Quote:

Originally Posted by

Not discounting this at all, but they can also afford tutors. I used to work for an SAT tutor and they could consistently raise a student's SAT score by 50-100 points, even for students that came in with really high scores.

That said, they've had more and better educations in general. And they probably will, on average, do better in college for some combination of biological and socioeconomic reasons.

**munchausen**Not discounting this at all, but they can also afford tutors. I used to work for an SAT tutor and they could consistently raise a student's SAT score by 50-100 points, even for students that came in with really high scores.

That said, they've had more and better educations in general. And they probably will, on average, do better in college for some combination of biological and socioeconomic reasons.

No doubt there's nature and nurture at work. Google turned up this analysis, which is pretty interesting.

Quote:

IIRC, the age-adjusted correlation between log income and IQ is 0.4: take someone with a log income higher by one standard deviation than average--these days someone with a middle-age-adjusted family income of $100,000-$120,000 rather than $60,000-$80,000--and their IQ is likely to be 0.4 standard deviations (6 points) above average. The individual heritability of IQ is about 0.5: take an individual with a IQ 6 points above average and their children will be expected to have an IQ 3 points above average. SAT scores have a mean of 500, a standard deviation of 100, and a high but not a perfect (0.7) correlation with IQ.

So if we compare people whose parents have an income of $100,000-$120,000 to those with an income of $60,000-$80,000 we would expect to see 1 x 0.4 x 0.5 x 0.7 x 100 = 14 points. The actual jump in the graph Mankiw refers to is twice as large.

The rule of thumb, I think, is that half of the income-test score correlation is due to the correlation of your test scores with your parents' IQ; and half of the income-test score correlation is coing purely from the advantages provided by that component of wealth uncorrelated with your parents' (genetic and environmental!) IQ.

So if we compare people whose parents have an income of $100,000-$120,000 to those with an income of $60,000-$80,000 we would expect to see 1 x 0.4 x 0.5 x 0.7 x 100 = 14 points. The actual jump in the graph Mankiw refers to is twice as large.

The rule of thumb, I think, is that half of the income-test score correlation is due to the correlation of your test scores with your parents' IQ; and half of the income-test score correlation is coing purely from the advantages provided by that component of wealth uncorrelated with your parents' (genetic and environmental!) IQ.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/if-you-are-so-rich-why-arent-you-smart.html

---

At any rate, it doesn't really matter because SAT scores are such good predictors of college performance. If your goal is actually to give spots at top colleges based on merit, they can't be beat.