Can someone explain this to me?


Jun 3, 2003
Alright, today I was reading the Wall Street Journal and was interested in an article about how SAT scores have reached a 30 year high, with an average score of 1026. Anyhow, it went on to say that although the average score went up, the disparity between scores of whites and minorities went up (except for asians, which scored highest). And the final comparison they made was saying that the gap between scores for boys and girls (without respect to race) also widened. This final comparison and a quote in the article about it is where I get confused.

Here's the quote:

"The College Board, which owns the SAT, said that is because female test-takers are more likely than males to be minorities and to come from families with lower incomes and less education. Those characteristics are strong predictors of lower scores."

Ok, so what that is saying is that if you have a vagina, you are more likely to have come from a poor, uneducated family and be a minority than if you had a penis. Does this not make sense to anyone else? If this statement is true, then does that mean that more guys have rich, white socialite fathers than girls do? I mean, I thought it was a 50/50 chance that you were born a male or a female. But this quote is saying that well-to-do families have more male children than females.

If anyone can explain the logic of this quote in a way that makes sense, I'd appreciate it.

- d_s
No offense to anyone who had a 1026 or lower, but I got a 1210 and didn't study, nor do I consider myself a genius.

The stat about female test takers being more likely to be a minority is a result of a few possible things. Either:
1. Minority women are trying to step up and better themselves.
2. Minority men aren't concerned and don't take the test as often.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that anyone, regardless of race/sex/religion/whatever can succeed in life if they've got the drive. Ok, might be easy to say for a white male from upper middle class USA, but I believe that it the responsibility of both the student and the parent to be sure that they are well prepared for the SAT's, and plenty of free info is available to do so.
Sounds like either bad research or bad writing. As you pointed out, the assertion doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by penguinsfan
Sounds like either bad research or bad writing. As you pointed out, the assertion doesn't make sense.

Alright, I thought maybe I was completely reading that wrong or something. Cool, so maybe I know how to read after all!!!!!

But yeah, for the record, I got a 1210 also on my best attempt at the SAT's. I'm pretty sure now though that I could probably get a scrore in the 1400's due to all of my extra college education. I think 1026 is okay for an average, considering all of the girls that are taking the exam, bringing the average down, hehe. (I was making reference to the quote in the WSJ article, not being sexist.)

Well, that's all I got.

- d_s
If I remember right, my SAT was just under 1100. It wasn't horrible, but it didn't give me bragging rights either. Yet, I have always measured above average in my assessment standardized tests I had all through school. I cruised through college. Yeah, I my first year I had GPA of 2.5 and 2.6, respectively. But after I made the adjustments to the college lifestyle, I really began to cruise. My GPA without that year figured out to be around 3.8, as I had mostly 4.0 semesters afterwards. I'm just saying this to bring up the fact that SATs may not be the most reliable yardstick to measure by. My last three years of high school were spent at a small, private school with somewhat limited resources. The math teacher was a genius, but other offerings were scarce.
Top Bottom