[abeinstein]

As a former SAT prep teacher, I'm very excited to learn about Khan Academy's partnership with the College Board. Previously, success on the SAT seemed to depend solely on how much money was spent on SAT prep. Glad to hear that the College Board is interested in leveling the playing field.

[ueqirat]

SAT prep has little effect on SAT scores. From research on this topic [1]:

"Does test preparation help improve student performance on the SAT and ACT? For students that have taken the test before and would like to boost their scores, coaching seems to help, but by a rather small amount. After controlling for group differences, the average coaching boost on the math section of the SAT is 14 to 15 points. The boost is smaller on the verbal section of the test, just 6 to 8 points. The combined effect of coaching on the SAT for the NELS sample is about 20 points. The effect of coaching is similar on comparable sections of the ACT. The average score increase on the ACT math section probably lies within the range of 0 to .4 points, while the coaching effect on the English section is about .3 to .6 points"

[1] http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Briggs_Theeffectofadmissionst...

[36bydesign]

There is a lot of bad test prep out there, especially any test prep taught by high school teachers. I have done test prep privately for six years and I can guarantee you coaching can have substantial effects. These studies group all test prep under a giant umbrella, but take elite 1 to 1 test prep and the premium price it costs that parents actually pay and you'll see substantial gains. I have spend $0.00 on advertising in the last six years and I am routinely overbooked because of word of mouth. There's just so many awful teachers and courses out there.

[abeinstein]

Hm, it's very possible that SAT prep companies game the system by making their diagnostic tests quite difficult.

[dragonwriter]

> Previously, success on the SAT seemed to depend solely on how much money was spent on SAT prep.

Most likely, a correlation is not causation thing -- people for whom success on the SAT is most important are likely to spend more money on test prep, but also be best generally prepared. As ueqirat points out, the research that has been done on SAT test prep utility hasn't actually born out a real effect.

[mschulkind]

I know it's just one datapoint, and SAT II, not SAT, but I took the SAT II writing test around 2000 and got a 600. I then took a test prep course over a few weeks, took the test again, and got a 690, which is a pretty big difference I'd say. I can tell you the test prep course certainly didn't improve my writing at all...

[vonmoltke]

Eh, maybe I'm just an outlier but I got a 1370 in 1997 without really trying, let alone actually spending money to prepare. I'm also a 100% product of public schools.

[mwerty]

Not sure what you are saying. The claim is that you could have done better had you really tried and taking courses is one way of doing that.

[vonmoltke]

Maybe I misinterpreted "success on the SAT" and "solely". In context, I took it to mean people had test test prep did well, in the absolute sense, and those who did not have test prep did not do well. I was providing myself as an example of someone who did well in the absolute sense with no preparation. I was not saying I could not have done better with preparation.

[buckbova]

Some feel if they succeed without trying, then this success is more meaningful than those whose foundation for success was built on hard work.

[vostrocity]

Some also feel their time is better spent on learning and smart work and not dry, repetitive practice of test-taking strategies.

[the_watcher]

I did literally no prep whatsoever (just walked in to the test location the day I was told to), and did very well. I'm sure test prep would have helped my writing score (my lowest one) by teaching me how to write a god awful essay that contained the pieces to get you extra points, but my verbal and math scores were about as high as they were going to get.

The secret to standardized testing is fast reading comprehension. I've always been a fast reader (without sacrificing comprehension). It frees up time to go back and really spend time on the tougher questions that just isn't available if you have to spend a long time just reading the question (it's more than just in the reading comprehension section, since you have to actually read every question to get through the test).

[abeinstein]

Yeah I meant more than it is very easy to go from the 400-500's range to the 600-700's range with SAT prep. Especially on the writing section -- they only test on 20ish grammar rules, many of which are subtle and wouldn't necessarily be noticed without prep.

[lhc-]

I scored very well on the SAT's back in 2001 or so (better than 700 on each section) with no prep. I dont think anything on there was beyond the reach of a normal HS student. I went to public HS and took no advanced math or english classes prior to the test.

[vonmoltke]

I can see that. I remember quite a bit of the test being formulaic, and preparation for what the formulas are would certainly be worth a few hundred points. I can't speak for the writing section, because it didn't exist in 1997.

[clarkm]

Where are you getting this information? I've taught hundreds of kids SAT prep and I can tell you that it is definitely not "very easy" to go from 400-500s to 600-700s.

[the_watcher]

The writing section is the only one I think test prep would have helped with. Especially with essay structuring. I just wrote a response to a prompt the way I've always written.

[trillium]

For the writing section, you have to follow an exact structure and use the right amount of words. You can also make stuff up to support your arguments.

It's basically "Write a generic 5 paragraph essay using memorized argument flow."

[the_watcher]

Yea, with no test prep, I just wrote an essay as I always had. It was my weakest section.

[WalterBright]

I didn't spend a dime on SAT prep and I did reasonably well (good enough to get into Caltech).

[niels_olson]

Perhaps you didn't give money to Princeton Review or Kaplan, but I'm guessing you didn't walk home barefoot to abusive parents in Louisiana either.

[Steko]

Good thing there were no questions about extrapolating from a sample size of 1.

[WalterBright]

Since the parent said "solely" all it takes is a single counterexample :-)

[sizzle]

and that's why you are posting on HN, with other members of above-average baseline intelligence.