The reaction to the SAT “adversity score” element on this board is telling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This formula has the potential to assign the same score a kid from an educated, affluent family who bought a lot $750,000 house in a crappy neighborhood feeding to Mt. Vernon and a kid with a 1st gen family making $60,000 with both parents working their butts off and squeezed into a rented apartment near an affluent neighborhoods feeding to Chantilly. And the don’t face the same adversity. I’m okay with the first gen kid getting a boost— but they already do. I’m not okay with can buy a $750,000 house chooses Mt. Vernon family getting the same boost.

The low income family who rents near an affluent neighborhood will have an inaccurate score that hurts them.[/quote]

+1

Exactly this.

And it gives affluent kids whose parents buy a mansion in a mediocre neighborhood in a crappy school district a boost. Which I don’t agree with. Adversity should be circumstances beyond your family’s control. In many cases in this area, you can control what school district you buy into, but you may get less house and more commute for a good school. That’s the parents choice. We wouldn’t tip the scales in their kids favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This formula has the potential to assign the same score a kid from an educated, affluent family who bought a lot $750,000 house in a crappy neighborhood feeding to Mt. Vernon and a kid with a 1st gen family making $60,000 with both parents working their butts off and squeezed into a rented apartment near an affluent neighborhoods feeding to Chantilly. And the don’t face the same adversity. I’m okay with the first gen kid getting a boost— but they already do. I’m not okay with can buy a $750,000 house chooses Mt. Vernon family getting the same boost.

The low income family who rents near an affluent neighborhood will have an inaccurate score that hurts them.[/quote]

+1

Exactly this.

I'm that low income kid who went to an affluent school. My education was exponentially better than that of my cousin who attended a low SES school. Low income kids who attend affluent schools don't need as big of an adversity boost because they are receiving a high caliber education. Title I schools have lower expectations of kids, don't have the same extracurricular activies, and provide a lower quality education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But. It’s. Already. Happening.

It’s called data mining. Admissions offices have done it for at least a decade. You just didn’t know about it. And now they are outsourcing that work to the College Board.

Yes, so someone else will be sued.

[Anonymous]

There are legitimate grounds for criticizing aspects of this. Don’t be a poseur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This formula has the potential to assign the same score a kid from an educated, affluent family who bought a lot $750,000 house in a crappy neighborhood feeding to Mt. Vernon and a kid with a 1st gen family making $60,000 with both parents working their butts off and squeezed into a rented apartment near an affluent neighborhoods feeding to Chantilly. And the don’t face the same adversity. I’m okay with the first gen kid getting a boost— but they already do. I’m not okay with can buy a $750,000 house chooses Mt. Vernon family getting the same boost.

The low income family who rents near an affluent neighborhood will have an inaccurate score that hurts them.[/quote]

+1

Exactly this.

I'm that low income kid who went to an affluent school. My education was exponentially better than that of my cousin who attended a low SES school. Low income kids who attend affluent schools don't need as big of an adversity boost because they are receiving a high caliber education. Title I schools have lower expectations of kids, don't have the same extracurricular activies, and provide a lower quality education.

The high school is its own, specific factor, separate from zip code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was talking about this with my husband and he just shrugged his shoulders and reminded me that when the time comes, he'll pull every connection he has to get our kids good internships and first jobs. And he has a lot of connections. He does people a lot of favors in order for them to return the favor someday.

At the end of the day, that's what matters most. More even than where you went to college or how you did there.

Unless you don't have a sugar daddy. Then where you went and how you did there matters a whole lot. And that is the case for 95% of students.

What does this mean?

A lot of people get their first jobs through connections (maybe even most?). This can't be news to you.

I know almost nobody that got their first job through "connections". This might be common in the world you exist in, but not in mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But. It’s. Already. Happening.

It’s called data mining. Admissions offices have done it for at least a decade. You just didn’t know about it. And now they are outsourcing that work to the College Board.

Yes, so someone else will be sued.

Sued. Sued for what? The college board can do whatever it wants. Nothing illegal about this.

It's based on research from University of Michigan. This SES scoring of school community and neighborhood has been used for awhile now with good results, an increase in selective schools finding talented kids from low-income communities. That's the point of this.

They are using data that is publicly available. Colleges were doing this on their own but it wasn't as comprehensive or consistent process as what the researcher at U Michigan figured out. College Board agreed to test it and it worked, so now they are rolling it out.

I think using the word adversity is what has everyone up in arms.

https://twitter.com/MichaelBastedo/status/1129139617947639808?s=19&fbclid=IwAR2Nfl86zReadbKaBv7MfibXvp55iZkwpiBdOaeZeUlo7BDH19FZ5XadjUg

[Anonymous]

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/05/college-board-sat-adversity-score/589681/

[Anonymous]

What's telling is that the OP seems to have the mindset that when lower income parents want the best for their kids it's because they love, support and want the best for them. However, when higher income parents want the best for their kids it is because they are entitled and selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's telling is that the OP seems to have the mindset that when lower income parents want the best for their kids it's because they love, support and want the best for them. However, when higher income parents want the best for their kids it is because they are entitled and selfish.

OP is obviously a low intellect drama queen who hasn’t thought critically about this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all remind me of the anonymous responses that you see at the bottom of a Fox News article, where people show their true colors. Shameful.

Personally, I like the idea of schools taking adversity into account and assume most already try to do
so.

People are saying this comes from supporters of the Common Core approach to standardized testing. I love the idea of Common Core but hate the implementation. I think I’m going to feel the same way about the adversity scores. The colleges need to do something like this, but maybe they need to think harder about how to come up with a good adversity score. Or somehow distinguish very clearly between environmental and personal adversity, and make sure personal adversity gets at least equal billing.

If the score somehow hurts a low-income African American kid who goes to a fancy private school on a scholarship, that would be bad. If the score helps a wealthy child who goes to a fancy school in a poor neighborhood, that’s also wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But. It’s. Already. Happening.

It’s called data mining. Admissions offices have done it for at least a decade. You just didn’t know about it. And now they are outsourcing that work to the College Board.

Yes, so someone else will be sued.

Sued. Sued for what? The college board can do whatever it wants. Nothing illegal about this.

It's based on research from University of Michigan. This SES scoring of school community and neighborhood has been used for awhile now with good results, an increase in selective schools finding talented kids from low-income communities. That's the point of this.

They are using data that is publicly available. Colleges were doing this on their own but it wasn't as comprehensive or consistent process as what the researcher at U Michigan figured out. College Board agreed to test it and it worked, so now they are rolling it out.

I think using the word adversity is what has everyone up in arms.

https://twitter.com/MichaelBastedo/status/1129139617947639808?s=19&fbclid=IwAR2Nfl86zReadbKaBv7MfibXvp55iZkwpiBdOaeZeUlo7BDH19FZ5XadjUg

Schools (Harvard, UNC, and others) have been sued for reverse discrimination. The adversity score does not ostensibly rely on race. Better for schools to have a middleman.

[Anonymous]

Here’s one way for elite schools to get more students from disadvantaged backgrounds without sacrificing their all-impiety desire to remain elite: increase class sizes. The works won’t end if Yale and Harvard let 400 more kids in. .

[Anonymous]

The adversity score is not necessary and the factors are already in play. My brother lives in Harlem. His kids attend a charter school, like most there. His son has all the “hooks.” URM, extracurricular leader, took every AP the school offered (3) and has a 95% GPA and 1200 SAT. He applied to 17 colleges and was rejected everywhere he applied except for a branch campus of Penn State and Buffalo. Many classmates with lower grades, test scores, attendance records and lower incomes were accepted at top 20 or top 50 schools. The system is flawed, and the score will further that. Where is the motivation to work hard when those who didn’t get ahead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was talking about this with my husband and he just shrugged his shoulders and reminded me that when the time comes, he'll pull every connection he has to get our kids good internships and first jobs. And he has a lot of connections. He does people a lot of favors in order for them to return the favor someday.

At the end of the day, that's what matters most. More even than where you went to college or how you did there.

Yup. This teaches already privileged kids a lot about getting ahead in the world. My husband an I have all sorts of strings we could pull, but refuse to do it for our kids. If they want something, they're going to work for it.