SAT "adversity" adjustment
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Your assumptions are incorrect. There are schools in Montgomery County that are 90% FARMS and ESOL, and many schools with majority poor kids. Of course those kids will have high adversity scores. |
Anonymous
I honestly can see arguments on both sides of this issue, and I see the benefits of providing some context for scores that are based on a multitude of factors. I am a believer in the premise that underprivileged/first generation college students can benefit more from a prestigious education than a more advantaged student. However, every time this type of discussion comes up, someone makes this argument, and it I think it's the worst possible argument you could make to advance your cause. You're saying, "We're holding your kid back because it allows other kids to catch up. But its ok that your kid won't reach their full potential -- they'll be FINE." This makes it clear that the goal isn't to help the poor students do better; the goal is to prevent advantaged students from succeeding. The best they can do is "fine." (The "LOL" really helps, too. /sarc) This argument doesn't sound like someone making a case for understanding. What it really sounds like is someone who has achieved a position of privilege (albeit not by the traditional definition) and doesn't want to give it up. Sounds like the flip side of "My kid is advantaged by an expensive private school, tutors, etc., but it doesn't matter -- your kid will be just fine." In a way, I think this could make things more difficult for the schools. They used to just be able to cite to the racial diversity of their students. Now, the question will be "how many of the students were 50+ (or whatever) on the "disadvantage scale?" I suspect that Harvard's entering class will not look as good when viewed through this lens. I do think the students who have the most to lose are middle to upper class URMs whose parents sacrificed to send them to a "Big 3." |
Anonymous
I think that Harvard will be JUST FINE. Lol. |
Anonymous
| Might not be great for the rich URM kid living in McLean or some place like that. |
Anonymous
It won’t change a thing for kids coming from McLean. Any admissions office’s regional rep knows the difference between McLean High School and one in the Cofer neighbor in Richmond. And they know the vast majority of McLean families are wealthy and highly educated. |
Anonymous
|
This is a terrible idea. They already have the quotas from each good high school, so that already limits how many kids from a certain high school that a college will take.
|
Anonymous
Not a terrible idea. There are plenty of schools that are less known to admissions offices simply because so few have applied to a particular college in the past. Let’s say a hypothetical applicant for the 2023 class applies, but she may not make it past the first round for more consideration because her stats are at the 50% of admitted student mark and her rec letters and extracurriculars aren’t stellar. What the admissions officer may not know is that her school has a crappy (or no) college counselor, her teachers who don’t really know how to write a rec letter for a selective college, and she takes care of siblings before and after school. Why wouldn’t you want the admissions office to take their high school and circumstances into account? The student lives where they do due to an accident of birth and their parents. I personally think that when that kid shows she can succeed at that college academically she should get full consideration. Which is what this index is about. |
Anonymous
Not necessarily. I read it's nationally normed. My local school is about 60% FARMS and about 30% ESOL. In Maryland, we're in the bottom 25% of the state. But nationally, we're middle 50%. Poor MD kids may be privileged compared to poor Appalachian kids. |
Anonymous
But the poor MoCo students will have higher adversity index than others in Montgomery County, such as Whitman or Walter Johnson. And since admissions at selective colleges works by region (x many from DMV, x many from Illinois, etc) Appalachia is pretty irrelevant to a student from Montgomery County. |
Anonymous
Except before that poor MoCo student might have benefited from being in an environment where some of the college basics were understood. Colleges have always been able to fill their "Maryland quota" with wealthy, privileged Maryland students. Now, they'll have an easier time seeing that those disadvantaged Maryland students are less disadvantaged than those kids from Appalachia. Where's the benefit in picking up a couple disadvantaged Maryland students, since they're not disadvantaged compared to others nationally? This isn't an issue for us. Because we live in a disadvantaged neighborhood, by Maryland's standards, my kids will show up as more disadvantaged than they are economically. Because our kids got scholarships to private schools, they will show up as more advantaged than they are economically. It's likely to all be a wash. But my neighbors who were not fortunate enough to get their kids into private schools with scholarships are going to show up as middle of the road. No reason for a college to "reach down" to lift them up, without other hooks such as being first generation college (which many of them are, given the neighborhood). I think a nationally normed adversity score is going to miss the boat in a number of ways, and one of them is potentially missing the challenges of poor folks in generally wealthy areas because they're surrounded by wealth. |
Anonymous
So you think Harvard will have a hard time figuring out that the cost of living is higher in the DC Metro area than in Appalachia? They will compare the adversity scores by region, not nationally--even if the adversity scores are nationally normed. People who work for these Universities do this for a living. If you can figure it out, so can they 
|
Anonymous
No, I don't think they'll have a hard time figuring that out, if they cared to. But that College Board has decided to nationally norm this metric is telling, don't you think? They aren't displaying it regionally, and they could. Why not? Because they suspect their customers, the colleges, don't need or want it to be regionally normed. Nationally normed works for them. They still get to say they're helping disadvantaged students. They don't care if those students are from MoCo or Appalachia. |
Anonymous
| I dont know if this has been insinuated but I'm pretty sure this is happening now because of the college bribery scandal. I dont think it's a coincidence. I think anybody with any common. Sense would agree kids should not be penalized or given advantages for where they live. The college board desperately wants to manufacture the society that they want. What a pathetic society we live in. |
Anonymous
It has been in the works for 2-3 years. At least 2 dozen colleges were in a pilot last year and gave feedback. Most said they found it helpful. |
Anonymous
The College Board is responding to the goals colleges have set, whether you agree with those goals or not. Virtually every college wants to have a student body with a broad range of backgrounds. They seek an economically, ethnically, racially and internationally diverse student body because it enhances the learning environment. It is not manufacturing a society. It is educating students who will thrive in a diverse global society we already live in. I send my kid to intentionally diverse schools in hopes that they will better understand and appreciate people who come from a different place than they do. Even if you disagree with me, know that the Colleges are driving this. The CB is just responding to their customers. |