Why Most of the Low Income “Strivers” are White

So I was reading David Leonhardt’s story on elite colleges and low income kids with high test scores—not news, since I’d read Steve Sailer’s post on the study earlier—and was pleased to see that the reporter had at least mentioned race: “Among high-achieving, low-income students, 6 percent were black, 8 percent Latino, 15 percent Asian-American and 69 percent white, the study found. ”

Of course, while Leonhardt mentions race, he doesn’t mention that gosh by golly, those numbers are lopsided, aren’t they? and none of the posts or tweets I’ve read mention that tremendous imbalance (other than Steve Sailer, of course). Mokita–the truth we all know and agree not to talk about.

Steve said in his earlier post that he was “guessing” that the reserve of kids was white, and of course he was right. What I’d like to remind everyone, while they’re all ignoring the truth, is that Steve didn’t need to guess.

While Hoxby defined “high achieving” as 1300 SAT M-V, let’s be clear: no white or Asian kid without legacy parents or uncommon athletic or artistic ability has any shot at all at a top 20 school without a GPA of 4.0 or higher and SAT combined score over 1400.

According to the College Board, however, just 1500 African Americans scored 700 on either the Math or Reading SAT—which means almost certainly fewer than 1500 scored 700 on both.

The number of African Americans at the top 20 schools, using 2008 data (saved me looking up the individual common data sets), is 2,217.

Okay, a couple of the top 20 schools field football and basketball teams, but the steep SAT skews for athletes are usually found at the big public universites. So the entire reservoir of African Americans with genuinely competitive SAT scores (never mind grades) are taken up entirely by the top 20 schools and they’re already scooping into the scores below that marker. It goes down from there.

Hispanic admissions would tell a similar story, since only around 3000 Mexican, Puerto Rican, or other Hispanic students scored above 700 in either section (again, probably fewer achieved over 700 on both). Please don’t make me add up all twenty from the CDS—here’s six of the top 10 adding up to a bit over 1100 Hispanic admits in 2011 or thereabouts.

This article argues that elite schools recruit low income blacks and Hispanics as a two-fer—they are both poor and non-white, but it’s a mistake assume that the black and Hispanic admits are impoverished. Within races, SAT scores rise and fall with income, on average, and since so few blacks and Hispanics make top marks, it’s very unlikely that a noticeable percentage of low income blacks and Hispanics are hitting genuinely competitive scores (and I speak as someone who has coached low income black/Hispanic students in SAT/ACT, and even seen a few 600+ scores). Low income whites outscore high income blacks and tie high income Hispanics on every IQ-proxy test we have, and the SAT and ACT are no exception.

So no one needs to guess that the high scoring low income kids attending non-elite schools are a predominantly white population, and David Leonhardt didn’t need to mention it, although I’m pleased he did. The students in this category have to be predominantly white, as there aren’t enough high scoring blacks or Hispanics of any income level to fill the maw of top-50 universities desperate to pat themselves on the back for their “diverse” population; they are already granting a steep discount by the 20th school on the US News list.

Meanwhile, at 35th ranked NYU, 34-42% of their admits received 700 or higher on the Math or Reading SAT, while only 12-14% of the students were accepted with scores below 600 on either section. It’s probably just a coincidence that their Hispanic and black admits combined were 15%? So by 35th ranked NYU, they are reaching down into the 500s. Berkeley, at #21, accepts 3-5% of students with scores in the 400s, but then Cal has a football team.

None of this is news. But in presenting the problem as one of income, Leonhardt is coming perilously close to misrepresenting the story. It’s not gee whiz, how come poor kids are ending up at local community colleges and low-end state universities, but that poor white kids—and indeed, many middle class white kids—simply don’t have a chance at top-ranked schools because they are being actively discriminated against in favor of lower-scoring blacks and Hispanics of all income levels*. Most whites in both low and middle income categories know this full well, so they don’t bother applying—why waste the time or the application fee. Asians, of course, are also subject to discrimination, but as someone with seven years experience in the Asian test prep industry, I’m less bothered by the 100 point premium they pay against whites. Sounds about right, when compared to a white (or black or Hispanic, for that matter) kid of similar abilities who didn’t prep.

And as I’ve mentioned before now, the two tools the universities use to rationalize the discrimination are grades and course transcripts. Majority URM schools (both charter and comprehensive) can simply lie about their course content and grade based on effort. Unexpected consequence: Asians are overrepresented despite the discount, because white parents just don’t care as much about grades.

None of this will be resolved by the Supreme Court decision; universities have demonstrated unyielding allegiance to URM admissions and rich white legacy donors. But in my perfect world, college admissions would work something like this.

*I’m adding this later. Private schools are also discriminating against all non-legacy students in favor of “development” (wealthy or legacy or both) admits. I guess it’s too much to expect that, after their pursuit of money, their treatment of non-development candidates be even-handed.

About educationrealist

54 responses to “Why Most of the Low Income “Strivers” are White

  • Better Colleges Failing to Lure Talented Poor | Times of Texas

    […] Why Most of the Low Income “Strivers” are White (educationrealist.wordpress.com) […]

  • Jim

    I work in a company owned mostly by ethnic Chinese which employs a large number of Chinese many from Mainland China. They are well aware of the Anti-Asian discrimination in college admissions for their children and resent it. However being Chinese they accept authority and oppression and and relentlessly seek success for their children in spite of it.
    Although at present East Asians do not waste energy in a useless struggle against the current system do not doubt that in any part of this country in the future where they may gain local political control that they will hesitate to screw other ethnic/racial groups.

  • Jim

    Also regarding your comments about the greater level of effort put in by East Asians as opposed to whites or other ethnic groups. This is often mentioned in contexts which seem to suggest that the greater effort East Asians put into study is purely cultural and therefore in some confused sense not as “legitimate” as the “native smarts” of some white kid who however does not study as hard as the Asian kid. This is what seems to motivate your comment that you are not much bothered by a handicap of 100 points that an East Asian kid has to contend with in competing with a white kid.
    But what rational reason is there to punish the trait of “conscientiousness” in comparison with “native smarts”? Maybe “conscientiousness” is a just as desirable or even more desirable trait than “native smarts”?
    Wherever in the world East Asians have emigrated they have been very successful even when totally lacking in political power. If this is due more to their diligence and conscientiousness rather than “native smarts” maybe that just shows that “native smarts” is not as important as diligence and conscietiousness.
    You speak of a hypothetical white kid as having “similar abilities” as a higher scoring East Asian kid who worked harder. But if the white kid didn’t do as well as the East Asian kid because he didn’t study as hard does the white kid really have the same level of ability? Apparently not in regards to “conscientiousness” and “diligence”.
    By the way genetic differences between East Asians and whites likely contribute about as much to the differences in “conscientiousness” and “diligence” as they due to IQ differences.

    • educationrealist

      I don’t dispute that East Asian IQs are slightly higher, although I don’t know for sure that it’s genetic. 100 points on an overall SAT score is nothing, and given the high likelihood that the white didn’t prep, and the high likelihood that the Asian (and not just east Asian) spent hours and hours and HOURS in test prep, I’m fine with the 100 point advantage. Sounds about right. If the hours and hours and hours didn’t give any more of a boost, they’re roughly equivalent.

      And I don’t think conscientiousness and diligence in terms of grade-swotting are worthy of admiration. They certainly aren’t a proxy for ability.

    • not too late

      Here is the deal. A conscientious Asian who gets a SAT 1500 M+V and a white guy (not girl) who is not that into school per se and gets a 1400 M+V are likely very different personalities. In all likelihood that white guy has some hobbies of his own that he pursues for his own intellectual development but he finds fun, etc. Knowledge and real world experience tell us that smart white guys are very motivated to do all kinds of clever stuff just cuz. That is what makes them good candidates for colleges. They think of stuff because they have particular um, obsessions, and have quite a track record for coming up with stuff. Not saying conscientiousness sucks. I am just saying that white guys with a 1400 are conscientious, but not necessarily at striving to increase an arbitrary number that someone told them to work toward. White guys that smart tend to chose the object of their affection rather than trust someone else to pick it for them. Plus, they live in white western families that value individualism and have dads who encourage them to do some of their own stuff. Now white girls are much more like Asians. I wouldn’t think that a 1400 girl’s score would mean anything different coming from either a white or an Asian.

  • Jim

    I would think that in a modern culture conscientiousness and diligence are desirable traits and I see no reason why they should be punished. The East Asian kid spending hours studying does no harm to the white kid and does not prevent the white kid from studying.

    Conscientiousness and diligence are a component of ability in modern cultures. So to the extent that East Asians are generally stronger in these areas they have more ability.

    Imagine a match for the world chess championship where at the beginning of the match one of the contestants states that he has heard that his opponent has spent an enormous amount of time preparing for the match and therefore should be penalized by always having to play black. Everybody would laugh.

    To the extent that one is willing to work harder to achieve something one may be more successful. I see nothing wrong with that.

    • Tim

      Conscientiousness is a desirable trait to a point. Worker bees who show up on time are are a wonderful thing for any large organization, but they are not necessarily the best at coming up with new creative ideas. In fact, as someone who has worked as a pro in IT and in creative fields, the idea people are rarely (if ever, I can’t think of one) the people showing up early and staying late. I’ve known smart conscientious people and smart creative people and I also know which ones are far more common among start ups and it’s not the first category. Why do you think start ups are almost universal in their lax dress codes, start times, and work from where ever philosophies? It sure isn’t because they’re lazy.

      This is why I’ve posted here before about my wish that we had more support for creatives in the US and not just the fine arts kind. We have businesses by the boatload slavering for more creative thinkers to lead the way to new technologies, products and services and an educational system that only thinks you’re bright if you score high on tests (none of which measure creativity, which is measurable and we should be testing for) and compliant enough regurgitate the ‘facts’ you are presented.

      • educationrealist

        I mostly agree with you about supply, but not about demand. Businesses aren’t slavering for anything other than 4.0s from elite schools.

      • Tim

        Yes, I put that poorly: Businesses are mostly interested in the products of creative thinking: new products, new services, new ways of thinking about old things, etc. Unfortunately outside of start ups and creative focused companies there is essentially zero support for actual creative people who act in those scary odd ways, dress oddly, and think oddly. Part of the problem in my mind is that there is no connection between the creative person and the creative product, we are taught that everyone is creative… everyone can come up with great ideas. This is true of course, or at least it has truthiness. Those with the ability to demonstrate ideaphoria on a consistent basis are rare (especially as adults) and should be encouraged to develop that skill just as we encourage STEM children to become engineers and scientists and amoral children to become lawyers.

    • John

      JIm, diligence and conscientiousness are surely admirable qualities, but don’t you think that like all virtues, they can become vices if pushed too far?

      Someone who is excessively diligent is so at the expense of imagination and capacity for deep thinking. There is a reason such people are known as “grinds”. Now, of course it is possible to be deficient in diligence, and that is just as much of a vice as excessive diligence. But why must we go to extremes?

      Asian culture lacks balance in the intensity of its emphasis on diligence, and the result is a certain weakness in Asian thinking that is apparent to everyone, university admissions included.

      That Asians can’t understand why many whites see diligence as a virtue, but diligence pushed to an extreme at the expense of imagination and deep thinking as a vice, puzzles me. But no one should mistake excessive diligence for a strength, as many Asians do. It is a weakness. All virtues degenerate into vices at their extremes, as Aristotle said. Perhaps Asians have some warrant for developing in this unbalanced way in the specific circumstances of their history, but it would be tragic if the peculiar intellectual shortcomings of Asian culture gained a foothold in the West.

      The West, of course, has it’s own severe intellectual shortcomings and a tendency to go to commit excesses in many areas, but there is no reason we should add to this what has up till now been the specifically Asian lack of balance.

  • Black_Rose

    Off topic:

    From the “False God of Elementary School Test Scores”:

    Well, they’re only getting good test scores because the [elementary school] tests are too easy!—dingdingding! This is a distinct possibility. Perhaps the elementary tests aren’t challenging enough. Having looked at the tests, I’m a big believer in this one. I think California’s elementary math tests, through seventh grade, are far less challenging to the tested elementary school population than are the general math and specific subject tests are to the older kids. (On the other hand, the NAEP scores show this same dropoff.)

    I’ve seen the questions on the CAHSEE exit exam and they are too easy as I could easily solve most of them in my head in less than five seconds. BTW, are the questions on the CAHSEE exam at the same level as the questions on California’s elementary math tests? Allegedly, the CAHSEE covers math at the eighth grade level with a soupcon of algebra.

    I ask because it is obvious that high school math is more g-loaded than elementary school math, and this is the reason why performance diminishes at the high school level since concrete instruction (such as drilling math facts) fails to significantly erode the abstract nature of algebra and geometry..

  • A Sociologist Looks at Race Differences in SAT Scores | Gucci Little Piggy

    […] The topic is of particular interest given the article by David Leonhardt at New York Times which discusses the lack of talented poor attending “better colleges”.  Even in this cohort of low-income high-achievers, blacks are 6% of low-income high-achievers while whites are 69% and Asians are 15%. […]

  • anon1

    These data dovetail nicely with the numbers Unz presented in his essay, and I’ll restate the question I asked then. How do we know that people from all socioeconomic groups apply to elite schools at similar rates? Unz simply assumes this, and you seem to do so as well. And once we assume that application rates are constant throughout all groups, it follows that disparities in group admissions rates are the result of school policies.

    People who hang out in the “IQ realist” corner of the internet tend to see the colleges admissions process as a brutal Darwinian competition, in which people try to optimize their intelligence signalling by getting the most elite credential they can get. That’s the mentality of the Amy Chuas of the world, but it’s totally alien to a large portion of America.

    There really are a lot of smart kids, generally white and from rural or exurban areas, who are totally clueless about the whole college rat race. They don’t know anyone who went to elite schools, and their high school teachers and counselors don’t either. And when they do look at those schools, they’re likely to check the tuition price, multiply it by four, and walk away in shock. Obviously they could get financial aid, but people who aren’t savvy about the process don’t know that.

    These kids tend to get scholarships or admissions to honors programs in less prestigious schools. Some of those school offer full rides to National Merit Semifinalists, and kids take them up on those offers. I know several examples. And of course, those kids are part of Ron Unz’s elite group, whose absence from Yale is “obviously” proof of discrimination.

    I’m not saying that this explains all of the disparity, but it explains some of it.

    • educationrealist

      I certainly do not seem to. I specifically say that they don’t apply in the same rates. But the reason they don’t is because they know they won’t get in. And if you really think that’s not the case, then you’re clueless.

      • Tim

        I got in to the Univ. of Chicago with a 1290 SAT and 90%ish (A-) grades back in 1995, my skin is white, we were middle class, it happens. Anecdotal I know, but hey, application fee isn’t totally worthless if you can swing it. I think I got into Yale too actually, but not Harvard. In retrospect I think I should have gone to Yale, would have done better I think as I’ve heard they don’t have such a demonic common core curriculum as U of C. Oh well.

      • educationrealist

        Those are awfully low scores for Harvard. Fairly low for UofC. You may have had some other skill or interest that made you a good fit.

      • Tim

        I write very good essays but I assume most who apply to these schools do as well. None of them saw my art portfolio (or knew that I had won or placed in every art contest in my section of my state) because I had no inkling at the time that being able to draw was a skill anyone would care about. Instead I fumbled my way through a B.S. degree with little interest in the actual practice of science.

        Interestingly my experience at UofC was that there were a few truly smart students some from middle class backgrounds and a whole lot of rich kids who didn’t seem to do anything yet always managed to get at least a B. Very annoying. My only experience with Asians was their ubiquity in the pre-med bio classes I had the unfortunate need to take. The grades were insanely competitive in those classes, absurdly so, to the point where people would steal reserve readings to purposely sabotage others.

      • Black_Rose

        Wow, I thought UoC was a rigorous school where slackers would not flourish academically. If it was Harvard, I would not be surprised.

  • anon1

    I don’t think that that’s not the case. It’s totally obvious that those kids have a lower chance of being admitted, and everyone knows it.

    I phrased the first paragraph of the earlier comment badly- I should have said “How do we know that all socioeconomic groups have the same desire to attend elite schools?”

    Do you think that the only reason non-urban white kids are underrepresented at top schools is discrimination (whether directly, from lower acceptance rates, or indirectly, from lower application rates in response to that)? If you do, I think that you’re overlooking cultural differences. There are a lot of smart kids who just don’t know or care much about Ivy League schools, and are less likely to apply as a result.

    • educationrealist

      I think it’s highly unlikely that I’m overlooking cultural differences.

      Besides, you seem to forget WHY no one is telling smart white kids to apply to elite schools–namely, everyone knows they don’t have a chance.

  • anon1

    Again, I want to emphasize that cultural differences are only one contributing factor to the situation. I basically agree with what you say- I just don’t think it’s the whole story.

    • Anonymous

      It’s enough of the story that for all practical purposes it should be considered the whole story. Top colleges are anti-White and they discriminate against Whites.

  • Jim

    Cultural differences probably do play into this to some extent. Out in the Texas Hill Country for example I don’t think anybody gives a flying fuck whether you’re a Harvard graduate or not.

  • Jim

    Tim – It may be desirable to change college admission criteria to put more emphasis on creativity and maybe East Asians would then not do as well. I often hear assertions that East Asians are not on average as creative as whites and maybe that is true. But East Asians did not set up the existing system. They do not control the content of college admission tests. If they figure out how to do well under the existing system which has been mostly created by whites then I think it is unfair to require them to achieve higher scores than other ethnic groups.

  • Jim

    The whole elite power structure is anti-white and supports discrimination against whites. In part it is because whites are less united than other groups and not very good at the present at racial/ethnic infighting. This may change in the future as racial/ethnic conflict intensifies in a world of increasing economic stress.

  • Nick C

    I was the only student in my general cohort of top 25 college aspirers who didn’t do any test prep, and 80% of them were white. Being Asian and not being a fool, I realized that I would have to get better than a perfect score to be considered equal to the whites in the group, so I focused on “well-rounded” leadership and non-technical art bullshit skills and qualifiications which were useless to me in the long-term, but got me where I needed to be. I take offense that you imagine that white kids that are competing for top schools don’t generally engage in test prep.

    I notched a perfect score on the SAT anyway, but I know that’s what was merely expected of me as an Asian and in no way, shape, or form gave me automatic admission to any top school. Certainly a handful of them rejected me, and the correlation with their prestige seemed nonexistent.

    Frankly, I think the discrimination against Asians doesn’t bother you because you’re racist, not because of your experience.

    • educationrealist

      Yes, that must be it. I just teach at all Asian private education companies because I can sabotage their efforts.

      But then, I’ve upset you, which means my work here wasn’t entirely wasted.

      By the way, East Asians are about three times as likely to get test prep as whites.

    • Tim

      “so I focused on “well-rounded” leadership and non-technical art bullshit skills and qualifiications which were useless to me in the long-term, but got me where I needed to be”

      I love this comment. Hilarious! Yes, what a waste it is to be well rounded! What a terrible thing to have interests or skills outside of one narrow focused area. I couldn’t ask for a better demonstration of single minded, achievement obsessed, cultural values. I’ve often wondered if this sort of thinking is a natural outgrowth of centuries of living in extreme population density where competition is so high for everything.

      As an aside, I don’t know of anyone in my almost entirely lily white small city high-school class who took test prep of any kind for anything, except of course for the doctor’s son who was of Indian ancestry. Now maybe a lot more people are prepping in the elite coastal cluster areas, but not in cow country, that’s for sure. That said: I’m not a big fan of lumping ‘whites’ together as one homogenous group. I see a lot of differences among so-called whites, whether it’s due to ethnic ancestry or religious background I couldn’t say, but there’s definite variation there especially regionally.

  • Jim

    Differences between whites and East Asians may in part reflect historical differences in population density or other environmental factors. But such factors would cause genetic as well as cutural differences. Cultural differences themselves will eventually lead to genetic differences by way of changing the force of selection for different genotypes.

  • Jim

    John – What you say is very reasonable but from an evolutionary perspective creativity may not be so important. In biological competition between human groups cultural innovations by one group can be quickly copied by the other group if they are sufficently intelligent. For example transistors were originally developed by Westerners but we are long past the point where that makes any difference. The Chinese first developed such things as paper, cannon, etc. but Westerners quickly copied these innovations.

    Cochran and Harpending in their book “The 10000 Year Explosion” suggested the interesting theory that the remarkable expansion of Indo-European speakers may have been due to lactose tolerance. They point out that a genetic advantage like that is particularly advantageous because it cannot be copied by other groups. The Indo-Europeans also appear to be among the first to use spoked wheels. Spoked wheels were a cultural innovation at first confined to a fairly small area but pretty soon they are eveywhere – in Mesopotamia, in China etc. So the advantage of being among the earliest to use spoked wheels did not last long but the advantage of lactose tolerance was more enduring.

    So it is possible that the advantages of a more innovative culture is not as great as one might be inclined to think.

    • John

      Maybe, but it surely advantageous to the human race to have at least some creative societies, capable of moving the (human) race forward. As you yourself note, creativity in one place helps everyone, eventually. For that reason, it makes sense to nurture these fragile creative societies, and not allow mental habits that prevail in societies that are notably uncreative gain a major foothold.

  • Jim

    At any rate we set up a supposedly fair and objective system at which East Asians do very well and then we arbitrarily exclude them. If we went by the objective criteria which we set up prestige universities would be flooded with East Asians so we exclude them on the grounds that they are not sufficently creative. Is that the real motive or does the exclusion simply reflect the greater political power of other groups such as blacks?

    • educationrealist

      The latter, to a certain extent. But in reality, I think it’s a case of unintended outcomes. Schools use grades as an important criteria because it allowed them to fake equality and accept more blacks and Hispanics. The problem is, they didn’t really want too many more Asians. They just wanted more blacks and Hispanics.

      Also, I think we are just getting to the limits of what we can do in a multicultural society.

    • John

      That’s a good point. It does seem unfair to exclude Asians when they excel on the official criteria. The solution would be for universities to be quite honest about the fact that Asians, despite great official credentials, seem to make modest contributions to American intellectual life, and that in the absence of tests that can specifically measure creativity or the likelihood of making a major intellectual contribution, this simple statistical fact about Asians, observed across two decades in America, and more than a century in Asia, makes it sensible and logical to avoid having them “flood” our elite universities.

      When broken down, the position is respectable, and makes sense from a purely intellectual standpoint, but explaining it in such frank racial terms is probably impossible in current day America.

      In the meantime, it only seems unfair to Asians. I believe that anyone who belongs to a demographic that scores high or low on some statistical measure, needs to accept that people will use that as a tool when judging them, if no better information is available. Thus if I was a young black man, I would not be resentful if the police stopped and frisked me, as long as they were polite. I would understand why they were doing it, and support it. If I were an Asian, I would not be resentful if I needed a slightly higher score to get into university. I would understand why that was the case, and accept that until better tests are devised, that has to be the case. That seems to me the mature and responsible position.

  • Jim

    Of course East Asians will obviously resent that and regard it as unfair. Any multicultural society will be riven by ethnic conflict requiring authoritarian rule to hold it together. I’m not so naive as to believe that even a perfectly objective system would avoid this but clearly any subjective elements in the system will be the source of never-ending resentment.

  • It’s the Tests, Zitbrains! | educationrealist

    […] requirements may drive down the supply of black and Hispanic teachers even further, given that only 6% of blacks and 10% of Hispanics are in the top third of SAT scores? Does she wonder why the Mumford scandal overwhelmingly involved teachers, not teacher candidates, […]

  • Zed

    Whites are more creative than Asians? BS. Just because Asians don’t make stupid music or produce pointless sitcoms, in the same proportion as whites, does not make them (Asians) less creative. I’d say that when you associate creativity with a certain utility value, then very few people anywhere in the world are creative (from the point of view of utility). For example, Miley Cyrus is more famous than Ramanujan, but does that mean Cyrus is more creative? I’m sure she’d beat him at public relations and marketing any day of the week, but at the end of the day, his work (most of which is obscure to the layman) will have the lasting impact.

    Let me rephrase the above argument more succintly: much of what we consider “creative” is actually garbage, with little practical value. Be it pop music or Hollywood junk. Now take something like mathematics, where creativity has far-reaching results, and you’ll find that the number of people who are able to achieve an even moderate rate of success, trumps any racial or ethnic categorizing.

  • Sampling Program targets Hispanic & African American events & more than $2 trillion buying power | Moorbey'z Blog

    […] Why Most of the Low Income “Strivers” are White (educationrealist.wordpress.com) […]

  • Most Popular Posts and Favorites | educationrealist

    […] Why Most of the Low Income “Strivers” are White […]

  • Gringo

    According to the College Board, however, just 1500 African Americans scored 700 on either the Math or Reading SAT—which means almost certainly fewer than 1500 scored 700 on both.

    I do not see how to get 1500 scoring 700 on either the Math or Reading SAT from the link. Please explain.
    Thank you.

    • educationrealist

      If you look at the link,you’ll see that 150,000 blacks took the test. Only 6% of them, or 1500 testers, got higher than 600 on either the math or verbal section. Unless the overlap was complete, fewer than 1500 blacks got 700 on both.

      • Gringo

        Thanks for the reply. Courtesy of The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, here is some more detailed information.

        In 2005, 153,132 African Americans took the SAT test. They made up 10.4 percent of all SAT test takers. But only 1,132 African-American college-bound students scored 700 or above on the math SAT and only 1,205 scored at least 700 on the verbal SAT.

        There is an even more telling quote:
        we find that in the entire country 244 blacks scored 750 or above on the math SAT. I attended a public high school which had about 160 graduates. Off the top of my head, I can think of 7 classmates who scored 750 or above on the Math SAT. This was also years before the recentering brouhaha. With the recentering brouhaha taken into consideration, and with more detailed information, it wouldn’t have been difficult to come up with 10 classmates with Math SATs above 750 in a school with 160 graduates. Compare that to 244 blacks in the whole country. Sad.

  • College Admissions, Race, and Unintended Consequences | educationrealist

    […] what they are, the kids represented by these numbers are almost exclusively white or Asian. Any black or Hispanic getting scores above 600 are usually going to a higher ranked private school. Keep in mind that […]

  • Social Justice and Winning the Word | educationrealist

    […] we’re a long way from a world in which we give all low income kids an equal shot, regardless of race. We’re not even at the point where each demographic has its […]

  • the Revision Division

    […] a long way from a world in which we give all low income kids an equal shot, regardless of race. We’re not even at the point where each demographic has its own […]

  • 2013: Taking Stock and Looking Forward | educationrealist

    […] Why Most of the Low Income “Strivers” are White […]

  • SAT + ‘adversity’ = college — Joanne Jacobs

    […] Most low-income strivers are white, Education Realist, a former SAT coach, wrote in 2013 in response to a column on luring the talented poor to selective colleges. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: