Reply to SAT "adversity" adjustment

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "SAT "adversity" adjustment"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why is the College Board getting involved in social engineering?  [/quote]

They're selling information to colleges to help those colleges with the engineering of their classes. Probably some colleges think that by training future leaders of society, they can improve society. If that's social engineering, so be it. [b]What's the problem with finding talented kids from a variety of backgrounds and educating them to become leaders in their communities [/b]or areas of interest (arts, science, etc.)? This added information may help colleges better identify kids with promise.[/quote]

leaders are not educated into leadership. college does not make leaders. university professors are nerds who are experts on certain topics. they can't recognize leaders or train them. only in the USA is this not understood. even english royalty doesnt go to oxbridge because it's of no use to them (or the oxbridge).
[/quote]

It’s an interesting quandary: what is the mission statement for a particular college?

From a pure academic perspective, I think most people would agree that someone that comes from more adverse circumstances (e.g. inner city or rural school, lower income, URM, etc.) should receive some type of advantage in the admissions process. (This is regardless of whether this is determined by an adversity score or simply looking at that student’s overall application.)

The pushback is generally coming from where that advantage is pushed to where it goes past reasonable credulity in the thinly disguised effort to create the college equivalent of a Benetton ad.

It’s perfectly reasonable to want colleges to look to more than GPA and test scores and creating classes with diverse backgrounds that aren’t just wealthy suburbanites and private school kids, while still cringing at, say, Harvard’s alleged practices of artificially giving lower personality scores to Asians (applied by the admissions office as opposed to those that actually interviewed those students, who scored Asians just as well as all other races) because they essentially don’t want their classes becoming “too Asian” if they use the criteria that they apply to students of all other races.

Let’s not kid ourselves: a large number of those kids rejected had leadership accomplishments that would have dwarfed the high school records of most of us here on this board on top of stellar grades and test scores. It’s not that coming from a disadvantaged background shouldn’t provide some type of advantage, but rather to what degree.[/quote]

it’s not a quandary at all, much less an interesting one. colleges are places where smart kids are put one the road to expertise. that’s how the rest of the world sees it. only in the USA colleges are country clubs looking for “leaders”. this is the root of all problems.

so-called disadvantaged kids don’t have the background to benefit from the level of expertise offered at the very best universities. if you struggle with algebra you don’t need a field’s medalist to teach you, In fact it’s a waste, a major misallocation of resources. again nothing new here, this is how the rest of the world sees it. only in the USA it’s ok to make billions on some stupid app but omg semi-literate kids must shepherded into the best schools because inequality![/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics