In response to a column by Ethan Tobias '12 ("Changing a cheating culture," Nov. 28), Aaron Larocque GS wrote in a letter, "The SAT can in no way be a means to judge a student's socioeconomic status … I doubt there is any correlation between wealth and SAT scores" ("SATs do not measure wealth," Nov. 29).
With all due respect, Larocque should do some research before speculating. A quick Google search uncovered — as the first hit — a 2009 New York Times blog post that pointed out that 2009 SAT scores did in fact have "a very strong positive correlation" with family income.
This obviously does not mean that everyone's score can be completely predicted by their family's income. Larocque reminds us rather indignantly that he "never took a preparatory class." The same is true for me, and I, too, was lucky enough to get into Brown. But whether Larocque, I or anyone else took prep classes is primarily a reflection of our resources, not our intellect.
Let's pretend for a moment that we can all agree on some objective measure of intelligence. The fact that I did not take SAT prep classes does not automatically make me smarter than someone who did. And the fact that I got into Brown does not automatically make me smarter than someone who did not.
In other words, I am sure there are people who are smarter than I am who either took SAT prep classes, did not get into Brown or both. The point is that intelligence — again, assuming an objective and easily measured definition thereof — is only one of many factors that determine SAT scores and college admissions.
I understand that dissecting privilege is an uncomfortable exercise and can often lead us to feel that our worth is being questioned. That is a difficult feeling, and many of us can relate to the discomfort that I see Larocque expressing. Such discomfort can be productive if we take the right approach to dealing with it. But denying our privilege, as Larocque does by claiming that SAT scores are representative of "problem solving skills" and nothing else, is exactly the wrong approach.
Knowing this, we should realize that continuing to rely heavily on SAT scores in the college admissions process is a kind of need-aware admission. By screening out students whose SAT scores fall below a certain threshold, or even by allowing SAT scores to figure prominently in admission decisions, universities exclude many students of lower socioeconomic status right off the bat. Again, this is not to imply that no such students make it in at all, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the population of Brown students is at all a representative sample of the general population, either.
So before we go claiming that the SAT is some kind of magical test that flawlessly discerns academic ability, folks like us need to look at the numbers. The fact is that, taken in total, SAT scores and family income have a strong positive correlation, indicating that, as a population, students of higher socioeconomic status have greater access to resources that demonstrably improve SAT scores. This stands in direct contradiction to Larocque's assertion that "the SAT was designed so that no amount of preparation will make a significant difference."
By making this claim, Larocque is ignoring the privileged status of many of us here at Brown, myself included, as well as our peers at other universities. In doing so, he does a great disservice to lower-income students, who already face numerous obstacles to academic success. For their sake, we need to be honest about how we got here and how they did not. Rather than denying the existence of the structures that keep those students out, we should work to change them.
Harpo Jaeger '14 is from Northampton, Mass., and can be reached at harpo@brown.edu.
