Hacker News Reader

Comment by david38 | Hacker News Reader

I live in a very rich town, like super rich. I work in tech so am rich by the standards of general population, but by the standards of Silicon Valley.

My child did very well on the ACT. All she did was buy a $35 practice book, which almost anyone can do. Literally this was it. Furthermore, she doesn’t know of a single friend or acquaintance that hired a private tutor.

All the nay-sayers belly-ache about this but for most children, even the “rich” ones, this simply isn’t true. It’s most definitely not necessary.

Considering the weight of the SATs/ACTs you would figure a student would at least buy a cheap book and put in two hours per week for a few weeks in practice. In practice, the vast majority of students who do this do quite well. The improvement is dramatic.

Everyone wants to always blame “the system” which yes, has an influence, but nobody wants to put ANY responsibility on the student themselves.

View on HN

As one of those private tutors that the ultra-rich hire, I can definitely support most of what you've said here.

The greatest service that private tutoring provides is structure, accountability, and guidance. A dedicated student working independently through quality practice materials (many of which are cheap or free) can absolutely attain most if not all of the beneficial outcomes of preparing with a tutor/service.

I think when people look at inequity in college admissions, standardized testing ends up being an easy, tangible target, but not a particularly important one. If you want to look at how wealth impacts standardized test scores, focusing on paid preparation programs is missing the larger picture.

Wealthy students have had literate parents who can afford books and have the time to read to them when they're toddlers. They've gone to safe schools where the teachers can focus on teaching rather than making sure the students are well fed. They are surrounded by adults who have gone to college and can serve as role models for positive academic behavior. They have friends who are all taking the same tests and applying to the same schools to provide emotional and thoughtful support.

The collegeboard markets the SAT as measuring preparedness for secondary education. These students have been preparing for college their entire lives; is it any wonder that they score higher?

Thank you. You absolutely validate my own observations.

I went to college. My parents did, as did my extended family on one side. I saw both sides and chose this one.

I picked a town where my children would be surrounded by an environment where cool was defined as “good at school”. I didn’t want external influences contradicting my influence.

My child is dedicated, but I taught that dedication.

A parent doesn’t have to be rich to understand the importance of a good education. My mother came from a dirt poor background.

People never say it’s an advantage to have parents that care about education. They always put the blame somewhere else. The parents worked too hard, whatever. For different traits, some parents are just better than others. Academics is just one trait. Is the most important? No, but it’s one that’s easy to measure.

I agree. I spent some time as a Kaplan tutor. The students in my experience fell into a few buckets:

1. They already know the material/are serious and would do fine without tutoring (maybe some small help here and there) 2. They kind of care, but need structure to study. They probably wouldn't study or study effectively without being in a class or having someone for accountability. 3. They don't care and their parents are paying for someone to babysit them to study

Most students were in camps 2 and 3.

IQ is quite heritible. This is especially so when upbringing is not neglectful. People who land very high paying tech roles are probably average higher in IQ than the general population.

Your daughter likely has the benefit of strong academic genetics. A child like that who puts in effort (i.e. works through a book) is going to do amazingly well. I'd also argue that families who value academics are also more likely to buy the books to do a couple hours per week in.

IQ also fluctuates a lot, but yes, she is a lot like me (reads, thinks math/science is interesting, etc).

She bought only one prep book, for $35, with her own money. I guarantee the very poorest can get that one book, even from the library.

Parents absolutely influence children, otherwise what’s the point of parenting? This is a good thing. I’m just saying the $$ part is way overblown.

The $250k to put a totally unqualified student through school would pay for a lot of test prep hours at some impoverished schools.

It would likely take about 10 contact hours (1h/week, 10 weeks), basically enough coaching so that the result is not artificially low through under-preparation.

Let’s say it costs $100/hr all-in to coach 10 kids. So for $1k you can get 10 applications from motivated, underprivileged kids whose SATs are representative of their ability.

For one $50k annual ride you could run this in 50 low income schools and get 500 underprivileged applicants and then actually admit some of them who might benefit.

Rather than refusing to test, and wasting those resources supporting some kid who obviously won’t hack it.

Do you honestly believe that if you were from a very poor town, poor by the standards of african american neighborhoods in Detroit, that giving your child a $35 practice book would have a similar outcome?

Those places are sadly lacking even in the most basic standards of education, so their potential ACT scores are frankly irrelevant as is admission to MIT. You gotta learn to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run.

Not only is this analogy wrong (there are plenty of animals that run the moment they are born) but it is also deeply insensitive.

The reason people do worse from underprivileged is not only the lack of quality education, but a fundamental difference in the quality of life. Everything from the diet, to available time, and noise pollution, all makes a difference on education level. Our education system relies heavily on outside help, and poorer neighborhoods often don’t have the time and energy to give their kids even the most basic help with their homework.

> Everything from the diet, to available time, and noise pollution, all makes a difference on education level. Our education system relies heavily on outside help, and poorer neighborhoods often don’t have the time and energy to give their kids even the most basic help with their homework.

Well said. Thanks for elaborating on my point.

The analogy is correct because we’re talking about people.

Parents are the primary educators. When they aren’t educating, or need to educate on too many other things, academics suffer. This is news to nobody. It would be highly suspicious if environment had no influence on educational outcomes.

My experience with "10 Sample SATs" which was my only prep was about 500 points of improvement. IIRC I was about a 1050-1100 on my first, and my best V/M combo was 1450 (back in early 90s, so pre-recentering). I actually did about 1380, I had a so-so actual one.

It probably is the best bang for the buck, if you're already 1-2 standard deviations on general intelligence. Because the test is a game like admissions is a game, so if you're smart enough to see the game, it's easier and most effective to practice with that.

For the "normals", I have no idea if it will work. But we're specifically discussing MIT, who do NOT want normals, I'm not good enough. They want 2-3 standard deviations people.

MIT should be able to weight for socioeconomic and location/environment given the amount of information required for financial aid and "the internet".

If this becomes ubiquitous, I can see suburbanites getting ghetto apartments for the address to game the weights :-)

My mother was an orphan at 15 in Honduras. When she had me, she shared a 400 square foot house with six of her sisters.

Look up the crime stats for Honduras and try again.

Also, looking at the very worst situations is not a valid argument. By that rational, what about the poor girl who is kept a sex slave in her basement by her father for twenty years?

Do you think sending your African American example to SAT prep will make a difference? Coming from the poorest and sketchiest towns in America? Such a child would likely be better served by starting at a community college. After that, SATs are not accepted.

As a middle class going poorer higschool student (dad lost his desk job, mom had to start working again to keep the house, tried moving to cheaper city and it didn't work out, had to apply for scholarships for stuff, never had money to go out weekends, etc, etc) I think the thing resourceful people overlook that "rich" kids have in higschool and "poor" kids don't, is a space to study. Just a personal quiet space where you can deploy your book or laptop and write some stuff maybe with headphones maybe not but definitely without your parents screaming or the TV blasting stuff about social protests or whatever.

In college most of my other "poor" friends that made it either also had a space like that or were taught by their parents to study in public libraries or other spaces designed for concentration.

You aren't rich if you have to work and you're relying on what a high school student tells you who doesn't know all the details of the lives of other students, just what they tell her. In my experience as a student, other students will keep their tutoring and hand-ups under wraps.

I talk to a lot of parents. Most are quite open with their tactics.

>I live in a very rich town, like super rich.

>My child did very well on the ACT. All she did was buy a $35 practice book, which almost anyone can do.

I don't intend to belittle anyone's accomplishments, but there's a lot more to high ACT scores than a $35 book, no?

Indeed, and primary among them are parents.

> All the nay-sayers belly-ache about this but for most children, even the “rich” ones, this simply isn’t true. It’s most definitely not necessary.

I'd rather trust studies than your anecdote. Just saying.

Of course. Show me a study that compares motivated self-study with classes.

Two SAT tutors have responded to the thread and supported me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com