for some stellar score, but alternatively, a score above some lower threshold.

This sounds all well and good, but c’mon - that’s not why you have so many posters on this thread saying hallelujah over schools not being test optional. They like tests because they have privileged kids with high test scores that probably wouldn’t be as high as they are except for their privileged circumstances, and yet they still think those test scores should trump everything else. They view test scores as a scalpel and not an axe.

I have “bad test taking kids.” I know this bc they took entrance tests in middle school and even with paid prep never did that well. But test optional doesn’t help them either as there is confusion as to what it means and it has inflated the test scores significantly. It only muddies the waters bc the story is less complete. I am for a return to testing - even though that means my kids will be limited in their options - bc it seems to make sense to have that data. Doesn’t the rest of the world rely on it?

This is us. Test optional doesn't help my "average" kid in the slightest. Her scores are FINE by normal standards. But there are a couple of schools she is looking at where I can guarantee the published average is just not true. It makes her think she can't hang, when I know she could.

But in that case, why not just send the score? If you think she can hang, let the college see the score and decide for themselves. It's not like they don't know the average score has gone up as a result of lopping off the bottom scores.

She will! But those escalating "average" numbers are freaking her out. Ok

Don’t send them! She will be rejected. The colleges love that test optional has skewed their scores. They want to keep the averages high so they look good. Yes, it’s ridiculous but this is why USNWR and the rankings obsessed folks have brought us. Colleges will likely know your kid is in their actual range but they will reject because her score will drag down the average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

First gen college here, as an aside.

But I have a serious question for the lawyers on the board, why can’t admissions officers do what the Georgetown Dean claims: adjust score thresholds for zip codes/profiles? (He is quoted in the latest Selingo article as saying a 1200 from an underprivileged zip code should be viewed differ than a 1200 from a kid with lots of resources). Aren’t there studies out there on upward mobility that could prove certain profiles, including test scores below the the college range but above the range for a kid’s particular high school, often have a high rate of success in college, and are therefore worth admitting? Seems like you wouldn’t have to get into questions about race but rather opportunity.

Couldn't you also ask kids on an application if they enrolled in a prep class? Georgetown already asks to see all scores.

It seems to me more info is good rather than bad.

One thing I’ve heard is that it’s hard for admission officers to “unsee” bad scores. They may love a Black applicant with good grades and recs, but when they see the 1000 on the SAT, it’s just really hard to forget it. Then, they end up with fewer Black kids than they had desired in the class overall. If they never see the score at all, it’s a lot easier to admit the student.

But why shouldn't the score be considered? If a score of 1000 is lower than the school would like, in a competitive application cycle why should that score be okay for a black student and not for students of a different race? I believe in diversity, truly, but I don't like how colleges have to twist themselves into pretzels and make themselves blind to objective data points just to prove how diverse they are. It reaches a point where it's reverse racism and doesn't help anyone.

FYI schools have NEVER EVER said they use test scores and GPA to only choose the applicants with the highest of the two. Schools are building a community. A group of that community are competing on GPA and test score. But for other individuals, their contribution to the community is something else the college admissions "see" in that person. You should not assume this is only race. It's certainly also athletes....but it could be many many other things that catch the admissions about a person. So in these cases, they may use the test to see if this individual can also succeed among the others who are competing on GPA/test.

A 1000 shows that the student will probably struggle once on campus. It calls into question the actual rigor of their high school course work. Unless it's paired with a bunch of 4s and 5s on AP tests, it should keep an applicant out of most colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

First gen college here, as an aside.

But I have a serious question for the lawyers on the board, why can’t admissions officers do what the Georgetown Dean claims: adjust score thresholds for zip codes/profiles? (He is quoted in the latest Selingo article as saying a 1200 from an underprivileged zip code should be viewed differ than a 1200 from a kid with lots of resources). Aren’t there studies out there on upward mobility that could prove certain profiles, including test scores below the the college range but above the range for a kid’s particular high school, often have a high rate of success in college, and are therefore worth admitting? Seems like you wouldn’t have to get into questions about race but rather opportunity.

Couldn't you also ask kids on an application if they enrolled in a prep class? Georgetown already asks to see all scores.

It seems to me more info is good rather than bad.

One thing I’ve heard is that it’s hard for admission officers to “unsee” bad scores. They may love a Black applicant with good grades and recs, but when they see the 1000 on the SAT, it’s just really hard to forget it. Then, they end up with fewer Black kids than they had desired in the class overall. If they never see the score at all, it’s a lot easier to admit the student.

But why shouldn't the score be considered? If a score of 1000 is lower than the school would like, in a competitive application cycle why should that score be okay for a black student and not for students of a different race? I believe in diversity, truly, but I don't like how colleges have to twist themselves into pretzels and make themselves blind to objective data points just to prove how diverse they are. It reaches a point where it's reverse racism and doesn't help anyone.

FYI schools have NEVER EVER said they use test scores and GPA to only choose the applicants with the highest of the two. Schools are building a community. A group of that community are competing on GPA and test score. But for other individuals, their contribution to the community is something else the college admissions "see" in that person. You should not assume this is only race. It's certainly also athletes....but it could be many many other things that catch the admissions about a person. So in these cases, they may use the test to see if this individual can also succeed among the others who are competing on GPA/test.

A 1000 shows that the student will probably struggle once on campus. It calls into question the actual rigor of their high school course work. Unless it's paired with a bunch of 4s and 5s on AP tests, it should keep an applicant out of most colleges

The point is that each school has their own calculation on SAT/ACT score "floors" that they can use to help them determine whether a student can/will graduate from their institution. It's not your problem to worry about whether that kid is taking what you seem to consider as "your kid's spot".

If your kid wants to apply to a school, they should apply. They get to choose where to apply, so if you/they don't like that a school wants to embrace a broader community of learners that includes some with lower test scores (gasp!) and who may get preference for one reason or another then you/they can use your feet to vote and don't apply. There's not some sort of entitlement that if you get a certain GPA/score that your child has a spot at a certain tier school. (BTW - Europe does this if you'd like to try those schools.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

First gen college here, as an aside.

But I have a serious question for the lawyers on the board, why can’t admissions officers do what the Georgetown Dean claims: adjust score thresholds for zip codes/profiles? (He is quoted in the latest Selingo article as saying a 1200 from an underprivileged zip code should be viewed differ than a 1200 from a kid with lots of resources). Aren’t there studies out there on upward mobility that could prove certain profiles, including test scores below the the college range but above the range for a kid’s particular high school, often have a high rate of success in college, and are therefore worth admitting? Seems like you wouldn’t have to get into questions about race but rather opportunity.

Couldn't you also ask kids on an application if they enrolled in a prep class? Georgetown already asks to see all scores.

It seems to me more info is good rather than bad.

One thing I’ve heard is that it’s hard for admission officers to “unsee” bad scores. They may love a Black applicant with good grades and recs, but when they see the 1000 on the SAT, it’s just really hard to forget it. Then, they end up with fewer Black kids than they had desired in the class overall. If they never see the score at all, it’s a lot easier to admit the student.

But why shouldn't the score be considered? If a score of 1000 is lower than the school would like, in a competitive application cycle why should that score be okay for a black student and not for students of a different race? I believe in diversity, truly, but I don't like how colleges have to twist themselves into pretzels and make themselves blind to objective data points just to prove how diverse they are. It reaches a point where it's reverse racism and doesn't help anyone.

FYI schools have NEVER EVER said they use test scores and GPA to only choose the applicants with the highest of the two. Schools are building a community. A group of that community are competing on GPA and test score. But for other individuals, their contribution to the community is something else the college admissions "see" in that person. You should not assume this is only race. It's certainly also athletes....but it could be many many other things that catch the admissions about a person. So in these cases, they may use the test to see if this individual can also succeed among the others who are competing on GPA/test.

A 1000 shows that the student will probably struggle once on campus. It calls into question the actual rigor of their high school course work. Unless it's paired with a bunch of 4s and 5s on AP tests, it should keep an applicant out of most colleges

I forgot to add to my reply - wow - this is a telling choice of words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Please define "privileged?"

in the era of the internet all students who wants to prep for any test have access and available resources. Thank goodness for FREE internet resources for all of this.

Yea, right, and that’s why the privileged kids still pay for test prep. We all know free prep isn’t the same thing. Beyond that, you’re also assuming that the underprivileged kids even KNOW about the need to/benefits of, test prep. I will tell you this, when I was growing up in a first generation household, no one told me - and I had no way of knowing - that test prep was a good idea. So it never occurred to me.

You’re living in a bubble.

This. My SIL lives in NYC and her kids go to Trinity - you couldn't even imagine the leg up these kids are getting. Private tutoring, private 1:1 admissions counseling, a college counselor at the school who CALLS SCHOOLS to vouch for individual kids because they have a relationship, placements at internships, etc., etc., on and on. It is NOT the same as free Kahn Academy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Please define "privileged?"

in the era of the internet all students who wants to prep for any test have access and available resources. Thank goodness for FREE internet resources for all of this.

Yea, right, and that’s why the privileged kids still pay for test prep. We all know free prep isn’t the same thing. Beyond that, you’re also assuming that the underprivileged kids even KNOW about the need to/benefits of, test prep. I will tell you this, when I was growing up in a first generation household, no one told me - and I had no way of knowing - that test prep was a good idea. So it never occurred to me.

You’re living in a bubble.

This. My SIL lives in NYC and her kids go to Trinity - you couldn't even imagine the leg up these kids are getting. Private tutoring, private 1:1 admissions counseling, a college counselor at the school who CALLS SCHOOLS to vouch for individual kids because they have a relationship, placements at internships, etc., etc., on and on. It is NOT the same as free Kahn Academy.

Ummm... I am privileged and your SIL and her kids are getting WAY more than my kid would ever get and they go to a Big3! LOL. Your example is way beyond the Kahn Academy, Test prep books vs paid test prep argument.