SAT "adversity" adjustment

[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.

They do. You have it right. Nothing is new here.

I think half of the outrage is due to the really inaccurate subject line on this thread. It isn't an adjustment. It's a score reflecting SES of one's census tract and high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Top schools could and should increase their class sizes to let in other deserving applicants. It won’t impact their elite status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Would you agree that it's already happened with public schools? That teachers can't effectively teach anymore because they're so busy dealing with 'other concerns'? Or you're in denial about that too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do. You have it right. Nothing is new here.

I think half of the outrage is due to the really inaccurate subject line on this thread. It isn't an adjustment. It's a score reflecting SES of one's census tract and high school.

With real consequences—it impacted 20 percent of Yale’s admission decisions, per one source. There is a lot that’s new here. Pretending otherwise might feel good.

[Anonymous]

Yawn colleges already take in lower skilled/qualified URM

SAT 100-150 points lower etc

This is nothing new

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Idiot. It is putting undue amount of pressure on students to keep up in this affirmative action climate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do. You have it right. Nothing is new here.

I think half of the outrage is due to the really inaccurate subject line on this thread. It isn't an adjustment. It's a score reflecting SES of one's census tract and high school.

Yep: Yale has used the College Board’s new tool for two admissions cycles, said Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions. He said it provided the same context that Yale has been looking at for decades, but does so in a standardized way across schools and applicants that is very helpful.

“There’s nothing wrong with the SAT score,” Mr. Quinlan said. “It just helps contextualize the SAT score for us. When you’re able to see a student’s SAT score and then compare it to the SAT scores of the other students at the school, that can be powerful to identify a truly transcendent student.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/sat-score.amp.html

Also, the number is being misleadingly called an “adversity score” when it’s actually an “environmental context index” which better reflects that the score is about the student’s environment, not the student.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/589708/

[Anonymous]

So basically, colleges want another entity to take the lawsuit hits.

[Anonymous]

Yale can take the folks it wants to take. The can also increase their class size and remain as elite as they want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do. You have it right. Nothing is new here.

I think half of the outrage is due to the really inaccurate subject line on this thread. It isn't an adjustment. It's a score reflecting SES of one's census tract and high school.

Yep: Yale has used the College Board’s new tool for two admissions cycles, said Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions. He said it provided the same context that Yale has been looking at for decades, but does so in a standardized way across schools and applicants that is very helpful.

“There’s nothing wrong with the SAT score,” Mr. Quinlan said. “It just helps contextualize the SAT score for us. When you’re able to see a student’s SAT score and then compare it to the SAT scores of the other students at the school, that can be powerful to identify a truly transcendent student.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/sat-score.amp.html

Also, the number is being misleadingly called an “adversity score” when it’s actually an “environmental context index” which better reflects that the score is about the student’s environment, not the student.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/589708/

The Party Line has Spoken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Asians, on the whole, are law-abiding people who are respectful of authority and don't make trouble. So if you're going to factor in things like crime rates then that will absolutely disadvantage Asian kids who might be as poor as anyone else.

Asians will also suffer if they take into consideration the average standardized test scores for the local schools, because they study their butts off.

Basically people are going to be punished for following the rules, being good citizens, encouraging their kids to prioritize studying and do their best.

Let's see how well that all works out for us.

[Anonymous]

These are exactly the kind of students colleges are looking for, and whom this metric will help identify: https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/article/oakland-georgetown-viral-corine-forward-13854353.php She is from the most dangerous part of Oakland but went to a boarding school in Palo Alto (and incidentally, ended up doing very well at Georgetown).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Idiot. It is putting undue amount of pressure on students to keep up in this affirmative action climate.

As opposed to the undue amount of pressure the legacy/connection climate put on non legacy/non connected kids in the past? Plus, this is a race blind datapoint. Anyone (white, black, Hispanic, Asian) who is poor benefits. Also, I can guarantee you that if grades and SAT scores were the only factors considered, there wound far more Asian kids and far fewer white kids. Be careful what you wish for.

[Anonymous]

^^^ would be far more

[Anonymous]

So if anyone, regardless of current knowledge attained at school or ability to demonstrate knowledge in class or on tests, can be successful at top universities, why don’t we just make admissions a straight up lottery? Why bother with tests and grades if we just have to adjust them for a variety of populations?