Can’t see the elephants for the regattas: You would think someone writing 800 words (with three charts) about the relationship between SAT scores and wealth — the rich on average score higher — would at least consider the possibility that (while expensive tutoring or something else might be a factor) rich people on average are a bit smarter, and they pass some of this on to their kids. You would be wrong. Not even in the Wall Street Journal! The P.C. consensus is powerful. …
P.S.: It’s especially comical the way WSJ‘s Josh Zumbrun ostentatiously considers a “confluence of factors,” since “the gaps between rich and poor students are far larger than what could be produced by test prep alone.” Among these factors:
“Family wealth allows parents to locate in neighborhoods with better schools (or spring for private schools).”
Rich families may place more importance on tests because “many of the wealthiest and best-educated parents themselves came of age when the tests were of crucial importance.”
Anything but stop dancing around the obvious potential factor (they’re actually smarter).
Since the main point of an SAT-based meritocracy is to funnel the smartest kids into the best colleges and then on to the most important and typically best-paying jobs, it’s odd not to even consider the possibility that it has succeeded in doing that. …
P.P.S.: Zumbrun defends himself on Twitter by noting that “the College Board is making changes because of the data. .. They view it as a problem.” As well they maybe should. But that doesn’t mean it’s OK to play along with the idea that any gap at all must be the result of some kind of unfair class advantage — “uneven” schools, etc. .
Meanwhile in the NYT … : You’d think a New York Times analyst writing 1200 words — smart words! — about “the great wage slowdown of the 21st century” would at least consider, or mention, the possible role of immigration in bidding down pay (or just weighting down the stats with more lower earners). You would be wrong. The P.C. consensus is stifling. …