No, that's not how assessing correlation works--or any other kind of quantitative comparison for that matter.

I read the whole article. I understand that the kids of wealthier people have advantages.

This does not tell you which correlation is higher!

The NYT article doesn't even report a formal correlation coefficient between income and SAT score. That's fine; a single number leaves out a lot of detail, and the distributions they show provide more.

But they don't do the same for IQ. They don't do anything for IQ. Certainly not enough to allow any sort of comparison. If you're going to rank order quantifiable or comparable things, you simply must assess them with sufficient accuracy to show that A > B (at least to a high degree of confidence). You can't show A and wave your hands about B.

So you either need to draw a weaker conclusion, or you need to provide better evidence, or at the very least you need to make that particular claim not look like it's backed up by a source, because it's not.