SAT "adversity" adjustment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way this can work is to make it OPTIONAL. Plenty of people will want to report their neighborhood adversity score, and plenty won't. It is profiling and just as disclosing your race is optional and applicants have strict control over what they wish to present in their applications (even teacher recs--you can opt to see them but of course most would not), having a mark on your application which may be inaccurate and stereotyping should be something you can OPT OUT of.

It's not something you will be able to OPT-In or out of. The College Board provides it to the colleges and the colleges are free to use it or not. They've already piloted it so it's been happening already. This isn't about the individual information that kids provide - they are using publicly available data to provide more context.

Can people actually read about it to understand how it works? Might help to do this to be informed.

Do you understand what the word "Piloting" means? Are you aware that organizations/businesses are capable of responding to feedback, especially if they realize they will lose money if they share information associated with a performance score that the consumer doesn't want them to share. Yes, colleges can do their own assessments of adversity or privilege. The issue is that paired with a score of performance is a score that affects perception of that score, and is not viewable by the consumer. Dumb.

Excuse me I full well know what a pilot is. If you think you are going to escape this, then you are the one that is DUMB. Colleges have already been doing this type of data mining on their own and taking it into consideration during the admissions process. So I guess you plan to have your kids avoid college altogether.

Of course colleges have their own ways of doing this. Everyone knows this. It's their choice to look at each student individually. The outrage is about the College Board doing this, and doing it badly. They are not doing mass demographic profiling on a national scale. Without transparency. And the concern is that they will use context data to diminish the achievements of students with low adversity scores as that would be discriminatory.

Colleges hire other small companies to do this type of data mining for them and have done so for years. Sophisticated admissions offices don't just look at the individual information to get context. They do all sorts of large scale data-mining to find talented students. They are taking a page from Facebook, Spotify and Netflix and using big data to get results. College Board is helping to facilitate their need to find talented students from less-resourced communities. If your children are happy, healthy and smart you might want to ask yourself why this is so threatening?


The College Board is not beholden to you or anyone in terms of so-called transparency, they can do what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This system is counter to freedom and is unconstitutional. Never should you be discriminated for being well off over someone else. I hope Trump weighs in and torpedoes this social justice bullshit.

He can’t. There’s no explicit linkage to race and, even if there was, it’s perfectly fine to consider race. I’m assuming good faith in the (no doubt wealthy and privileged) folks who devised this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way this can work is to make it OPTIONAL. Plenty of people will want to report their neighborhood adversity score, and plenty won't. It is profiling and just as disclosing your race is optional and applicants have strict control over what they wish to present in their applications (even teacher recs--you can opt to see them but of course most would not), having a mark on your application which may be inaccurate and stereotyping should be something you can OPT OUT of.

It's not something you will be able to OPT-In or out of. The College Board provides it to the colleges and the colleges are free to use it or not. They've already piloted it so it's been happening already. This isn't about the individual information that kids provide - they are using publicly available data to provide more context.

Can people actually read about it to understand how it works? Might help to do this to be informed.

Do you understand what the word "Piloting" means? Are you aware that organizations/businesses are capable of responding to feedback, especially if they realize they will lose money if they share information associated with a performance score that the consumer doesn't want them to share. Yes, colleges can do their own assessments of adversity or privilege. The issue is that paired with a score of performance is a score that affects perception of that score, and is not viewable by the consumer. Dumb.

Excuse me I full well know what a pilot is. If you think you are going to escape this, then you are the one that is DUMB. Colleges have already been doing this type of data mining on their own and taking it into consideration during the admissions process. So I guess you plan to have your kids avoid college altogether.

Of course colleges have their own ways of doing this. Everyone knows this. It's their choice to look at each student individually. The outrage is about the College Board doing this, and doing it badly. They are not doing mass demographic profiling on a national scale. Without transparency. And the concern is that they will use context data to diminish the achievements of students with low adversity scores as that would be discriminatory.

Colleges hire other small companies to do this type of data mining for them and have done so for years. Sophisticated admissions offices don't just look at the individual information to get context. They do all sorts of large scale data-mining to find talented students. They are taking a page from Facebook, Spotify and Netflix and using big data to get results. College Board is helping to facilitate their need to find talented students from less-resourced communities. If your children are happy, healthy and smart you might want to ask yourself why this is so threatening?


The College Board is not beholden to you or anyone in terms of so-called transparency, they can do what they want.

DP. No, it’s not that simple.

[Anonymous]

Very few wealthy white and Asian people will like this. Very few wealthy white and Asian people will admit to that. Many wealthy white and Asian people will wait for a backlash hoping it goes away and for someone to take the lard in challenging it. It won’t go away. There. Is. No. Basis. For. A. Legal. Challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get your kid into a good school district and live in a good neighborhood. That’s great for your kids. They have that as an advantage. It’s much larger an advantage than a few points on a adversity score. So shut up! I’m sick of the argument about MC getting the shaft.

Also, If you are too poor to pay for college you would actually qualify for financial aid. So stop whining about that. College is expensive. It’s also optional. This isn’t new.

The only people getting shafted are kids who are born into poverty.

The kids born into poverty get free money for college.

If they survive to college aged. If they aren’t incarcerated first. If they haven’t been lured into a gang or gotten pregnant. If they don’t have undiagnosed learning disabilities. If they were able to achieve good grades despite being hungry or homeless. If they even were offered a good enough education to get a passing score on the SAT. Even then navigating college admissions with no money is difficult.

I’ll take my 130,000 HHI and just pay for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get your kid into a good school district and live in a good neighborhood. That’s great for your kids. They have that as an advantage. It’s much larger an advantage than a few points on a adversity score. So shut up! I’m sick of the argument about MC getting the shaft.

Also, If you are too poor to pay for college you would actually qualify for financial aid. So stop whining about that. College is expensive. It’s also optional. This isn’t new.

The only people getting shafted are kids who are born into poverty.

The kids born into poverty get free money for college.

If they survive to college aged. If they aren’t incarcerated first. If they haven’t been lured into a gang or gotten pregnant. If they don’t have undiagnosed learning disabilities. If they were able to achieve good grades despite being hungry or homeless. If they even were offered a good enough education to get a passing score on the SAT. Even then navigating college admissions with no money is difficult.

I’ll take my 130,000 HHI and just pay for college.

And the colleges will happily take your full freight and distribute it to other kids’ grants. Win win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very few wealthy white and Asian people will like this. Very few wealthy white and Asian people will admit to that. Many wealthy white and Asian people will wait for a backlash hoping it goes away and for someone to take the lard in challenging it. It won’t go away. There. Is. No. Basis. For. A. Legal. Challenge.

^ lead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get your kid into a good school district and live in a good neighborhood. That’s great for your kids. They have that as an advantage. It’s much larger an advantage than a few points on a adversity score. So shut up! I’m sick of the argument about MC getting the shaft.

Also, If you are too poor to pay for college you would actually qualify for financial aid. So stop whining about that. College is expensive. It’s also optional. This isn’t new.

The only people getting shafted are kids who are born into poverty.

The kids born into poverty get free money for college.

And free breakfast and lunch at school, and access to mentoring and tutoring programs, and free SAT prep, and free or reduced rate travel sports, and many, many other social programs that are intended to level the playing field.

Yes, UMC and UC kids, especially white kids, do have advantages. What gets old is the failure to acknowledge that many poor kids are getting help -- or at least have access to help -- at many, many points along the way. If those efforts to help aren't working, let's work to fix it earlier -- as early as possible. College admission time is, in my opinion, too late.

[Anonymous]

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

Yes, community service has no inherent bias. So what if poor kids are working to help feed and clothe themselves and have no time to volunteer? And who cares if much of sports recruiting focuses on travel teams that cost in the thousands and usually skews predominantly wealthy? No bias to see here folks, just well deserved advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get your kid into a good school district and live in a good neighborhood. That’s great for your kids. They have that as an advantage. It’s much larger an advantage than a few points on a adversity score. So shut up! I’m sick of the argument about MC getting the shaft.

Also, If you are too poor to pay for college you would actually qualify for financial aid. So stop whining about that. College is expensive. It’s also optional. This isn’t new.

The only people getting shafted are kids who are born into poverty.

The kids born into poverty get free money for college.

And free breakfast and lunch at school, and access to mentoring and tutoring programs, and free SAT prep, and free or reduced rate travel sports, and many, many other social programs that are intended to level the playing field.

Yes, UMC and UC kids, especially white kids, do have advantages. What gets old is the failure to acknowledge that many poor kids are getting help -- or at least have access to help -- at many, many points along the way. If those efforts to help aren't working, let's work to fix it earlier -- as early as possible. College admission time is, in my opinion, too late.

The help already is waiting because colleges may—-and eagerly do—account for all this in the admissions process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get your kid into a good school district and live in a good neighborhood. That’s great for your kids. They have that as an advantage. It’s much larger an advantage than a few points on a adversity score. So shut up! I’m sick of the argument about MC getting the shaft.

Also, If you are too poor to pay for college you would actually qualify for financial aid. So stop whining about that. College is expensive. It’s also optional. This isn’t new.

The only people getting shafted are kids who are born into poverty.

The kids born into poverty get free money for college.

And free breakfast and lunch at school, and access to mentoring and tutoring programs, and free SAT prep, and free or reduced rate travel sports, and many, many other social programs that are intended to level the playing field.

Yes, UMC and UC kids, especially white kids, do have advantages. What gets old is the failure to acknowledge that many poor kids are getting help -- or at least have access to help -- at many, many points along the way. If those efforts to help aren't working, let's work to fix it earlier -- as early as possible. College admission time is, in my opinion, too late.

While that sounds reasonable -- I think your main concern is making sure college admissions isn't affected for your kids. And I'm not sure its ever too late to try to level the playing field. Besides we are talking about the higher achieving poor kids being helped by this, so college admissions is not too late for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get your kid into a good school district and live in a good neighborhood. That’s great for your kids. They have that as an advantage. It’s much larger an advantage than a few points on a adversity score. So shut up! I’m sick of the argument about MC getting the shaft.

Also, If you are too poor to pay for college you would actually qualify for financial aid. So stop whining about that. College is expensive. It’s also optional. This isn’t new.

The only people getting shafted are kids who are born into poverty.

The kids born into poverty get free money for college.

And free breakfast and lunch at school, and access to mentoring and tutoring programs, and free SAT prep, and free or reduced rate travel sports, and many, many other social programs that are intended to level the playing field.

Yes, UMC and UC kids, especially white kids, do have advantages. What gets old is the failure to acknowledge that many poor kids are getting help -- or at least have access to help -- at many, many points along the way. If those efforts to help aren't working, let's work to fix it earlier -- as early as possible. College admission time is, in my opinion, too late.

The help already is waiting because colleges may—-and eagerly do—account for all this in the admissions process.

So this honestly may not make that much of a difference -- because colleges are already taking this into account in a lot of cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get your kid into a good school district and live in a good neighborhood. That’s great for your kids. They have that as an advantage. It’s much larger an advantage than a few points on a adversity score. So shut up! I’m sick of the argument about MC getting the shaft.

Also, If you are too poor to pay for college you would actually qualify for financial aid. So stop whining about that. College is expensive. It’s also optional. This isn’t new.

The only people getting shafted are kids who are born into poverty.

The kids born into poverty get free money for college.

And free breakfast and lunch at school, and access to mentoring and tutoring programs, and free SAT prep, and free or reduced rate travel sports, and many, many other social programs that are intended to level the playing field.

Yes, UMC and UC kids, especially white kids, do have advantages. What gets old is the failure to acknowledge that many poor kids are getting help -- or at least have access to help -- at many, many points along the way. If those efforts to help aren't working, let's work to fix it earlier -- as early as possible. College admission time is, in my opinion, too late.

Agree with the bolded.

From Inside Higher Education, Nov. 2015

"Since 2008, student aid from federal and institutional sources has increased. Political and foundation leaders have also focused on the importance of a postsecondary education, and the need to increase college attainment.

But in the years since 2008, the proportion of low-income recent high school graduates who enroll in college has seen a significant drop, according to a new analysis from the American Council on Education.

In 2008, 55.9 percent of such high school graduates enrolled in college. By 2013, that figure dropped to 45.5 percent. While overall enrollment rates increased just after the economic downturn hit in 2008, they have fallen for all income groups since. However, the drop for those from low-income families has been the greatest. ..."

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/25/study-finds-drop-percentage-low-income-students-enrolling-college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you get your kid into a good school district and live in a good neighborhood. That’s great for your kids. They have that as an advantage. It’s much larger an advantage than a few points on a adversity score. So shut up! I’m sick of the argument about MC getting the shaft.

Also, If you are too poor to pay for college you would actually qualify for financial aid. So stop whining about that. College is expensive. It’s also optional. This isn’t new.

The only people getting shafted are kids who are born into poverty.

The kids born into poverty get free money for college.

And free breakfast and lunch at school, and access to mentoring and tutoring programs, and free SAT prep, and free or reduced rate travel sports, and many, many other social programs that are intended to level the playing field.

Yes, UMC and UC kids, especially white kids, do have advantages. What gets old is the failure to acknowledge that many poor kids are getting help -- or at least have access to help -- at many, many points along the way. If those efforts to help aren't working, let's work to fix it earlier -- as early as possible. College admission time is, in my opinion, too late.

The help already is waiting because colleges may—-and eagerly do—account for all this in the admissions process.

So this honestly may not make that much of a difference -- because colleges are already taking this into account in a lot of cases.

This helps the colleges. It really isn't going to help or hurt students one way or another.

Rather than having to mine this data themselves, they can now get the data in a standardized format from the College Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This system is counter to freedom and is unconstitutional. Never should you be discriminated for being well off over someone else. I hope Trump weighs in and torpedoes this social justice bullshit.

This is the type of stuff that drives people to vote for someone like Trump.

Who does zero about it and instead makes preferential policies based on his "feelings" about who is worthy vs not, loyal to him or not, or if it benefits him, his friends and his families. What does that have to do with anything? Is he just the answer to anything anyone feels angry about? Lovely.