SAT "adversity" adjustment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a very useful document from the College Board on "Environmental Context."
https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/professionals/data-driven-models-to-understand-environmental-context.pdf

I'm surprised that the document doesn't include information about the percentage of high school graduates who attend 4 year universities. I do think it's good that the "Environmental Context" provides info about the student's general neighborhood and school. Some students come from very disadvantaged neighborhoods, but manage to be noticed early enough to earn scholarships to very nice private schools. It's good for universities to see the context of both.

Does anyone know what other colleges are currently using this Adversity Score besides Yale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT and College Board in general is the great undiscovered scam on the American educational system. This is an interesting idea, but I don't trust them to have thought it through or have the professional capacity to execute this in the appropriate way, if there is one. Plus colleges already look at context. And what will it mean for magnet program kids?
Kahn academy has partnered with the College Board to offer free college prep and this may be the reason that the last two years of SAT scores are out of sync with previous, requiring down-curving perfectly good performance. Word has it they have made recent changes to the SAT without the proper consultation of psychometricians and the recent rounds of testing are unreliable. The article says College Board will send the adversity score to colleges but not tell the family what score they are sending. Is that legal?

I totally agree it's a SCAM. They're trying to stay relevant. Do NOT allow them to fool you. This is HUGE business, people.

[Anonymous]

This is perfect. Now the undesirable were not move into expensive neighborhoods. No more apartments in Bethesda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the score will be wildly inaccurate for military families, which typically move every few years. They’ll be scored on a location where they have only briefly lived.

Maybe, maybe not. But the housing allowances are very generous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Don’t embarrass yourself, kids from Herndon and Chantilly can ask the same question. You sound almost jealous of people who live in McLean.

Nope. Where’s Herndon?

[Anonymous]

How will this work for international applicants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ho boy. If you ever wanted to incentivize the appearance of disadvantage, here it is. Watch as parents rush to their department store DNA tests to claim "ancestry" in faraway lands in order to claim allegiance to some oppressed minority. Watch social failings like single-parent households, high crime rates, divorce and abuse become marketable assets. This is disgusting.

Single parent households and divorce are in the same category as high crime rates and abuse? I disagree with the adversity points, but the upside is that it annoys crazy people like you.

I think the College Board is lumping single parent households and high crime rates. I believe this is on the neighborhood level that they are doing this.

It's one thing to use these sociological categories at the macro level for research which are proxies for likelihood of risk or advantage. But another altogether to apply them at the *individual level* to real life decision-making. Even in research you are supposed to stay within the level of analysis. If you want to go to the individual unit of analysis, you use fine grained data about *that person* that is *correct* about that person by, say, interviewing them. If you can't get that data, you don't just make general assumptions. That's profiling. So the CB is mixing up levels of analysis, applying research categories to real life situations that have consequences, and profiling. And will make a killing off of college Admissions officers who are suckers and don't know any better. David Coleman must have gotten like a C- in his intro to Sociology class. But maybe an A+ in Marketing 101.

[Anonymous]

The lack of transparency is morally repugnant. I think they have overreached here, and I would expect the DOE to weigh in if they can find a reasonable basis for doing so. What this does is dilute the value of this test even more.

[Anonymous]

The college racket is reaching peak absurdity.

[Anonymous]

If, say, Yale cared so much about this, why not just take an entire class that scored high in the adversity scale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The SAT and College Board in general is the great undiscovered scam on the American educational system. This is an interesting idea, but I don't trust them to have thought it through or have the professional capacity to execute this in the appropriate way, if there is one. Plus colleges already look at context. And what will it mean for magnet program kids?
Kahn academy has partnered with the College Board to offer free college prep and this may be the reason that the last two years of SAT scores are out of sync with previous, requiring down-curving perfectly good performance. Word has it they have made recent changes to the SAT without the proper consultation of psychometricians and the recent rounds of testing are unreliable. The article says College Board will send the adversity score to colleges but not tell the family what score they are sending. Is that legal?

The bolded is not surprising for anyone paying attention to the sketchiness surrounding recent equating (significant changes in difficulty level) over the last couple of years but it's mindboggling that they really could have gone that far wrong as to have insufficient psychometric expertise and, if true...

[Anonymous]

OK, I'll bite. My DC has two well-educated parents, but for a variety of reasons, neither of us has been a high earner. Right now, only one of us is working. We live in a really crummy zip code. All of our college mailings mention fantastic financial aid opportunities. DC lacks classmates that challenge him. The college guidance at high school has been close to zip. Our local mall has shootings and some snooty friends won't let their kids ride bikes to our neighborhood (true story!). Is is so terrible that universities will now have this context?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If, say, Yale cared so much about this, why not just take an entire class that scored high in the adversity scale?

Someone's got to pay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If, say, Yale cared so much about this, why not just take an entire class that scored high in the adversity scale?

Someone's got to pay!

Also, one of the goals is that students of very different backgrounds will mix together and see how much they have in common, like, say, intellectual curiosity and drive. Then, the richer classmates' parents will help the less advantaged students find internships. Theoretically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ho boy. If you ever wanted to incentivize the appearance of disadvantage, here it is. Watch as parents rush to their department store DNA tests to claim "ancestry" in faraway lands in order to claim allegiance to some oppressed minority. Watch social failings like single-parent households, high crime rates, divorce and abuse become marketable assets. This is disgusting.

Oh, why didn't I get pregnant in my teens and live in that crime ridden neighborhood?

Too bad they didn't add refugee and immigrant status as well - it takes a lot to do well in a new country and new culture especially if relatively recent

This country is bizarre. We are not trying to keep anyone from getting a college education. But, please people, what country takes its most elite educational opportunities (where you should be expected to be advanced in both intellect AND preparation in order to take advantage of the resources), and doles out access based on fairness or population group? Why should we take opportunities paid for and developed through the resources of our country and give them to people just because they specifically don't come from our country?