SAT "adversity" adjustment

[Anonymous]

It's a separate score, unrelated to your actual test score. This isn't anything college admissions officers aren't already doing (looking at quality of high school, etc..). I'm assuming this is just a new product that the College Board is offering to their customers (colleges.) Either to provide new revenue stream or to slow attrition (with some colleges no longer requiring SAT because it doesn't reflect adversities.) It's a business and College Board is just trying to expand their market into the admissions game and get colleges to outsource more of their work to them.

[Anonymous]

If the backlash doesn’t kill this, I hope the Supreme Court will. In Gratz v. Bolinger (2003), SCOTUS ruled that race-based point systems and quotas are unconstitutional, but gave schools some wiggle room in Fisher II (2013). The thing is, Fisher II was split 4–3 because Kagan recused herself and Scalia died before the decision was authored. A radically conservative SCOTUS would surely find some way to tear an “adversity score” apart. I’d welcome it. It’s time for affirmative action to die.

[Anonymous]

Remember the days when higher education was about higher education, not remedial action for failed parenting, local schools and communities.

So how is this to be used? Extra admission points for adversity? How does that equate to education? Social promotion for the under-qualified into schools they don’t do well in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kind of makes north Arlington less desirable, no? Off to Manassas!

I always thought schools either of those areas were subpar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the backlash doesn’t kill this, I hope the Supreme Court will. In Gratz v. Bolinger (2003), SCOTUS ruled that race-based point systems and quotas are unconstitutional, but gave schools some wiggle room in Fisher II (2013). The thing is, Fisher II was split 4–3 because Kagan recused herself and Scalia died before the decision was authored. A radically conservative SCOTUS would surely find some way to tear an “adversity score” apart. I’d welcome it. It’s time for affirmative action to die.

How, it is class not race-based? This is great for white kids in Appalachia, kids that live in rural areas, Asian kids that live in Gaithersburg vs Bethesda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember the days when higher education was about higher education, not remedial action for failed parenting, local schools and communities.

So how is this to be used? Extra admission points for adversity? How does that equate to education? Social promotion for the under-qualified into schools they don’t do well in?

Is the College Board is looking to hire a Handicapper General?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's to stop a kid from lying about income to College Board? Many kids may not actually even know an accurate answer.

I would tell my child things not to report unless it was mandatory. I don’t want to give my kid a HHI number anyway.

Did you read the article? They are using the median income of your neighborhood, not your family income.

Nope. The article is behind a paywall. If you insist on posting paywall articles, please give enough info for people to discuss, or at the very least, don’t get snarky when they don’t know. I pay for the NYT and WaPo. I’m not also paying for the WSJ to participate in this discussion.

I know you already self report stuff like parents education.

I didn't post the article and found a link to another article that wasn't behind a paywall. Read or do some research before you post.

Not the way that works. Post a link to the non paywall site. If people don’t read it, then you can snark. But, everyone trying to comment shouldn’t have to scour the internet looking for a source.

BtW— I did research before posting and found nonpaywall sites. They all quote from the WSJ, but none of them specifically said income was by neighborhood rather than self reported, which is what OO is snarking about.

Post a link people can access to what you want to discuss. Then we can all be on the same page. Easy.

WSJ gives you zero free articles.

I found this in 10 second searching: "Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language."

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/

So, basically you are going to ding my kid's score because they are in a two parent household, parents worked their butt off to get a degree and were able to hold onto jobs instead of doing drugs??? I need to apologize to my child that I did not become a single mother, did not do drugs, spent every penny I earned because they are being penalized because of my life choices.

Are you really not understanding this? No one is dinging your child or asking you to apologize for your success. This simply takes into account that some kids are born into better situations than others. When we don't take this into account we end up with generational poverty which kids have little chance to escape. So while your child may not have a high adversity score it sounds like s/he has a stable home with educated parents. This gives your child a great start for a successful life.

This is like people who complain about free/reduced price meals or sliding scale extended day payments. Would I like to not have to pay for my kids lunch, or pay $50 for extended day, sure...But what I don't want is the salary and stress that comes along with those things. So I will pay for my kids meals and extended day and consider my family lucky that we don't need this program.


Please don't forget that whether they are 8 or 18 they are still just kids. Kids have nothing but what their parents give them. Technically they aren't rich or poor. So if we can give them all a good head start in life and send them off to college and later into the adult world with an education and a meaningful chance to succeed then I am Ok with this. Better educated kids make a better future for all of us.

BTW the opposite of a person with a degree is not a jobless drug addict. There are many people who live in the VAST in between.
Also it seems while you don't want you kids penalized for your choices (which again, is not happening), you seem fine with other kids being penalized for their parents' choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember the days when higher education was about higher education, not remedial action for failed parenting, local schools and communities.

So how is this to be used? Extra admission points for adversity? How does that equate to education? Social promotion for the under-qualified into schools they don’t do well in?

Joy St John, Dean of Admission and Financial Aid at Wellesley College closed by saying, “the score itself does not have meaning unless you give it context…start talking about [how] this student is outperforming her environment. And our job is to find talent, not to find specifically achievement because achievement is a reflection of resources available.”

https://www.collegeboard.org/membership/all-access/counseling-admissions-financial-aid-academic/more-numbers-context-matters-peek

[Anonymous]

I agree with PP. There is no zero sum game because there are already different games for the groups the colleges are targeting. This looks like a tool to allow the colleges to make better choices among the poorer and underrepresented groups for which it already looking. And part of the logic here is that a student who has not had great access has a higher ceiling than one who has. Think of it as an NFL team figuring that a Division II prospect will benefit more from pro-level coaching than a player at Alabama and will therefore improve more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the backlash doesn’t kill this, I hope the Supreme Court will. In Gratz v. Bolinger (2003), SCOTUS ruled that race-based point systems and quotas are unconstitutional, but gave schools some wiggle room in Fisher II (2013). The thing is, Fisher II was split 4–3 because Kagan recused herself and Scalia died before the decision was authored. A radically conservative SCOTUS would surely find some way to tear an “adversity score” apart. I’d welcome it. It’s time for affirmative action to die.

It’s not race based. So I’m not understanding where you’re seeing a constitutional angle. I suppose that, in some attenuated way, it could be linked to a race based approach in effect, and could be challenged by schools that accept federal funds. But that’s a real stretch. Seems perfectly ok to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's to stop a kid from lying about income to College Board? Many kids may not actually even know an accurate answer.

I would tell my child things not to report unless it was mandatory. I don’t want to give my kid a HHI number anyway.

Did you read the article? They are using the median income of your neighborhood, not your family income.

Nope. The article is behind a paywall. If you insist on posting paywall articles, please give enough info for people to discuss, or at the very least, don’t get snarky when they don’t know. I pay for the NYT and WaPo. I’m not also paying for the WSJ to participate in this discussion.

I know you already self report stuff like parents education.

I didn't post the article and found a link to another article that wasn't behind a paywall. Read or do some research before you post.

Not the way that works. Post a link to the non paywall site. If people don’t read it, then you can snark. But, everyone trying to comment shouldn’t have to scour the internet looking for a source.

BtW— I did research before posting and found nonpaywall sites. They all quote from the WSJ, but none of them specifically said income was by neighborhood rather than self reported, which is what OO is snarking about.

Post a link people can access to what you want to discuss. Then we can all be on the same page. Easy.

WSJ gives you zero free articles.

I found this in 10 second searching: "Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language."

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/

So, basically you are going to ding my kid's score because they are in a two parent household, parents worked their butt off to get a degree and were able to hold onto jobs instead of doing drugs??? I need to apologize to my child that I did not become a single mother, did not do drugs, spent every penny I earned because they are being penalized because of my life choices.

Kind of, maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the backlash doesn’t kill this, I hope the Supreme Court will. In Gratz v. Bolinger (2003), SCOTUS ruled that race-based point systems and quotas are unconstitutional, but gave schools some wiggle room in Fisher II (2013). The thing is, Fisher II was split 4–3 because Kagan recused herself and Scalia died before the decision was authored. A radically conservative SCOTUS would surely find some way to tear an “adversity score” apart. I’d welcome it. It’s time for affirmative action to die.

It’s not race based. So I’m not understanding where you’re seeing a constitutional angle. I suppose that, in some attenuated way, it could be linked to a race based approach in effect, and could be challenged by schools that accept federal funds. But that’s a real stretch. Seems perfectly ok to me.

NP: it is a stretch because it will capture poor white kids too, as well as low SES Asian kids.

[Anonymous]

Act

[Anonymous]

Not dinging the middle class pool. Differentiating among the less advantaged pool to find the best talent in the face of adversity. Not perfect, but the schools get to decide....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not dinging the middle class pool. Differentiating among the less advantaged pool to find the best talent in the face of adversity. Not perfect, but the schools get to decide....

That’s wishful thinking.