SAT "adversity" adjustment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, DCUM showing true colors.

High income white and asian people feeling sorry for themselves because little Johnny who has done every activity since the age of two, has never had to work in his life, and has had a tutor for the SAT may not get into a Top 20 school! How sad.

Keep telling yourself that you and your kids have it so bad as compared to a low income family struggling to pay for rent and food let alone health care. Keep telling yourself that your kid with a 1500 is such a genius and the black kid in DC with a 1200 is just going to screw up the whole Ivy League college.

Pathetic. Your kids (and all their AD/ADHD bullshit diversity) will be fine at Boulder, Indiana, Wisconsin, or god forbid American or UMBC.

No one deserves a top 20 spot. My kids have been read to since they were babies, they never had to worry about having enough money to pay for a meal, they have had doctors when they are sick, I have been able to pay for them to get help (mentally) when needed, they had tutors for these stupid standardized tests which do not correlate to success anyway, and they have been free to pursue what they want in terms of EC activities because we don't need them to work to pay for basic needs. This, DCUM folks, is called privilege. They-and most of you posting-are so privileged and yet all you do is whine and complain. All you can see is that your kid might have to go to a school in the Top 50 instead of the Top 20. Get a grip. You are lucky. They are beyond lucky.

And for those who are privileged but have faced true adversity--your kids have support, are resilient and will be fine if they go to Mason instead of UVA. Seriously

All of you need to stop with this "we white rich people are so discriminated against." This whole 'we deserve Ivy Leagues' mentality is pathetic. None of you are moving to low-income neighborhoods. What a joke. You would rather have your kid go to the 2nd tier state school than have to be a minority and go to school with brown kids. And that is fine, but don't act like all of a sudden you are moving from potomac to Southeast.

Ugh-- with all that is going on in the world, it would be really nice if folks on here could acknowledge how good their kids have it.

Go screw yourself, thx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole purpose of the SAT and ACT is that they are *standardized* non-subjective tests of aptitude.

If you have 5 kids taking the same test, you score the tests and see which kid made the best score. Easy, right?

Ha.

see I think this is debatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yale was in the pilot program and they have been using it for the past two years. They said it has helped them increase diversity.

So low IQ get in, how does that make the school good

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale was in the pilot program and they have been using it for the past two years. They said it has helped them increase diversity.

So low IQ get in, how does that make the school good

who said low IQ gets in??

[Anonymous]

Just use test scores, community service, clubs and sports. Anything else is racist and stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale was in the pilot program and they have been using it for the past two years. They said it has helped them increase diversity.

So low IQ get in, how does that make the school good

who said low IQ gets in??

IQ is lower for poor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale was in the pilot program and they have been using it for the past two years. They said it has helped them increase diversity.

So low IQ get in, how does that make the school good

who said low IQ gets in??

IQ is lower for poor

"lower" does not mean low IQ. I think they are still accepting applicants who are talented and have high scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption the kids with higher adversity scores can’t handle the rigor?

The adversity score isn’t added to the test score. So if two kids have the exact same score and Tommy has an adversity score of 20, and Billy has an adversity score of 80, why are we assuming Billy won’t do well or graduate, but Tommy will?

If anything, I would saw it’s the opposite: Tommy was likely tutored and prepped, coached and piloted by his two UMC family, and will crack once he expected to perform on his own. Billy likely had few of those resources and has been performing on his own for quite some time.

That’s not how the score is being measured. The scores are being calibrated relative to SES/demographic class. So if Tommy comes from a SES/demographic clas where the average SAT is 950 but he scores an 1150 (+200) and Johnny comes from an SES/demographic class where the average SAT score is 1225 but he scores 1400 (+175), college admissions officers are expected to take the position that Tommy did better despite scoring in the 65th percentile of all test takers and Johnny being in the 93rd percentile.

Ok. My family is the "poor" (relatively speaking) family in an UMC neighborhood. We are able to afford living here because we bought a foreclosure that is smaller than most of the other houses and in need of repairs. We did this because we would rather our kids attend better schools than have a nicer house. If the college is basing this on the overall income of kids who attend the same HS as ours, they will be "punished" by receiving a lower adversity score than their more affluent peers who live in the same neighborhood. All because we chose to prioritize schools over housing!

Yup. But the actually wealthy people will be perfectly fine, as usual. Middle gets screwed.

Well finally someone acknowledges this. The middle is a horrible place to want to be. But so many posters seem to love it... it’s a place to pass through moving up or down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, DCUM showing true colors.

High income white and asian people feeling sorry for themselves because little Johnny who has done every activity since the age of two, has never had to work in his life, and has had a tutor for the SAT may not get into a Top 20 school! How sad.

Keep telling yourself that you and your kids have it so bad as compared to a low income family struggling to pay for rent and food let alone health care. Keep telling yourself that your kid with a 1500 is such a genius and the black kid in DC with a 1200 is just going to screw up the whole Ivy League college.

Pathetic. Your kids (and all their AD/ADHD bullshit diversity) will be fine at Boulder, Indiana, Wisconsin, or god forbid American or UMBC.

No one deserves a top 20 spot. My kids have been read to since they were babies, they never had to worry about having enough money to pay for a meal, they have had doctors when they are sick, I have been able to pay for them to get help (mentally) when needed, they had tutors for these stupid standardized tests which do not correlate to success anyway, and they have been free to pursue what they want in terms of EC activities because we don't need them to work to pay for basic needs. This, DCUM folks, is called privilege. They-and most of you posting-are so privileged and yet all you do is whine and complain. All you can see is that your kid might have to go to a school in the Top 50 instead of the Top 20. Get a grip. You are lucky. They are beyond lucky.

And for those who are privileged but have faced true adversity--your kids have support, are resilient and will be fine if they go to Mason instead of UVA. Seriously

All of you need to stop with this "we white rich people are so discriminated against." This whole 'we deserve Ivy Leagues' mentality is pathetic. None of you are moving to low-income neighborhoods. What a joke. You would rather have your kid go to the 2nd tier state school than have to be a minority and go to school with brown kids. And that is fine, but don't act like all of a sudden you are moving from potomac to Southeast.

Ugh-- with all that is going on in the world, it would be really nice if folks on here could acknowledge how good their kids have it.

^^^
+1000
Bravo & Thank You! Geez, you'd think it was the apocalypse here on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption the kids with higher adversity scores can’t handle the rigor?

The adversity score isn’t added to the test score. So if two kids have the exact same score and Tommy has an adversity score of 20, and Billy has an adversity score of 80, why are we assuming Billy won’t do well or graduate, but Tommy will?

If anything, I would saw it’s the opposite: Tommy was likely tutored and prepped, coached and piloted by his two UMC family, and will crack once he expected to perform on his own. Billy likely had few of those resources and has been performing on his own for quite some time.

That’s not how the score is being measured. The scores are being calibrated relative to SES/demographic class. So if Tommy comes from a SES/demographic clas where the average SAT is 950 but he scores an 1150 (+200) and Johnny comes from an SES/demographic class where the average SAT score is 1225 but he scores 1400 (+175), college admissions officers are expected to take the position that Tommy did better despite scoring in the 65th percentile of all test takers and Johnny being in the 93rd percentile.

Ok. My family is the "poor" (relatively speaking) family in an UMC neighborhood. We are able to afford living here because we bought a foreclosure that is smaller than most of the other houses and in need of repairs. We did this because we would rather our kids attend better schools than have a nicer house. If the college is basing this on the overall income of kids who attend the same HS as ours, they will be "punished" by receiving a lower adversity score than their more affluent peers who live in the same neighborhood. All because we chose to prioritize schools over housing!

Yup. But the actually wealthy people will be perfectly fine, as usual. Middle gets screwed.

Well finally someone acknowledges this. The middle is a horrible place to want to be. But so many posters seem to love it... it’s a place to pass through moving up or down

what does that even mean? we don't "want" to be middle class -- we "are" middle class. Not because we "seem to love it", but because that is our income.

[Anonymous]

It is possible to acknowledge that this will not hurt, say, 90 percent of posters in this forum. But it is also possible to challenge the policy on its merits, including its lack of transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is possible to acknowledge that this will not hurt, say, 90 percent of posters in this forum. But it is also possible to challenge the policy on its merits, including its lack of transparency.

I'd say higher than 90% but yes you are correct that this deserves scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption the kids with higher adversity scores can’t handle the rigor?

The adversity score isn’t added to the test score. So if two kids have the exact same score and Tommy has an adversity score of 20, and Billy has an adversity score of 80, why are we assuming Billy won’t do well or graduate, but Tommy will?

If anything, I would saw it’s the opposite: Tommy was likely tutored and prepped, coached and piloted by his two UMC family, and will crack once he expected to perform on his own. Billy likely had few of those resources and has been performing on his own for quite some time.

That’s not how the score is being measured. The scores are being calibrated relative to SES/demographic class. So if Tommy comes from a SES/demographic clas where the average SAT is 950 but he scores an 1150 (+200) and Johnny comes from an SES/demographic class where the average SAT score is 1225 but he scores 1400 (+175), college admissions officers are expected to take the position that Tommy did better despite scoring in the 65th percentile of all test takers and Johnny being in the 93rd percentile.

Ok. My family is the "poor" (relatively speaking) family in an UMC neighborhood. We are able to afford living here because we bought a foreclosure that is smaller than most of the other houses and in need of repairs. We did this because we would rather our kids attend better schools than have a nicer house. If the college is basing this on the overall income of kids who attend the same HS as ours, they will be "punished" by receiving a lower adversity score than their more affluent peers who live in the same neighborhood. All because we chose to prioritize schools over housing!

Yup. But the actually wealthy people will be perfectly fine, as usual. Middle gets screwed.

Well finally someone acknowledges this. The middle is a horrible place to want to be. But so many posters seem to love it... it’s a place to pass through moving up or down

Rich qhites, including rich white leftists, never see themselves as anywhere other than at the top of the pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is possible to acknowledge that this will not hurt, say, 90 percent of posters in this forum. But it is also possible to challenge the policy on its merits, including its lack of transparency.

I'd say higher than 90% but yes you are correct that this deserves scrutiny.

Fine. Ninety-five percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale was in the pilot program and they have been using it for the past two years. They said it has helped them increase diversity.

So low IQ get in, how does that make the school good

who said low IQ gets in??

IQ is lower for poor

"lower" does not mean low IQ. I think they are still accepting applicants who are talented and have high scores.

actually it kinda does. even 120 will struggle with any kind of rigorous college material.