I looked at that table and immediately thought, "Those are pretty solid correlation values", so I was confused by the point you were making.
I also read the page in the PDF you linked that was the source of the table and became more confused, because it very clearly writes out that:
>What this means is that 40% of the variation in students’ SAT/ACT scores is attributable to differences in socioeconomic circumstance.
I think you are either:
1. Misunderstanding correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients range from -1 to +1, implying a 100% negative or positive correlation. 0.4 and -0.4 are moderately positive and negative correlation values. That table is saying that if you are an underrepresented minority, you are expected to do 40% worse on the SAT/ACT.
2. Quibbling over the "thing that correlates highest with SAT score" claim, because you feel like 0.4 is not high enough of a number. The only factors with higher correlation values than 0.4 in SAT/ACT scores would be stuff like "Was the student currently injured?" or "Did the student make it to the testing center?"
> That table is saying that if you are an underrepresented minority, you are expected to do 40% worse on the SAT/ACT.
This is separate from the main point, but "underrepresented" minorities are defined by their lower performance on the SAT, so 0.4 isn't impressive at all for that cell.
Also, you've made a gross mathematical error; "you are expected to do 40% worse on the test" is a statement about the effect size, not the correlation.
Of course if having a brain would be on the table there would be no contest.
Being the highest correlation in a rather arbitrary list is not a valid qualifier for being a good correlation.
> Of course if having a brain would be on the table there would be no contest.
Is that really what you think? In reality, the possession of a brain can't have any correlation with SAT scores at all, because there is zero variance in the trait.
I also read the page in the PDF you linked that was the source of the table and became more confused, because it very clearly writes out that:
>What this means is that 40% of the variation in students’ SAT/ACT scores is attributable to differences in socioeconomic circumstance.
I think you are either:
1. Misunderstanding correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients range from -1 to +1, implying a 100% negative or positive correlation. 0.4 and -0.4 are moderately positive and negative correlation values. That table is saying that if you are an underrepresented minority, you are expected to do 40% worse on the SAT/ACT.
2. Quibbling over the "thing that correlates highest with SAT score" claim, because you feel like 0.4 is not high enough of a number. The only factors with higher correlation values than 0.4 in SAT/ACT scores would be stuff like "Was the student currently injured?" or "Did the student make it to the testing center?"