SAT "adversity" adjustment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. Being somewhat familiar with demographic data, at first glance my thought is the score itself will likely be a benefit to Asian populations compared to current practice because Asian students tend to outperform their local SES (which this is primarily a measure) and what we would expect from their individual SES in SAT scores-- based on the cultural values you mention. Also, even in a neighbor with a high Asian population, they aren't typically a huge percentage of a given school population (there are relatively few schools that are even 50+% Asian whereas there are many schools that are 90+% white). Also, crime rate is one of many data points--and it's unclear how it will be calculated. Any urban area is going to have a crime rate higher than rural--so it's primarily a way to offset what would otherwise be a huge rural advantage due to lower income, education levels there. So really if current practice is effectively to ding kids who have a lot of high achieving kids at their school, a measure which gives a broader context will help any students who perform better than their context suggest they would--which Asian typically do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. Being somewhat familiar with demographic data, at first glance my thought is the score itself will likely be a benefit to Asian populations compared to current practice because Asian students tend to outperform their local SES (which this is primarily a measure) and what we would expect from their individual SES in SAT scores-- based on the cultural values you mention. Also, even in a neighbor with a high Asian population, they aren't typically a huge percentage of a given school population (there are relatively few schools that are even 50+% Asian whereas there are many schools that are 90+% white). Also, crime rate is one of many data points--and it's unclear how it will be calculated. Any urban area is going to have a crime rate higher than rural--so it's primarily a way to offset what would otherwise be a huge rural advantage due to lower income, education levels there. So really if current practice is effectively to ding kids who have a lot of high achieving kids at their school, a measure which gives a broader context will help any students who perform better than their context suggest they would--which Asian typically do.

DP. That’s largely wishful thinking. Colleges need a middleman to take the heat of lawsuits like the Harvard lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. Being somewhat familiar with demographic data, at first glance my thought is the score itself will likely be a benefit to Asian populations compared to current practice because Asian students tend to outperform their local SES (which this is primarily a measure) and what we would expect from their individual SES in SAT scores-- based on the cultural values you mention. Also, even in a neighbor with a high Asian population, they aren't typically a huge percentage of a given school population (there are relatively few schools that are even 50+% Asian whereas there are many schools that are 90+% white). Also, crime rate is one of many data points--and it's unclear how it will be calculated. Any urban area is going to have a crime rate higher than rural--so it's primarily a way to offset what would otherwise be a huge rural advantage due to lower income, education levels there. So really if current practice is effectively to ding kids who have a lot of high achieving kids at their school, a measure which gives a broader context will help any students who perform better than their context suggest they would--which Asian typically do.

DP. That’s largely wishful thinking. Colleges need a middleman to take the heat of lawsuits like the Harvard lawsuit.

PP: Might be. But that's why I said "the score itself" not how it's used. The poster I was responding to thought that Asians would tend not to get good adversity scores, but looking at the data points Asians would be one of the populations most likely to benefit because of the tendency to outperform context which this is a measure of. I don't think this was spurred by colleges wanting a middleman--I think it's spurred by College Board wanting to stay relevant and keep SAT in use. Some colleges will like this because it saves them work--but I don't think it will help elite colleges who want to craft their own classes-- AND looking at it, the score is just not likely to work in the directions they want it to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. Being somewhat familiar with demographic data, at first glance my thought is the score itself will likely be a benefit to Asian populations compared to current practice because Asian students tend to outperform their local SES (which this is primarily a measure) and what we would expect from their individual SES in SAT scores-- based on the cultural values you mention. Also, even in a neighbor with a high Asian population, they aren't typically a huge percentage of a given school population (there are relatively few schools that are even 50+% Asian whereas there are many schools that are 90+% white). Also, crime rate is one of many data points--and it's unclear how it will be calculated. Any urban area is going to have a crime rate higher than rural--so it's primarily a way to offset what would otherwise be a huge rural advantage due to lower income, education levels there. So really if current practice is effectively to ding kids who have a lot of high achieving kids at their school, a measure which gives a broader context will help any students who perform better than their context suggest they would--which Asian typically do.

DP. That’s largely wishful thinking. Colleges need a middleman to take the heat of lawsuits like the Harvard lawsuit.

NP: you are stereotyping Asians too. The data says otherwise:

Four groups have household incomes well below the median household income for all Americans: Bangladeshi ($49,800), Hmong ($48,000), Nepalese ($43,500) and Burmese ($36,000). By contrast, Indian households have the highest median income ($100,000), followed by Filipinos ($80,000), Japanese and Sri Lankans (each $74,000).

Asians overall were also less likely than the general U.S. population to live in poverty in 2015 (12.1% vs. 15.1%). But again, there are large differences between Asian subgroups. Eight of the 19 Asian groups analyzed had poverty rates higher than the U.S. average. Hmong (28.3%), Bhutanese (33.3%) and Burmese (35.0%) had the highest poverty rates among Asian groups, while the lowest rates were among Filipinos (7.5%), Indians (7.5%) and Japanese (8.4%).

source: Pew Research

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. Being somewhat familiar with demographic data, at first glance my thought is the score itself will likely be a benefit to Asian populations compared to current practice because Asian students tend to outperform their local SES (which this is primarily a measure) and what we would expect from their individual SES in SAT scores-- based on the cultural values you mention. Also, even in a neighbor with a high Asian population, they aren't typically a huge percentage of a given school population (there are relatively few schools that are even 50+% Asian whereas there are many schools that are 90+% white). Also, crime rate is one of many data points--and it's unclear how it will be calculated. Any urban area is going to have a crime rate higher than rural--so it's primarily a way to offset what would otherwise be a huge rural advantage due to lower income, education levels there. So really if current practice is effectively to ding kids who have a lot of high achieving kids at their school, a measure which gives a broader context will help any students who perform better than their context suggest they would--which Asian typically do.

DP. That’s largely wishful thinking. Colleges need a middleman to take the heat of lawsuits like the Harvard lawsuit.

NP: you are stereotyping Asians too. The data says otherwise:

Four groups have household incomes well below the median household income for all Americans: Bangladeshi ($49,800), Hmong ($48,000), Nepalese ($43,500) and Burmese ($36,000). By contrast, Indian households have the highest median income ($100,000), followed by Filipinos ($80,000), Japanese and Sri Lankans (each $74,000).

Asians overall were also less likely than the general U.S. population to live in poverty in 2015 (12.1% vs. 15.1%). But again, there are large differences between Asian subgroups. Eight of the 19 Asian groups analyzed had poverty rates higher than the U.S. average. Hmong (28.3%), Bhutanese (33.3%) and Burmese (35.0%) had the highest poverty rates among Asian groups, while the lowest rates were among Filipinos (7.5%), Indians (7.5%) and Japanese (8.4%).

source: Pew Research

I'm not stereotyping Asians--I am citing data that suggests that on average Asians tend to outperform in SAT scores what the US national models would predict on SES alone--this is pretty well established--and holds across low, medium and high SES and across diverse Asian groups not that they tend on average to have high poverty rates, though there is variation among different Asian populations. So on average, the ratio between the adversity score and the SAT score will look "better" for Asians than the national average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. Being somewhat familiar with demographic data, at first glance my thought is the score itself will likely be a benefit to Asian populations compared to current practice because Asian students tend to outperform their local SES (which this is primarily a measure) and what we would expect from their individual SES in SAT scores-- based on the cultural values you mention. Also, even in a neighbor with a high Asian population, they aren't typically a huge percentage of a given school population (there are relatively few schools that are even 50+% Asian whereas there are many schools that are 90+% white). Also, crime rate is one of many data points--and it's unclear how it will be calculated. Any urban area is going to have a crime rate higher than rural--so it's primarily a way to offset what would otherwise be a huge rural advantage due to lower income, education levels there. So really if current practice is effectively to ding kids who have a lot of high achieving kids at their school, a measure which gives a broader context will help any students who perform better than their context suggest they would--which Asian typically do.

DP. That’s largely wishful thinking. Colleges need a middleman to take the heat of lawsuits like the Harvard lawsuit.

NP: you are stereotyping Asians too. The data says otherwise:

Four groups have household incomes well below the median household income for all Americans: Bangladeshi ($49,800), Hmong ($48,000), Nepalese ($43,500) and Burmese ($36,000). By contrast, Indian households have the highest median income ($100,000), followed by Filipinos ($80,000), Japanese and Sri Lankans (each $74,000).

Asians overall were also less likely than the general U.S. population to live in poverty in 2015 (12.1% vs. 15.1%). But again, there are large differences between Asian subgroups. Eight of the 19 Asian groups analyzed had poverty rates higher than the U.S. average. Hmong (28.3%), Bhutanese (33.3%) and Burmese (35.0%) had the highest poverty rates among Asian groups, while the lowest rates were among Filipinos (7.5%), Indians (7.5%) and Japanese (8.4%).

source: Pew Research

Intact families, low crime, and other matters are factored in too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. Being somewhat familiar with demographic data, at first glance my thought is the score itself will likely be a benefit to Asian populations compared to current practice because Asian students tend to outperform their local SES (which this is primarily a measure) and what we would expect from their individual SES in SAT scores-- based on the cultural values you mention. Also, even in a neighbor with a high Asian population, they aren't typically a huge percentage of a given school population (there are relatively few schools that are even 50+% Asian whereas there are many schools that are 90+% white). Also, crime rate is one of many data points--and it's unclear how it will be calculated. Any urban area is going to have a crime rate higher than rural--so it's primarily a way to offset what would otherwise be a huge rural advantage due to lower income, education levels there. So really if current practice is effectively to ding kids who have a lot of high achieving kids at their school, a measure which gives a broader context will help any students who perform better than their context suggest they would--which Asian typically do.

DP. That’s largely wishful thinking. Colleges need a middleman to take the heat of lawsuits like the Harvard lawsuit.

PP: Might be. But that's why I said "the score itself" not how it's used. The poster I was responding to thought that Asians would tend not to get good adversity scores, but looking at the data points Asians would be one of the populations most likely to benefit because of the tendency to outperform context which this is a measure of. I don't think this was spurred by colleges wanting a middleman--I think it's spurred by College Board wanting to stay relevant and keep SAT in use. Some colleges will like this because it saves them work--but I don't think it will help elite colleges who want to craft their own classes-- AND looking at it, the score is just not likely to work in the directions they want it to go.

If it benefits Asian, the score will be ignored. Academic performance alone will get colleges more than enough Asians. The current narrative and challenge is to increase number of under represented categories in college. Only measures that can achieve the goal without using race as a factor straightly will stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. Being somewhat familiar with demographic data, at first glance my thought is the score itself will likely be a benefit to Asian populations compared to current practice because Asian students tend to outperform their local SES (which this is primarily a measure) and what we would expect from their individual SES in SAT scores-- based on the cultural values you mention. Also, even in a neighbor with a high Asian population, they aren't typically a huge percentage of a given school population (there are relatively few schools that are even 50+% Asian whereas there are many schools that are 90+% white). Also, crime rate is one of many data points--and it's unclear how it will be calculated. Any urban area is going to have a crime rate higher than rural--so it's primarily a way to offset what would otherwise be a huge rural advantage due to lower income, education levels there. So really if current practice is effectively to ding kids who have a lot of high achieving kids at their school, a measure which gives a broader context will help any students who perform better than their context suggest they would--which Asian typically do.

DP. That’s largely wishful thinking. Colleges need a middleman to take the heat of lawsuits like the Harvard lawsuit.

PP: Might be. But that's why I said "the score itself" not how it's used. The poster I was responding to thought that Asians would tend not to get good adversity scores, but looking at the data points Asians would be one of the populations most likely to benefit because of the tendency to outperform context which this is a measure of. I don't think this was spurred by colleges wanting a middleman--I think it's spurred by College Board wanting to stay relevant and keep SAT in use. Some colleges will like this because it saves them work--but I don't think it will help elite colleges who want to craft their own classes-- AND looking at it, the score is just not likely to work in the directions they want it to go.

If it benefits Asian, the score will be ignored. Academic performance alone will get colleges more than enough Asians. The current narrative and challenge is to increase number of under represented categories in college. Only measures that can achieve the goal without using race as a factor straightly will stay.

That’s exactly right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are not really wealthy zip codes in DC. There are wealthy neighborhoods. DC is small. There are wealthy zip codes in V and MD.

[Anonymous]

It’s all very funny. But people were warned that attacks on affirmative action would likely lead to a new system that make would not anti affirmative action people happy. Elite schools are not going to become CalTech. This is the first of many unforeseen ways that colleges are going to diversify their classes. Be careful what you wish for. Kids who are marginal — almost anyone applying to a top school— have a new obstacles. Thank you Harvard litigation!

[Anonymous]

With the nice graphics that put your SAT score in a bar graph next to peer averages in your school, the people this will hurt are people who perform in the middle of the pack who have low adversity scores. This will just encourage even more madness in students overloading their schedules, taken more and more AP's, extra-curriculars, etc. in efforts to distinguish themselves--->more stress.

[Anonymous]

Ha ha but it’s not race based. Great for those complaining now you can stop complaining about URMs. What else will they come up with. It’s actually worse for your smart average kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With the nice graphics that put your SAT score in a bar graph next to peer averages in your school, the people this will hurt are people who perform in the middle of the pack who have low adversity scores. This will just encourage even more madness in students overloading their schedules, taken more and more AP's, extra-curriculars, etc. in efforts to distinguish themselves--->more stress.

+100

[Anonymous]

If the assertion that Yale used the adversity measure in 20% of decisions is correct, it means this is just about non-middle class and up decisions. It is more information about poor students to allow the institution to target talented poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With the nice graphics that put your SAT score in a bar graph next to peer averages in your school, the people this will hurt are people who perform in the middle of the pack who have low adversity scores. This will just encourage even more madness in students overloading their schedules, taken more and more AP's, extra-curriculars, etc. in efforts to distinguish themselves--->more stress.

+100

This score isn't going to add any more to the madness. There is much more stress added by UMC families who spend thousands on extra curriculars for their kids. My friends' kids do private piano, clarinet and violin lessons. They also pretty much all do a travel sport. Just doing an instrument or sport at school isn't good enough, you need private lessons and travel sports to distinguish yourselves. I worry way more about that rat race than some diversity index that factors in things college likely consider anyway. The pressure to take more AP classes and do more extra curriculars is coming from Asian families who stress academics and white families who dump money into travel sports. Those combine to crank up the pressure. This stat that just tells the schools what they already know means nothing on that front.