SAT "adversity" adjustment

[Anonymous]

Talking about adversity, no challenge is harder to overcome than low IQ. CB should consider including a IQ score on the SAT report as well because 1500 for for a 140 IQ has no comparison with 1200 for a 100 IQ. And it's not something the student can choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action already exists. This just makes it easier. If colleges want more adversity candidates, so be it. If they lower academic standards to achieve those goals then they hit themselves in the reputation. If they don’t lower their standards, then what’s the problem?

Who here is fool enough to believe that merit alone still carries the day? This isn’t new.

This is the travisity

What does being on a travel volleyball team or having a parent who went to the college have to do with merit? Merit alone never carried the day. It's just upsetting now because the fluff that used to get people in isn't skewing as white or as wealthy anymore. But take heart, most of the kids I know who are killing it in sports or volunteering to build homes in developing countries are still predominantly wealthy white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Talking about adversity, no challenge is harder to overcome than low IQ. CB should consider including a IQ score on the SAT report as well because 1500 for for a 140 IQ has no comparison with 1200 for a 100 IQ. And it's not something the student can choose.

They are concerned with adversity caused by SES. Keep up. Low IQ occurs in every economic class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to know what the lowest possible adversity score will be. Like if a white kid lives in a $1.2m home in 16th street heights, going to private, with a $500K HHI, does that kid get a higher score than the nearly-identical one living in Bethesda, just because his neighborhood is economically more diverse? And does the kid in Bethesda get “0”?

Yes!! A kid living in a $4 million dollar DC home has a lower neighborhood score than a standard suburb. Big three school and all.

[Anonymous]

So are they indexing it based on COL also? A HHI of 50k goes a lot further in bumble-F than it does in inner city DC/SF/LA/NYC etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talking about adversity, no challenge is harder to overcome than low IQ. CB should consider including a IQ score on the SAT report as well because 1500 for for a 140 IQ has no comparison with 1200 for a 100 IQ. And it's not something the student can choose.

They are concerned with adversity caused by SES. Keep up. Low IQ occurs in every economic class.

but how's it fair that only smart kids get to go to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talking about adversity, no challenge is harder to overcome than low IQ. CB should consider including a IQ score on the SAT report as well because 1500 for for a 140 IQ has no comparison with 1200 for a 100 IQ. And it's not something the student can choose.

They are concerned with adversity caused by SES. Keep up. Low IQ occurs in every economic class.

but how's it fair that only smart kids get to go to college.

Plenty of kids with lower IQ have gone to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talking about adversity, no challenge is harder to overcome than low IQ. CB should consider including a IQ score on the SAT report as well because 1500 for for a 140 IQ has no comparison with 1200 for a 100 IQ. And it's not something the student can choose.

They are concerned with adversity caused by SES. Keep up. Low IQ occurs in every economic class.

but how's it fair that only smart kids get to go to college.

Plenty of kids with lower IQ have gone to college.

only the dumb rich kids. If they can go and graduate college, college should open to all, rich or poor, dumb or smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to know what the lowest possible adversity score will be. Like if a white kid lives in a $1.2m home in 16th street heights, going to private, with a $500K HHI, does that kid get a higher score than the nearly-identical one living in Bethesda, just because his neighborhood is economically more diverse? And does the kid in Bethesda get “0”?

Yes!! A kid living in a $4 million dollar DC home has a lower neighborhood score than a standard suburb. Big three school and all.

You do realize that they know which school a kid attends when they are making decisions, right? Also, certain zip codes in DC are very wealthy. The adversity score is one piece of the information. They aren't ignoring all the other information available to them. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

As a means of fostering social change (and knocking Asians down) this is awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a means of fostering social change (and knocking Asians down) this is awful.

Most Asian-Americans are not privileged so not sure how this would knock them down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a means of fostering social change (and knocking Asians down) this is awful.

There are plenty of poor Asian neighborhoods. Wouldn't those zip codes count, too?

Honestly, it's just an adversity score that they're including with the test scores. They aren't even planning to tell the test takers what their adversity score is. It seems like the colleges will be free to take those adversity scores into consideration or not take them into consideration and give as little or as much weight to them in their admissions decisions as they want to.

I thought that universities run demographic data anyway so I don't know that this is really anything all that new other than now this will be done for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another dumb .. idea from liberals. It doesn't matter what the context is for your scores. You either belong at an institution because of your profile or don't because you are not prepared for that institution. Mismatching you with an institution based on context will only mean you will graduate with some easy nonsense major.

Do sports teams contextualize performance? How about the Olympics? Would you contextualize health results from your surgeon or your maid or lawnmower or plumber? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. In every other field, you might sympathize with context, but only actual performance and not potential matters.

But loony liberals can't help themselves. They want to socially engineer academia

Yeah, I can see what is slowly happening with the US universities. They're all going to end up dumbed down just like our public schools.

It's like all of society is being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator in the interests of being "fair".

And I don't see anyone insisting that the NBA contain at least x% of non-AA men, by the way. It's just who is the best for the job. Which generally happens to be AA men in that case. Where is the adversity adjustment for basketball? Shouldn't short, un-athletic guys get some sort of advantage? It's not their fault that they're short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another dumb .. idea from liberals. It doesn't matter what the context is for your scores. You either belong at an institution because of your profile or don't because you are not prepared for that institution. Mismatching you with an institution based on context will only mean you will graduate with some easy nonsense major.

Do sports teams contextualize performance? How about the Olympics? Would you contextualize health results from your surgeon or your maid or lawnmower or plumber? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. In every other field, you might sympathize with context, but only actual performance and not potential matters.

But loony liberals can't help themselves. They want to socially engineer academia

Yeah, I can see what is slowly happening with the US universities. They're all going to end up dumbed down just like our public schools.

It's like all of society is being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator in the interests of being "fair".

And I don't see anyone insisting that the NBA contain at least x% of non-AA men, by the way. It's just who is the best for the job. Which generally happens to be AA men in that case. Where is the adversity adjustment for basketball? Shouldn't short, un-athletic guys get some sort of advantage? It's not their fault that they're short.

You are out of your mind.

US Colleges today are more full of super-smart, well-prepared and dedicated students than ever. It's not debatable.

The only thing being "dumbed-down" is this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a means of fostering social change (and knocking Asians down) this is awful.

There are plenty of poor Asian neighborhoods. Wouldn't those zip codes count, too?

Honestly, it's just an adversity score that they're including with the test scores. They aren't even planning to tell the test takers what their adversity score is. It seems like the colleges will be free to take those adversity scores into consideration or not take them into consideration and give as little or as much weight to them in their admissions decisions as they want to.

I thought that universities run demographic data anyway so I don't know that this is really anything all that new other than now this will be done for them.

Colleges have properly and obsessively examined applicants’ economic background as part of holistic review. This has been tied to an individual, though. This adversity ranking — and the legal reverse discrimination it fosters — is a different kettle of fish. To be sure, schools might be seeking to hide behind another entity to avoid lawsuits, such as the Harvard lawsuit. Sure, some Asians are from poor neighborhoods. But as a whole, this is very bad for them.