SAT "adversity" adjustment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “Adversity Score” may or may not be informative.

However, the fact that the College Board is keeping those score from the students themselves is quite bothersome. If the score has legitimate benefits, then they should be transparent about it. Otherwise, people have a right to be quite skeptical about how that score is being used and who is getting impacted positively or negatively by it. The lack of transparency is why so many people have a problem with holistic admissions policies and anything other than just straight GPA/test score determinations in the first place.

If you’re taking the test (and usually paying for it), then you should have a right to know everything that the test provider is sending to colleges, including but not limited to an Adversity Score. Hiding it from students will only create a brand new bogeyman (whether it’s fair or not).

Why? Students don't have the right to read their reference letters from teachers.

PP here. College Board is taking the personal and demographic data of students to compute an adversity score that is being *sold* to colleges and could very well impact admissions decisions. In essence, they’re creating the equivalent of a credit score in the college admissions context (with the only difference being that a student that is worse off in real life will get a “better” adversity score). Just as people have a right to know their credit scores since they are so critical in accessing credit (or even employment), students should have a right to know these adversity scores when they are impacting such an important life decision. If College Board isn’t releasing those scores for fear that they can be gamed or other repercussions, then that inherently shows the problem with creating that type of score in the first place. If they’re confident that the adversity score has value, then they should be transparent with the students whose personal information they’re packaging up and selling to colleges.

Needless to say, that’s far different than a teacher personally known to a student providing an openly subjective recommendation where he/she presumably isn’t receiving any payment (admissions scandals notwithstanding).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “Adversity Score” may or may not be informative.

However, the fact that the College Board is keeping those score from the students themselves is quite bothersome. If the score has legitimate benefits, then they should be transparent about it. Otherwise, people have a right to be quite skeptical about how that score is being used and who is getting impacted positively or negatively by it. The lack of transparency is why so many people have a problem with holistic admissions policies and anything other than just straight GPA/test score determinations in the first place.

If you’re taking the test (and usually paying for it), then you should have a right to know everything that the test provider is sending to colleges, including but not limited to an Adversity Score. Hiding it from students will only create a brand new bogeyman (whether it’s fair or not).

Why? Students don't have the right to read their reference letters from teachers.

PP here. College Board is taking the personal and demographic data of students to compute an adversity score that is being *sold* to colleges and could very well impact admissions decisions. In essence, they’re creating the equivalent of a credit score in the college admissions context (with the only difference being that a student that is worse off in real life will get a “better” adversity score). Just as people have a right to know their credit scores since they are so critical in accessing credit (or even employment), students should have a right to know these adversity scores when they are impacting such an important life decision. If College Board isn’t releasing those scores for fear that they can be gamed or other repercussions, then that inherently shows the problem with creating that type of score in the first place. If they’re confident that the adversity score has value, then they should be transparent with the students whose personal information they’re packaging up and selling to colleges.

Needless to say, that’s far different than a teacher personally known to a student providing an openly subjective recommendation where he/she presumably isn’t receiving any payment (admissions scandals notwithstanding).

I can't think of a reason not to disclose this data. How could a student game the system if they now the number?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the College Board getting involved in social engineering?

They're selling information to colleges to help those colleges with the engineering of their classes. Probably some colleges think that by training future leaders of society, they can improve society. If that's social engineering, so be it. What's the problem with finding talented kids from a variety of backgrounds and educating them to become leaders in their communities or areas of interest (arts, science, etc.)? This added information may help colleges better identify kids with promise.

leaders are not educated into leadership. college does not make leaders. university professors are nerds who are experts on certain topics. they can't recognize leaders or train them. only in the USA is this not understood. even english royalty doesnt go to oxbridge because it's of no use to them (or the oxbridge).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “Adversity Score” may or may not be informative.

However, the fact that the College Board is keeping those score from the students themselves is quite bothersome. If the score has legitimate benefits, then they should be transparent about it. Otherwise, people have a right to be quite skeptical about how that score is being used and who is getting impacted positively or negatively by it. The lack of transparency is why so many people have a problem with holistic admissions policies and anything other than just straight GPA/test score determinations in the first place.

If you’re taking the test (and usually paying for it), then you should have a right to know everything that the test provider is sending to colleges, including but not limited to an Adversity Score. Hiding it from students will only create a brand new bogeyman (whether it’s fair or not).

Why? Students don't have the right to read their reference letters from teachers.

PP here. College Board is taking the personal and demographic data of students to compute an adversity score that is being *sold* to colleges and could very well impact admissions decisions. In essence, they’re creating the equivalent of a credit score in the college admissions context (with the only difference being that a student that is worse off in real life will get a “better” adversity score). Just as people have a right to know their credit scores since they are so critical in accessing credit (or even employment), students should have a right to know these adversity scores when they are impacting such an important life decision. If College Board isn’t releasing those scores for fear that they can be gamed or other repercussions, then that inherently shows the problem with creating that type of score in the first place. If they’re confident that the adversity score has value, then they should be transparent with the students whose personal information they’re packaging up and selling to colleges.

Needless to say, that’s far different than a teacher personally known to a student providing an openly subjective recommendation where he/she presumably isn’t receiving any payment (admissions scandals notwithstanding).

I can't think of a reason not to disclose this data. How could a student game the system if they now the number?

Oops: *know

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-score-to-capture-social-and-economic-background-11557999000

Wonder how they'll define adversity.

It is hard for me to support it as a "donut hole" parent, but I do recognize that this is appropriate direction given how prep classes routinely up SAT scores by 200-300 points.

Thoughts?

Lol donut hole families are not remotely “adverse” when it comes to the SAT. I believe they are attempting to measure true adversity.

I think this is an excellent idea.

OP herr:
Yea thanks, I get that my child will be losing out in the new arrangement. I think this makes SAT2's more important.

SAT2's seem to be falling from favor. Barely any schools even look at them anymore.

You could try ACT. Different company and maybe not doing this.

[Anonymous]

Yale and UT Austin were in the pilot program:


"The ECD collects data to attempt to quantify the adversity a prospective student might have faced in their educational and neighborhood environment. Trinity was one of the five schools who chose to pilot the ECD, which was created by the College Board. Other schools in the pilot program included Yale University and University of Texas at Austin."
https://www.collegeboard.org/membership/all-access/counseling-admissions-financial-aid-academic/admissions-tool-collects-data

[Anonymous]

So the colleges are willing to dumb down their curriculum for kids who aren’t prepared? Or they just pass them through to graduation? I don’t get how this helps anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the College Board getting involved in social engineering?

They're selling information to colleges to help those colleges with the engineering of their classes. Probably some colleges think that by training future leaders of society, they can improve society. If that's social engineering, so be it. What's the problem with finding talented kids from a variety of backgrounds and educating them to become leaders in their communities or areas of interest (arts, science, etc.)? This added information may help colleges better identify kids with promise.

leaders are not educated into leadership. college does not make leaders. university professors are nerds who are experts on certain topics. they can't recognize leaders or train them. only in the USA is this not understood. even english royalty doesnt go to oxbridge because it's of no use to them (or the oxbridge).

It’s an interesting quandary: what is the mission statement for a particular college?

From a pure academic perspective, I think most people would agree that someone that comes from more adverse circumstances (e.g. inner city or rural school, lower income, URM, etc.) should receive some type of advantage in the admissions process. (This is regardless of whether this is determined by an adversity score or simply looking at that student’s overall application.)

The pushback is generally coming from where that advantage is pushed to where it goes past reasonable credulity in the thinly disguised effort to create the college equivalent of a Benetton ad.

It’s perfectly reasonable to want colleges to look to more than GPA and test scores and creating classes with diverse backgrounds that aren’t just wealthy suburbanites and private school kids, while still cringing at, say, Harvard’s alleged practices of artificially giving lower personality scores to Asians (applied by the admissions office as opposed to those that actually interviewed those students, who scored Asians just as well as all other races) because they essentially don’t want their classes becoming “too Asian” if they use the criteria that they apply to students of all other races.

Let’s not kid ourselves: a large number of those kids rejected had leadership accomplishments that would have dwarfed the high school records of most of us here on this board on top of stellar grades and test scores. It’s not that coming from a disadvantaged background shouldn’t provide some type of advantage, but rather to what degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the colleges are willing to dumb down their curriculum for kids who aren’t prepared? Or they just pass them through to graduation? I don’t get how this helps anyone.

I predict graduation rates will decline.

[Anonymous]

"But how do you know this? Middle and UMC kids could possibly be abused by their stepfathers, have parents who argue non stop, have a mom who went through breast cancer, be bullied mercilessly at school. There is no way that the college board,can determine who is facing adverse situations and who isn't. And quite frankly they are stepping out of their role in even trying to make an attempt to do so."

x10000

I also know know poor and blue collar people who grew up in wealthy communities, through "different" circumstances, but not everything can be explained, nor does everyone want to share their business. It is not a black and white situation, it is very much gray, and College Board should stay the hell out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-score-to-capture-social-and-economic-background-11557999000

Wonder how they'll define adversity.

It is hard for me to support it as a "donut hole" parent, but I do recognize that this is appropriate direction given how prep classes routinely up SAT scores by 200-300 points.

Thoughts?

Lol donut hole families are not remotely “adverse” when it comes to the SAT. I believe they are attempting to measure true adversity.

I think this is an excellent idea.

OP herr:
Yea thanks, I get that my child will be losing out in the new arrangement. I think this makes SAT2's more important.

SAT2's seem to be falling from favor. Barely any schools even look at them anymore.

You could try ACT. Different company and maybe not doing this.

Barely any schools. Why do people write things that are factually untrue? You can’t be that stupid.

[Anonymous]

Dc is borderline special need. It’s time to dig out those old files and start to gather all the story bits how he overcomes the challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the College Board getting involved in social engineering?

They're selling information to colleges to help those colleges with the engineering of their classes. Probably some colleges think that by training future leaders of society, they can improve society. If that's social engineering, so be it. What's the problem with finding talented kids from a variety of backgrounds and educating them to become leaders in their communities or areas of interest (arts, science, etc.)? This added information may help colleges better identify kids with promise.

leaders are not educated into leadership. college does not make leaders. university professors are nerds who are experts on certain topics. they can't recognize leaders or train them. only in the USA is this not understood. even english royalty doesnt go to oxbridge because it's of no use to them (or the oxbridge).

It’s an interesting quandary: what is the mission statement for a particular college?

From a pure academic perspective, I think most people would agree that someone that comes from more adverse circumstances (e.g. inner city or rural school, lower income, URM, etc.) should receive some type of advantage in the admissions process. (This is regardless of whether this is determined by an adversity score or simply looking at that student’s overall application.)

The pushback is generally coming from where that advantage is pushed to where it goes past reasonable credulity in the thinly disguised effort to create the college equivalent of a Benetton ad.

It’s perfectly reasonable to want colleges to look to more than GPA and test scores and creating classes with diverse backgrounds that aren’t just wealthy suburbanites and private school kids, while still cringing at, say, Harvard’s alleged practices of artificially giving lower personality scores to Asians (applied by the admissions office as opposed to those that actually interviewed those students, who scored Asians just as well as all other races) because they essentially don’t want their classes becoming “too Asian” if they use the criteria that they apply to students of all other races.

Let’s not kid ourselves: a large number of those kids rejected had leadership accomplishments that would have dwarfed the high school records of most of us here on this board on top of stellar grades and test scores. It’s not that coming from a disadvantaged background shouldn’t provide some type of advantage, but rather to what degree.

it’s not a quandary at all, much less an interesting one. colleges are places where smart kids are put one the road to expertise. that’s how the rest of the world sees it. only in the USA colleges are country clubs looking for “leaders”. this is the root of all problems.

so-called disadvantaged kids don’t have the background to benefit from the level of expertise offered at the very best universities. if you struggle with algebra you don’t need a field’s medalist to teach you, In fact it’s a waste, a major misallocation of resources. again nothing new here, this is how the rest of the world sees it. only in the USA it’s ok to make billions on some stupid app but omg semi-literate kids must shepherded into the best schools because inequality!

[Anonymous]

Not good news for Asians.

[Anonymous]

McLean kid applying for college: mommmmm, what adversity have I faced?
Mom: our house was built in the late 90s and is just 4,000 square feet.