The Least Surprising Correlation of All Time

[phk]

SAT Scores and Family Income
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/
By Catherine Rampell

Much has been written about the relationship between SAT scores and test-takers’ family income. Generally speaking, the wealthier a student’s family is, the higher the SAT score.

Let’s take a look at how income correlated with scores this year. About two-thirds of test-takers voluntarily report their family incomes when they sit down to take the SAT. Using this information, the College Board breaks down the average scores for 10 income groups, each in a $20,000 range.

First, here are the individual test sections:




Here are all three test sections next to each other (zoomed in on the vertical axis, so you can see the variation among income groups a little more clearly):



A few observations:

    * There’s a very strong positive correlation between income and test scores. (For the math geeks out there, the R2 for each test average/income range chart is about 0.95.)
    * On every test section, moving up an income category was associated with an average score boost of over 12 points.
    * Moving from the second-highest income group and the highest income group seemed to show the biggest score boost. However, keep in mind the top income category is uncapped, so it includes a much broader spectrum of families by wealth.

[phk]

More or less... there isn't any surprise to it. Kids from higher income families do indeed get higher average SAT scores. Look at any high school and look for the smart kids clique.

This fact tells us nothing about the causal impact of income on test scores.

This graph is a good example of omitted variable bias, an issue associated with statistical regression analysis in any econometrics textbook.

The key omitted variable here is parents' IQ. Interestingly there should be tests to see the correlation of adoptees and income as opposed to biological children to see if parents intelligence levels could lead us to draw causal inferences from. Smart people would make more money and thus pass their genes onto their children.

Suppose we were to graph average SAT scores by the number of bathrooms a student has in his or her family home. That curve would also likely slope upward. (After all, people with higher household incomes buy larger homes with more bathrooms.) But it would be a mistake to conclude that installing an extra toilet raises yours kids' SAT scores.

[bgwah]

Kind of sad.

[phk]

Kind of sad.

Why?

[Mechaman]

Kind of sad.

Why?

Because a lot of the scholarships for college are based on SAT or ACT test scores. That means that while Jr. who's dad owns a law firm is more likely to get a full ride scholarship to any college his heart desires while poor Johnny Boy has to work at the local Diner for the next two years just to make enough cash to pay for one year of college.
That's why this is sad.

[phk]

Kind of sad.

Why?

Because a lot of the scholarships for college are based on SAT or ACT test scores. That means that while Jr. who's dad owns a law firm is more likely to get a full ride scholarship to any college his heart desires while poor Johnny Boy has to work at the local Diner for the next two years just to make enough cash to pay for one year of college.
That's why this is sad.

What if Jr. has more heritable inherent smarts (courtesy of his father the lawyer) than Johnny Boy?

[Sbane]

Kind of sad.

Why?

Because a lot of the scholarships for college are based on SAT or ACT test scores. That means that while Jr. who's dad owns a law firm is more likely to get a full ride scholarship to any college his heart desires while poor Johnny Boy has to work at the local Diner for the next two years just to make enough cash to pay for one year of college.
That's why this is sad.

What if Jr. has more heritable inherent smarts (courtesy of his father the lawyer) than Johnny Boy?

Bullsh**t. The reason the richers do better is because they have the money to spend on SAT classes. They can also afford to take the test multiple times allowing them to improve their scores.

[phk]

Furthermore another data set from an MIT grad student on Swedish males.



The dataset is comprised of a large sample of men born in Sweden between 1955 and 1970 who took an IQ test at conscription, at the age of 18. Income is measured as the biological father's income in the 1970 census.

The red line is the average measured IQ of the non-adoptees, plotted against the biological father's income decile. The blue line shows the same relationship for adoptees and their biological fathers. The patterns are remarkably similar,even though the biological fathers of adoptees did not raise these children.The fact that the biological father's income is almost an equally strong predictor of a child's test scores even when the biological father was not present in the household clearly suggests that most of the association between income and test scores does indeed arise because of omitted variable bias.

But considering that studies have shown that test prep course provide only marginal increases in scores, that is likely to not be the OVB in question.

 http://www.citytowninfo.com/career-and-education-news/articles/study-says-sat-prep-courses-wont-significantly-boost-scores-09052001

[opebo]

Kind of sad.

Why?

Because a lot of the scholarships for college are based on SAT or ACT test scores. That means that while Jr. who's dad owns a law firm is more likely to get a full ride scholarship to any college his heart desires while poor Johnny Boy has to work at the local Diner for the next two years just to make enough cash to pay for one year of college.
That's why this is sad.

What if Jr. has more heritable inherent smarts (courtesy of his father the lawyer) than Johnny Boy?

Bullsh**t. The reason the richers do better is because they have the money to spend on SAT classes. They can also afford to take the test multiple times allowing them to improve their scores.

While it is absolutely correct that phknrocket1k has things backwards, as is usual for his type, the reason rich do 'better' on standardized tests is that these tests are designed for them.  The reasons or two fold - firstly, the tests are best understood as looking for class signifiers rather than 'intelligence', and secondly, the extreme advantages experienced by upper class children naturally prepare them for every 'challenge'.   Two sides of the same coin as it were.

Obviously the educational establishment in america has as its primary purpose the perpetuation of class-based oppression.

[Mechaman]

Kind of sad.

Why?

Because a lot of the scholarships for college are based on SAT or ACT test scores. That means that while Jr. who's dad owns a law firm is more likely to get a full ride scholarship to any college his heart desires while poor Johnny Boy has to work at the local Diner for the next two years just to make enough cash to pay for one year of college.
That's why this is sad.

What if Jr. has more heritable inherent smarts (courtesy of his father the lawyer) than Johnny Boy?

Bullsh**t. The reason the richers do better is because they have the money to spend on SAT classes. They can also afford to take the test multiple times allowing them to improve their scores.

While it is absolutely correct that phknrocket1k has things backwards, as is usual for his type, the reason rich do 'better' on standardized tests is that these tests are designed for them.  The reasons or two fold - firstly, the tests are best understood as looking for class signifiers rather than 'intelligence', and secondly, the extreme advantages experienced by upper class children naturally prepare them for every 'challenge'.   Two sides of the same coin as it were.

Obviously the educational establishment in america has as its primary purpose the perpetuation of class-based oppression.

Sadly, I have to agree with you (cringe).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Ah I see the idea that education tests intelligence (whatever that is) is still popular I see.

[minionofmidas]

Ah I see the idea that education tests intelligence (whatever that is) is still popular I see.

IQ tests provide comparable results only among people with comparable backgrounds, duh.

Furthermore another data set from an MIT grad student on Swedish males.



The dataset is comprised of a large sample of men born in Sweden between 1955 and 1970 who took an IQ test at conscription, at the age of 18. Income is measured as the biological father's income in the 1970 census.

The red line is the average measured IQ of the non-adoptees, plotted against the biological father's income decile. The blue line shows the same relationship for adoptees and their biological fathers. The patterns are remarkably similar,even though the biological fathers of adoptees did not raise these children.The fact that the biological father's income is almost an equally strong predictor of a child's test scores even when the biological father was not present in the household clearly suggests that most of the association between income and test scores does indeed arise because of omitted variable bias.

How large would the sample of adoptees be? Especially as we seem to be dealing only with adoptees whose father is known - probably the exception rather than the rule? (And why the hell would we measure by father's income rather than by household income, or household wealth, or whatever? Because it made for the prettier graph? Because income isn't distributed quite as insanely as wealth? Especially as, in the first half of the 1970, incomes were more equal than at any time in recorded history before or since, and it makes a certain sense to assume that their distribution then was also the least random.)
Having gotten that out of the way, let's get to the main point: the bar on adopted kids' IQ by adopted father's income is rather blatantly omitted, and quite obviously because that would take away from the point, but even so the variations between the two bars are quite telling. In the third to fifth income decile, adopted kids are doing rather a lot better than non-adopted kids. In the upper deciles, they don't just not do so - they do a lot worse. Now... what kind of rich man's child is given away for adoption? We're probably dealing both with hilariously small samples, and with an utterly unrepresentative group here. Fathers whose income wasn't at all high at the time the sons were born, sociopaths who refused to take any responsibility for the children they fathered on the lower orders, I suppose some other reasons may be found. Besides, some of these would have been adopted by fathers worse off than their biological fathers.
So, so far, the study proves the relevance of nurture over nature (though not, of course, the absence of any link. But then, all the usual caveats about IQ tests still apply. And anyways I'd never claim the absence of any link.) Except for the bottom end of the graph. I find that quite puzzling. Lots of adopted children should be coming from this population, so it can't be just sample size. Nor is there a reason to assume they were adopted by different people. (Though a larger share of them might have been adopted lateish and spent considerable time in hospitals, infant homes etc - not factors that contribute to a healthy childhood post-adoption.) So... what went wrong here?
 

[jokerman]

Ah I see the idea that education tests intelligence (whatever that is) is still popular I see.

I've been reading some Althusser recently and this thread certainly reminds me of his commentary on education.

Education perhaps measures more "compatibility" with the capitalist infrastructure rather than any objective "intelligence."  That is why reading comprehension, for example, has been such a misunderstood concept for so long.  Reading is not a mechanistic analysis, a singular skill that is taught according to syntactical rules irrespective of content, but is rather only a fluid interpretation utilizing cultural symbols.  It is the transformation of the macrocosm into the microcosm, which is never objective.

Of course to analyze education in this way is to imply the existence of an objective intelligence.  Regardless of Marxian criticism's prescience in its analysis of capitalist systems, there is no reason to presume society (or at least Western society) should operate by any other means.  There's no reason, in my opinion, to wish that the SAT measures anything other than what it does now.

[opebo]

There's no reason, in my opinion, to wish that the SAT measures anything other than what it does now.

Do you mean to say you don't mind the measuring, or you don't mind the oppression?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Ah I see the idea that education tests intelligence (whatever that is) is still popular I see.

I've been reading some Althusser recently and this thread certainly reminds me of his commentary on education.

Education perhaps measures more "compatibility" with the capitalist infrastructure rather than any objective "intelligence."  That is why reading comprehension, for example, has been such a misunderstood concept for so long.  Reading is not a mechanistic analysis, a singular skill that is taught according to syntactical rules irrespective of content, but is rather only a fluid interpretation utilizing cultural symbols.  It is the transformation of the macrocosm into the microcosm, which is never objective.

Of course to analyze education in this way is to imply the existence of an objective intelligence.  Regardless of Marxian criticism's prescience in its analysis of capitalist systems, there is no reason to presume society (or at least Western society) should operate by any other means.  There's no reason, in my opinion, to wish that the SAT measures anything other than what it does now.

I wouldn't agree with that - education systems across even the Western World are too broad and too different to focus on an economic system as its sole cause - though the demands of the market are a major reason (actually THE major reason in most places) for the expansion of compulsory education and its increasing industralization. A bad thing but probably unavoidable if we want all children to be able to read and write (which many can't atm anyway). An educational system is probably best understood within its interactions between the marketplace and the sociocultural beliefs upon which the curriculum (and teaching structure) is based.

As for exams, I don't really see an alternative. Given how easy it is abuse courseware. One thing I would like though is exams to be more based upon reasoning and comprehension rather than plain knowledge - I would hold that what someone believes isn't as important as why they believe it, the why is the important part. Logic and rhetoric should be school subjects (again).

Anyway if you want an educational theorist to read ignore those French guys and read Illich, whose philosophy (if not my policy) on these things matches my own.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My Scores

Critical Reading 590   >$200,000
                 Math 560   $160,000-$200,000
             Writing 580    >$200,000


Projected Annaul income for my family for 2009.

$15,000-$18,000 all from my dads Unemployement

2007 - Last full year my dad was employed

$36,000



Then you want to know why I suffer from Depression and other mental problems. : (:   

I have the scores of a genius, but not even the fare to get anywhere with it. To make matters worse, I have screwed myself out of several scholarships because I never participated in sports and untill recently any extriccular activities. Not surprising considering my mental issue that my number one priorirty from the time I reach school is to get home as fast as possible.



    

[Sensei]

Those aren't genius scores, sorry to burst your bubble. Good scores, not 'genius'.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Those aren't genius scores, sorry to burst your bubble. Good scores, not 'genius'.

     Well, I'm much poorer than he is & I have much better SAT scores. But really, SAT scores don't mean much.

[Vepres]

As usual, you're all idiots.

I think there is a societal bias against the poor to be sure, particularly in education. However, the cause has very little to do with money.

So,why then do the poorer do worse on the SAT/ACT and education in general? It ultimately boils down to self-esteem. The poor live in rundown neighborhoods with garbage in the street, where traffic laws are rarely enforced, and where there is little if any plant life aside from weeds and grass. There was a mayor of Denver once who just started planting trees in these run down neighborhoods, and guess what, the average income rose, despite very few residents moving out. What's up with that? Well, when you make the place look nice, they feel respected by the community, which in turn allows them to respect themselves.

But it's not just their neighborhoods that are an issue, it's also the schools. In the poor public schools, the teachers, though they have good intentions, don't believe in these kids. They pity them, and as a result, the aura they give off to their students is one of low expectations and pity. This in turn kills their self esteem. Thus, they stop trying in school because they get stuck in a victim mentality, which is unfortunate and not usually their fault per se.

To truly speak to these kids, the teachers must believe in them. They must believe them, and they must expect great things from them. The students will rise to the challenge because somebody believes they can do it, so they begin to believe in themselves again. If they are also made aware of how much an education can benefit their future quality of life, I'm sure that in no time you'd have many, perhaps a majority, of these students on scholarships to college.

It's really simple, yet nobody seems to get it. If these students are given some tough love along with compassion, though not pity, they will be successful. 

 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As usual, you're all idiots.

I think there is a societal bias against the poor to be sure, particularly in education. However, the cause has very little to do with money.

So,why then do the poorer do worse on the SAT/ACT and education in general? It ultimately boils down to self-esteem. The poor live in rundown neighborhoods with garbage in the street, where traffic laws are rarely enforced, and where there is little if any plant life aside from weeds and grass. There was a mayor of Denver once who just started planting trees in these run down neighborhoods, and guess what, the average income rose, despite very few residents moving out. What's up with that? Well, when you make the place look nice, they feel respected by the community, which in turn allows them to respect themselves.

But it's not just their neighborhoods that are an issue, it's also the schools. In the poor public schools, the teachers, though they have good intentions, don't believe in these kids. They pity them, and as a result, the aura they give off to their students is one of low expectations and pity. This in turn kills their self esteem. Thus, they stop trying in school because they get stuck in a victim mentality, which is unfortunate and not usually their fault per se.

To truly speak to these kids, the teachers must believe in them. They must believe them, and they must expect great things from them. The students will rise to the challenge because somebody believes they can do it, so they begin to believe in themselves again. If they are also made aware of how much an education can benefit their future quality of life, I'm sure that in no time you'd have many, perhaps a majority, of these students on scholarships to college.

It's really simple, yet nobody seems to get it. If these students are given some tough love along with compassion, though not pity, they will be successful. 

 

So fundamentally you are saying it is about money - just the relationship of one's status to the social enviornment around them (and how else could you measure 'status' exactly?)

Anyway I actually disagree - well, no I agree but it isn't the whole picture - there simply often isn't a culture around the kids which encourages learning. Their parents will most likely work long hours and so won't have much time to look after the children and often there won't be any books or other learning materials - there may even be pressure for the child to ignore or de-emphasize his studies and help in the household or, when he's older, get a job. Educational attainment is often not particularly highly prized (and let's face it, this is a true not just of "the salt of the earth" but a large, possibly a majority, number of people except in terms that later leads to economic success). This means these kids are already disadvantaged by the time they enter school in the first place, though what could remedy this is difficult to say - bigger and greater government really isn't answer tbh. *

* - Before anyone corrects me, not I'm being general and I expect that these attitudes vary a great deal according to region (and possibly race) in the United States.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Those aren't genius scores, sorry to burst your bubble. Good scores, not 'genius'.

No ego bubbles here, my friend, I have already been severly deflated which is the point of that post. The term Genius was an exaggeration to prove a point, but they are still higher then most in my school and higher then mean scores of many entrants into our local colleges. Thats all I really care about.

[Vepres]

As usual, you're all idiots.

I think there is a societal bias against the poor to be sure, particularly in education. However, the cause has very little to do with money.

So,why then do the poorer do worse on the SAT/ACT and education in general? It ultimately boils down to self-esteem. The poor live in rundown neighborhoods with garbage in the street, where traffic laws are rarely enforced, and where there is little if any plant life aside from weeds and grass. There was a mayor of Denver once who just started planting trees in these run down neighborhoods, and guess what, the average income rose, despite very few residents moving out. What's up with that? Well, when you make the place look nice, they feel respected by the community, which in turn allows them to respect themselves.

But it's not just their neighborhoods that are an issue, it's also the schools. In the poor public schools, the teachers, though they have good intentions, don't believe in these kids. They pity them, and as a result, the aura they give off to their students is one of low expectations and pity. This in turn kills their self esteem. Thus, they stop trying in school because they get stuck in a victim mentality, which is unfortunate and not usually their fault per se.

To truly speak to these kids, the teachers must believe in them. They must believe them, and they must expect great things from them. The students will rise to the challenge because somebody believes they can do it, so they begin to believe in themselves again. If they are also made aware of how much an education can benefit their future quality of life, I'm sure that in no time you'd have many, perhaps a majority, of these students on scholarships to college.

It's really simple, yet nobody seems to get it. If these students are given some tough love along with compassion, though not pity, they will be successful. 

 

So fundamentally you are saying it is about money - just the relationship of one's status to the social enviornment around them (and how else could you measure 'status' exactly?)

Anyway I actually disagree - well, no I agree but it isn't the whole picture - there simply often isn't a culture around the kids which encourages learning. Their parents will most likely work long hours and so won't have much time to look after the children and often there won't be any books or other learning materials - there may even be pressure for the child to ignore or de-emphasize his studies and help in the household or, when he's older, get a job. Educational attainment is often not particularly highly prized (and let's face it, this is a true not just of "the salt of the earth" but a large, possibly a majority, number of people except in terms that later leads to economic success). This means these kids are already disadvantaged by the time they enter school in the first place, though what could remedy this is difficult to say - bigger and greater government really isn't answer tbh. *

* - Before anyone corrects me, not I'm being general and I expect that these attitudes vary a great deal according to region (and possibly race) in the United States.

Well my point is that if the poor lived in a nice or even decent external environment and had some respect from the rest of society, many more poor people would rise out of poverty than currently do.

Now, to your point about the culture. Yes, their parents probably work long hours and yes there is a culture that doesn't value education. But why don't they value education? There is absolutely no reason why anybody wouldn't want to be educated, it's human nature. It boils down to self esteem. If the teachers have compassion, but at the same time have high expectations (as there aren't parents to provide this) who could connect with their students and tactfully make them aware of the benefits of education I'm sure you'd see far more successful kids. Basically, the teachers need to nurture their students' self-esteems while also providing the expectations and help that a parent would normally give. A tall order I know, but I really think it could work if a large number of teachers did it.

[jokerman]

As for exams, I don't really see an alternative. Given how easy it is abuse courseware. One thing I would like though is exams to be more based upon reasoning and comprehension rather than plain knowledge - I would hold that what someone believes isn't as important as why they believe it, the why is the important part. Logic and rhetoric should be school subjects (again).

Logic and rhetoric?  Have they ever been anything other than pure nostalgia for the Greco-Romans?  Even the Greeks and the Romans didn't educate their masses in logic and rhetoric.

Western education in good form isn't "know thyself" it's "know nature" (the whole of reality analyzed as nature, that is). 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As for exams, I don't really see an alternative. Given how easy it is abuse courseware. One thing I would like though is exams to be more based upon reasoning and comprehension rather than plain knowledge - I would hold that what someone believes isn't as important as why they believe it, the why is the important part. Logic and rhetoric should be school subjects (again).

Logic and rhetoric?  Have they ever been anything other than pure nostalgia for the Greco-Romans?  Even the Greeks and the Romans didn't educate their masses in logic and rhetoric.

Western education in good form isn't "know thyself" it's "know nature" (the whole of reality analyzed as nature, that is). 

Yeah I'd agree with that. What I don't want is return to some ridiculous and aristocratic "classical education" - what I meant was the ability to reason and understand should be taught as well as 'the facts'. By just teaching 'facts' then you are leaving out the context of things and the understanding of why a certain thing is believed to be true - therefore relying on the teacher's authority and the willingness of the students to believe him/her blindly for their education. Read Neil Postman (though ignore some of his more nuttier ramblings on technology and 18th Century History).

I'll quote (yet again) his argument on why creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alot of people may not enjoy their schooling (I positively hated it) but I think most - at least by secondary level - see the value in it. At least at the quasi-private school I went to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Parents are exactly going to be fond of teachers interfering on how to raise one's children.

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alot of people may not enjoy their schooling (I positively hated it) but I think most - at least by secondary level - see the value in it. At least at the quasi-private school I went to.

What I mean is, people may not like being educated, but I highly doubt there is a single person in this planet who wouldn't want to be educated, if you understand what I mean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Parents are exactly going to be fond of teachers interfering on how to raise one's children.
[/quote]

Well, I don't think they should interfere, but the teachers must change their style to accommodate students without parents who value education. There have been studies done that show that poor students when put into a school where the faculty had high expectations of them did far better. Obviously the teachers wouldn't "raise" the students at all. Just they need to show their expectations they have of their students more because most of those students' parents won't provide that. This never has to leave the classroom IMO.