SAT "adversity" adjustment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well you know it's not going to help kids in the wealthy enclaves around here right? They're all going to get 100 scores which will hurt their chances (because colleges want bright but unprivileged kids).

[Anonymous]

From the WSJ article, it sounds like everyone starts at a 50, and the score is adjusted lower for privilege, and higher for hardship. So yes, you could consider it a “ding” that that a child with an intact, educated family, attending a high performing school gets a lower score.

But it’s still a separate score. It’s not like the adversity score is added to test score so that kids from the slums get a 95-point boost. It’s just for context, and will likely be considered the same way any other known adversity is considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Bing. Bing. Bing.

I see this as moving kids over to the ACT

I just read an article that says that the ACT is working on a similar index. There is no escaping this.

Then I think the streaming will happen by college major. i.e. the diversity/adversity admits will self-sort in college, and I don't think the top-brand colleges will have anything close to a clean brand any more

Employers will further fetishize the hard majors from the soft stuff to sort things out.

the brand was never clean- use to be just for rich white males with connections... unless by "clean" you mean homogeneity w/ no diversity at all? Look each school only has 2000 spots or so- they can find the smartest of the smart of all groups- don't worry about the brand... I think you mean something else here..

actually I meant academic brand - I know until the mid-20th century it was northeast WASPs, and then next few decades opened up (like other institutions in america) to the multi-background races, cultures etc... but I meant academic brand and that will definitely change now, it will be branding by hard science difficulty of major not by prestige of college, and it will be worse for colored folks because everyone will assume they were "adversity admits" not academic performance admits

although liberal arts colleges may be in the "uplift the masses" business, employers and grad schools will want academic performance signals which is the main thing they need from degree-earning experiences, they will figure management and leadership potential after they hire people, not based on the admissions office 4 years before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the WSJ article, it sounds like everyone starts at a 50, and the score is adjusted lower for privilege, and higher for hardship. So yes, you could consider it a “ding” that that a child with an intact, educated family, attending a high performing school gets a lower score.

But it’s still a separate score. It’s not like the adversity score is added to test score so that kids from the slums get a 95-point boost. It’s just for context, and will likely be considered the same way any other known adversity is considered.

The sample score report posted earlier makes it clear that an individual's score will be compared to others in their neighborhood and school. If a kid scores 1250 and the average is 950, that kids will look better if their adversity score is 85. A kid that scores 1250 with an adversity score of 40 and the average SAT score in their neighborhood is 1350 will look worse.

[Anonymous]

I am not so sure that this hurts the DC metro. Colleges are already making the trade-off. They could certainly get students with higher SAT scores who are better able to compete on day one if they went with more private/high SES suburban kids. Yet, they have decided to seek students who offer a different perspective and may have had fewer opportunities. Perhaps the better information causes them to shift the balance, but I would guess that the big issue out here is that there are too many smart kids. DC kids in WV would have more choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Bing. Bing. Bing.

I see this as moving kids over to the ACT

I just read an article that says that the ACT is working on a similar index. There is no escaping this.

Then I think the streaming will happen by college major. i.e. the diversity/adversity admits will self-sort in college, and I don't think the top-brand colleges will have anything close to a clean brand any more

Employers will further fetishize the hard majors from the soft stuff to sort things out.

the brand was never clean- use to be just for rich white males with connections... unless by "clean" you mean homogeneity w/ no diversity at all? Look each school only has 2000 spots or so- they can find the smartest of the smart of all groups- don't worry about the brand... I think you mean something else here..

actually I meant academic brand - I know until the mid-20th century it was northeast WASPs, and then next few decades opened up (like other institutions in america) to the multi-background races, cultures etc... but I meant academic brand and that will definitely change now, it will be branding by hard science difficulty of major not by prestige of college, and it will be worse for colored folks because everyone will assume they were "adversity admits" not academic performance admits

although liberal arts colleges may be in the "uplift the masses" business, employers and grad schools will want academic performance signals which is the main thing they need from degree-earning experiences, they will figure management and leadership potential after they hire people, not based on the admissions office 4 years before.

What about white poor kids, or legacies with low scores compared to their adversity scores? This will have a much larger effect beyond "colored folks".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I wonder if it makes sense for education-centric families to move to poor performing school districts. Private school if possible in upper elementary and maybe middle, then HS in some 3/10 horror that gives and option to effectively take full days at the local community college, just coming back for gym and "leadership". 9th and 10th grades are hardest because, since those schools teach on a subpar level, kids will need to effectively homeschool in addition to spending wasted hours in the 3/10. However, maybe they can be "sick" a lot, like a lot.

And we'll never have to worry about our kids becoming SJW.

+1

Nailed it. This is the best way to get ahead. I know many people who have benefited from this, both URM and not. I don't think regular people, the general population, understands the impact this has on college admissions, but it is time that they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Bing. Bing. Bing.

I see this as moving kids over to the ACT

I just read an article that says that the ACT is working on a similar index. There is no escaping this.

Then I think the streaming will happen by college major. i.e. the diversity/adversity admits will self-sort in college, and I don't think the top-brand colleges will have anything close to a clean brand any more

Employers will further fetishize the hard majors from the soft stuff to sort things out.

the brand was never clean- use to be just for rich white males with connections... unless by "clean" you mean homogeneity w/ no diversity at all? Look each school only has 2000 spots or so- they can find the smartest of the smart of all groups- don't worry about the brand... I think you mean something else here..

actually I meant academic brand - I know until the mid-20th century it was northeast WASPs, and then next few decades opened up (like other institutions in america) to the multi-background races, cultures etc... but I meant academic brand and that will definitely change now, it will be branding by hard science difficulty of major not by prestige of college, and it will be worse for colored folks because everyone will assume they were "adversity admits" not academic performance admits

although liberal arts colleges may be in the "uplift the masses" business, employers and grad schools will want academic performance signals which is the main thing they need from degree-earning experiences, they will figure management and leadership potential after they hire people, not based on the admissions office 4 years before.

What about white poor kids, or legacies with low scores compared to their adversity scores? This will have a much larger effect beyond "colored folks".

agree there will be some effect on everyone because the sorting algorithm is new, but it will adversely affect easy-to-discriminate-against populations (such as racial minorities) because the unidentifiable hidden boost (since these will be secret scores) to their admissions will work as a negative stereotype - it's kind of a pay now or pay later effect, and it will create a more widespread universal pay-later burden on URMs or anyone who is easy to identify and write-off as receiving an undeserved admissions boost.

so instead of just the IVY admits who are URMs taking it on the chin as potential diversity admits, it will be all students of color and that will lead to a paradoxical penalty

this system will be really good for poor whites and be detrimental to everyone else

that may be a good or not good thing, it depends on who you are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WSJ article, it sounds like everyone starts at a 50, and the score is adjusted lower for privilege, and higher for hardship. So yes, you could consider it a “ding” that that a child with an intact, educated family, attending a high performing school gets a lower score.

But it’s still a separate score. It’s not like the adversity score is added to test score so that kids from the slums get a 95-point boost. It’s just for context, and will likely be considered the same way any other known adversity is considered.

The sample score report posted earlier makes it clear that an individual's score will be compared to others in their neighborhood and school. If a kid scores 1250 and the average is 950, that kids will look better if their adversity score is 85. A kid that scores 1250 with an adversity score of 40 and the average SAT score in their neighborhood is 1350 will look worse.

Ok. So underachievers are flagged. Good!

[Anonymous]

I don't see the branding point. Athletes -- who everyone knows get a huge boost - -seem to do fine in finding jobs. People need to remember that selective institutions are not Platonic arbiters of merit. They are trying to create a learning community based upon whatever criteria they choose. Princeton has a great graphic showing that the impact of SAT scores on admission. In short, higher scores have higher admit rates. But the admit rates for all score are very low and there is a big range of admits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Equality is a myth. I believe SATs should be banned period.

So should GPA then, because that's not a good measure either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I wonder if it makes sense for education-centric families to move to poor performing school districts. Private school if possible in upper elementary and maybe middle, then HS in some 3/10 horror that gives and option to effectively take full days at the local community college, just coming back for gym and "leadership". 9th and 10th grades are hardest because, since those schools teach on a subpar level, kids will need to effectively homeschool in addition to spending wasted hours in the 3/10. However, maybe they can be "sick" a lot, like a lot.

And we'll never have to worry about our kids becoming SJW.

+1

Nailed it. This is the best way to get ahead. I know many people who have benefited from this, both URM and not. I don't think regular people, the general population, understands the impact this has on college admissions, but it is time that they do.

Right. And the rising tide will lift all boats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not so sure that this hurts the DC metro. Colleges are already making the trade-off. They could certainly get students with higher SAT scores who are better able to compete on day one if they went with more private/high SES suburban kids. Yet, they have decided to seek students who offer a different perspective and may have had fewer opportunities. Perhaps the better information causes them to shift the balance, but I would guess that the big issue out here is that there are too many smart kids. DC kids in WV would have more choices.

I’m not sure the focus should be on whether it “hurts the DC metro.” Rather, the question should be whether it helps kids who live in the still-awful parts of DC and others areas, where they lack the opportunities and safety and security of, say, some generic white or Asian kid in Vienna.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Bing. Bing. Bing.

I see this as moving kids over to the ACT

I just read an article that says that the ACT is working on a similar index. There is no escaping this.

Then I think the streaming will happen by college major. i.e. the diversity/adversity admits will self-sort in college, and I don't think the top-brand colleges will have anything close to a clean brand any more

Employers will further fetishize the hard majors from the soft stuff to sort things out.

the brand was never clean- use to be just for rich white males with connections... unless by "clean" you mean homogeneity w/ no diversity at all? Look each school only has 2000 spots or so- they can find the smartest of the smart of all groups- don't worry about the brand... I think you mean something else here..

actually I meant academic brand - I know until the mid-20th century it was northeast WASPs, and then next few decades opened up (like other institutions in america) to the multi-background races, cultures etc... but I meant academic brand and that will definitely change now, it will be branding by hard science difficulty of major not by prestige of college, and it will be worse for colored folks because everyone will assume they were "adversity admits" not academic performance admits

although liberal arts colleges may be in the "uplift the masses" business, employers and grad schools will want academic performance signals which is the main thing they need from degree-earning experiences, they will figure management and leadership potential after they hire people, not based on the admissions office 4 years before.

What about white poor kids, or legacies with low scores compared to their adversity scores? This will have a much larger effect beyond "colored folks".

agree there will be some effect on everyone because the sorting algorithm is new, but it will adversely affect easy-to-discriminate-against populations (such as racial minorities) because the unidentifiable hidden boost (since these will be secret scores) to their admissions will work as a negative stereotype - it's kind of a pay now or pay later effect, and it will create a more widespread universal pay-later burden on URMs or anyone who is easy to identify and write-off as receiving an undeserved admissions boost.

so instead of just the IVY admits who are URMs taking it on the chin as potential diversity admits, it will be all students of color and that will lead to a paradoxical penalty

this system will be really good for poor whites and be detrimental to everyone else

that may be a good or not good thing, it depends on who you are

I see your point--thanks for clarifying. I think it is already happening on this thread, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Bing. Bing. Bing.

I see this as moving kids over to the ACT

I just read an article that says that the ACT is working on a similar index. There is no escaping this.

Then I think the streaming will happen by college major. i.e. the diversity/adversity admits will self-sort in college, and I don't think the top-brand colleges will have anything close to a clean brand any more

Employers will further fetishize the hard majors from the soft stuff to sort things out.

the brand was never clean- use to be just for rich white males with connections... unless by "clean" you mean homogeneity w/ no diversity at all? Look each school only has 2000 spots or so- they can find the smartest of the smart of all groups- don't worry about the brand... I think you mean something else here..

actually I meant academic brand - I know until the mid-20th century it was northeast WASPs, and then next few decades opened up (like other institutions in america) to the multi-background races, cultures etc... but I meant academic brand and that will definitely change now, it will be branding by hard science difficulty of major not by prestige of college, and it will be worse for colored folks because everyone will assume they were "adversity admits" not academic performance admits

although liberal arts colleges may be in the "uplift the masses" business, employers and grad schools will want academic performance signals which is the main thing they need from degree-earning experiences, they will figure management and leadership potential after they hire people, not based on the admissions office 4 years before.

What about white poor kids, or legacies with low scores compared to their adversity scores? This will have a much larger effect beyond "colored folks".

agree there will be some effect on everyone because the sorting algorithm is new, but it will adversely affect easy-to-discriminate-against populations (such as racial minorities) because the unidentifiable hidden boost (since these will be secret scores) to their admissions will work as a negative stereotype - it's kind of a pay now or pay later effect, and it will create a more widespread universal pay-later burden on URMs or anyone who is easy to identify and write-off as receiving an undeserved admissions boost.

so instead of just the IVY admits who are URMs taking it on the chin as potential diversity admits, it will be all students of color and that will lead to a paradoxical penalty

this system will be really good for poor whites and be detrimental to everyone else

that may be a good or not good thing, it depends on who you are

I don’t follow your pay later point. How do URM Ivy graduates take it on “the chin”? It is illegal to engage in hiring discrimination based on race.