Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

files.eric.ed.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#61

Post by Jensson »

silverquiet wrote: post #53
2devnull wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem confused. If people are unequal then equality of outcome is impossible and not worth pursuing[1]. The only possible equality is equal opportunity which as you rightly point out isn’t really equal. But it’s the only possibility. Equality of outcome denies free will. [1] edit to clarify, I mean “not worth pursuing” past the point of equilibrium. We can improve equality of outcome to a point but then will hit a…

Here's my simplified way of thinking about equality at times - let's say you've worked hard all your life and have saved $2.5 million dollars - quite a nice sum. I just looked and Bill Gates stands at $128 billion. So 51,200 times more money. Do you think Bill Gates worked 51,200 times harder? Is he 51,200 times smarter? Better? Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable. I have no specific quarrel…

Bill Gates has probably had 51200 times more impact on the world than me or other more average people. Do you disagree about that? Maybe I could have had that level of impact given the same circumstances, but probably I wouldn't, most people with his circumstances didn't. And most likely I would have stopped working the moment I had enough money, I never would have gone on to push for more and more, expand for ever greater impact, I'd be happy as a millionaire like most other people would and stop growing.

People who continue working to expand their impact even when they don't need to are rare.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#62

Post by Jensson »

toyg wrote: post #42
Workaccount2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I just laid out how you end up with wealth dynasties. And this effect is observable in any population, it's not unique to the US, much less the the West.

If you think wealthy people are particularly smart in Europe, I have a few bridges you can handily take home.

I know a lot of wealthy people, none of them are stupid. They aren't geniuses but none of them had issues in college. I know a lot of poor people from military, a lot of them are stupid and struggled with the very easy material you have to learn in the military.

And this is what statistics tells us, rich people are very rarely stupid, quite a lot of poor people are. The world isn't fair, but stupidity is such a massive drawback that it is basically impossible to get rich if you have it. Stupid people get tricked in deals everywhere etc, there is just no way for them to reach anywhere without extreme amounts of support.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#63

Post by psychlops »

nsoonhui wrote: post #39
Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

The book "The Bell Curve" basically expressed the same point -- with data-- as yours here. And yeah, you are right. But then everyone is terrified by it, and hence the outcryand the name calling.

Wow, I thought this book had been burned by zealots and its ashes buried long ago. Thank you for resurrecting it.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#64

Post by Jensson »

cycomanic wrote: post #18
Amezarak wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the article ends with: > In conclusion, our work focuses on the predictive power of admissions tests and shows that this power is not an artifact of SES. There is a substantial SES–test relationship, though it is important to note that test scores reflect far more than SES. About a quarter of the variance in test scores is shared with SES, and thus there is large variability in test scores at any given level of…

> Yeah, the article ends with: > > In conclusion, our work focuses on the predictive power of admissions tests and shows that this power is not an artifact of SES. There is a substantial SES–test relationship, though it is important to note that test scores reflect far more than SES. About a quarter of the variance in test scores is shared with SES, and thus there is large variability in test scores at any given leve…

Top 1% is very high though, correlation up to top 1% is very good.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#65

Post by rayiner »

alistairSH wrote: post #10
rayiner wrote: post #3

Relatedly, UT Austin found the SAT highly predictive and decided to reinstate the requirement: https://news.utexas.edu/2024/03/11/ut-austin-reinstates-stan... > Those who opted in had a median SAT score of 1420, compared with a median of 1160 among those who did not. > The higher standardized scores translated on average to better collegiate academic performance. Of 9,217 first-year students enrolled in 2023, those w…

But, is first-semester GPA predictive of anything? I'd rather see this result at graduation. Does the higher SAT predict higher graduation rate, better grad school or job placement, or anything else? Note, I'm not arguing it won't be - I don't know. I just know more than a few people who bombed their first semester (most with SATs well above average), myself included, who ended up with decent academic performance onc…

> I just know more than a few people who bombed their first semester (most with SATs well above average), myself included, who ended up with decent academic performance once they got over the "shock" of being an adult away from home.

Individual students might underperform because they're not prepared for living outside the home, but that factor would cancel out when you're comparing two populations with thousands of students. Note that, according to the article, the 0.86 GPA point difference--which is huge, like the difference between top of the class and below median--was after adjusting for high school GPA. So the analysis should factor out differences resulting from some kids simply being more "put together" as freshman than other kids.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#66

Post by silverquiet »

Jensson wrote: post #61
silverquiet wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my simplified way of thinking about equality at times - let's say you've worked hard all your life and have saved $2.5 million dollars - quite a nice sum. I just looked and Bill Gates stands at $128 billion. So 51,200 times more money. Do you think Bill Gates worked 51,200 times harder? Is he 51,200 times smarter? Better? Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable. I have no specific quarrel…

Bill Gates has probably had 51200 times more impact on the world than me or other more average people. Do you disagree about that? Maybe I could have had that level of impact given the same circumstances, but probably I wouldn't, most people with his circumstances didn't. And most likely I would have stopped working the moment I had enough money, I never would have gone on to push for more and more, expand for ever g…

I think Dennis Ritchie and Linus Torvalds have had a roughly similar impact upon the world with the benefit that I also consider it a positive impact.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#67

Post by porkbeer »

Jensson wrote: post #61
silverquiet wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my simplified way of thinking about equality at times - let's say you've worked hard all your life and have saved $2.5 million dollars - quite a nice sum. I just looked and Bill Gates stands at $128 billion. So 51,200 times more money. Do you think Bill Gates worked 51,200 times harder? Is he 51,200 times smarter? Better? Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable. I have no specific quarrel…

Bill Gates has probably had 51200 times more impact on the world than me or other more average people. Do you disagree about that? Maybe I could have had that level of impact given the same circumstances, but probably I wouldn't, most people with his circumstances didn't. And most likely I would have stopped working the moment I had enough money, I never would have gone on to push for more and more, expand for ever g…

Expanding your area of impact, when it is no longer your technical domain, is to put it mildly, dangerous and often counterproductive.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#68

Post by alistairSH »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #32
underlipton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic to conclude this, without skepticism, knowing that it's a study sponsored by College Board which shows that the tests which College Board administers are definitely efficacious.

Sure; but do you disagree with the method or the conclusions?

Their study makes a link between test scores and first-semester performance. Even if we accept that link is real, that doesn't imply first-semester performance is indicative of academic success over the typical 4+ year undergraduate timeline.

I'd like to see independent corroboration of their study. Plus a longer term follow-up tracking these students through graduation or withdrawal.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#69

Post by porkbeer »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #27
username332211 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A golden mean between what? Truth and falsehoods. I hate citing 1984 in any matter such as this one, but there's a word in it for that - "doublethink".

A golden mean between "standardized tests don't matter at all" (false) and "standardized tests are the one right way to measure students' abilities" (also false).

They arent binary. Some tests wont matter at all, some will, and many will be in an unverifiable grey area,

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#70

Post by oarla »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

Are standardized tests an accurate measure of intelligence? IMO, they're more a measure of knowledge and perseverance. Having said that, I don't know what is the best measure of intelligence.

There is certainly a genetic component to intelligence, but environmental factors have a big role to play as well.

Post reply on HN