Flogging a dead horse
This article was posted in 1998, but I can't resist making a few comments about it. It was written by one Christine Brinck, a Munich journalist:
The American school system is diverse by design. An "A" from Bronx Science does not compare with one from Ozark High. Hence, the common yardstick of standardized exams like the Scholastic Assessment Test...Everybody -- friends, teachers, students -- has urged my daughter to get a coach....So I call one of these ("he is the best") supertutors, recommended by a Princeton student. Yes, he could take my daughter under his wing. But he would rather talk first about money. So how much would it cost to bring my 17-year-old up to S.A.T. snuff? "I charge 490 bucks." For the whole course? No, no -- for one session of 100 minutes. And how many sessions does she need? Ten at least, plus practice and diagnostic tests, books and software, and transportation. With my No. 2 pencil, I total it all up: $6,000 minimum...
Wow. She got hosed. I thought she was a journalist. How hard would it have been to do some research and realize that the big prep courses charge at most $1000.00 a course? The books are free in any library, and full practice exams are available for a pittance. What's more, anyone with any sense would know that there's no reason to hire a tutor unless her daughter had done poorly on her practice exams. Rather than looking at the situation with a logical eye, it sounds like this journalist was willing to believe everything everyone told her, and then panicked.
What a paradox. Intended as the great equalizer that would give everybody of talent a shot at the best schools, the S.A.T. looks like the great differentiator. Moneyed parents send their kids to the right prep schools or hire tutors at $490 a throw. Poorer parents will have to run up debts even before their offspring make it into the Ivy League -- or they go the somewhat cheaper route of group classes from businesses like Kaplan's and The Princeton Review.
Last I checked, not only is there no solid research indicating that test prep courses work for all kids, but there's also no research showing that price is any indicator of the quality of a test prep course. Let me point out again that the test was designed as an equalizer and in fact works as one - but our society is unequal with regards to wealth, and always will be. A poor kid with great SATs will not be poor for long. A rich kid who can't pass the SATs will be dependent on familial influence and money to get into college. The kid who works the hardest and had the most ability will probably do the best. The test prep companies will charge whatever credulous customers such as Ms. Brinck are willing to pay. And this is a criticism of the tests how? It isn't ETS creating that divide.
And the kid from Ozark High? He won't be coached.
Sure he will, but for a lot less money.
He probably never heard of Kaplan's.
Unless he visited a library or spoke with a teacher at some point during his high school career.
He'll score 1,200 points -- not enough for the best schools. He might be smart, even very smart. But if he is not initiated into the arcane arts of S.A.T.-taking, he will be seriously disadvantaged. My daughter's tutor assured me, after glancing at her old English scores and talking to her, that if she worked, he would be able to raise her score on the S.A.T. I by 200 points at least.
And Ms. Brinck believed him? Does she understand the concept of "marketing" at all? See my comments on being a journalist, above.
And what will she have proved? That she has learned with the help of a tutor (and her father's money) to become an expert test taker, a guesser and trickster.
And what will Ms. Brinck have learned? Hopefully, that in a free and capitalistic society, there will always be people looking for a way to make money off of the uninformed and the desperate, but one doesn't have to make it quite so easy for them. Rather than examining any research related to the SAT and its power to predict college performance, this journalist let a fast-talking huckster/tutor convince her that a 200-point score gain requires only his genuis and some serious cash, and she used his unsupported claim as a springboard for criticizing the tests. Not convincing.