Anonymous wrote:I believe this is a move that is well-intentioned but will end badly.

The intent is to identify those students who may not perform as well as others on standardized type testing or who don't have the highest grades but have great potential for success.

The outcome will be excluding students who have "adversity" that is not accounted for by those giving the score. It will also encourage others to cheat to claim adversity (lying about living address, for example). And, it will end in schools being encouraged to accept students who do not have the academic background nor the stamina to be successful at college.

And, the ultimate losers here are those students who work really hard and are from middle class, stable families.

Explain this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college racket is reaching peak absurdity.

Yes, the college scam is reaching absurdity. The fact that well-to-do families game the system by paying for tutors and for travel sports to get their kids an edge, and that colleges fall for it, is absurd. Travel teams are in the thousands of dollars. Most college recruiting (other than football) focuses on travel teams, not the school teams. Most of the kids I know started their sport at a young age on teams their parents paid for. My DC attends a school where I can see the difference between the kids with and without financial resources. The ability to pay for tutors when your kids need it is s huge advantage. It's not just SAT tutors that count. The math tutors or reading tutors in ES and MS make a huge difference. Having college educated parents who can help with academics is a huge advantage. I think parents paying for tutors is a great thing, but I also think that taking that fact that some kids didn't have that benefit into account is also a good thing.

Yes and colleges already do this. The data CB is providing is a proxy for adversity which may be wholly inaccurate for individual cases. And applicants won't be able to see their mystery number.

I believe this is a move that is well-intentioned but will end badly.

The intent is to identify those students who may not perform as well as others on standardized type testing or who don't have the highest grades but have great potential for success.

The outcome will be excluding students who have "adversity" that is not accounted for by those giving the score. It will also encourage others to cheat to claim adversity (lying about living address, for example). And, it will end in schools being encouraged to accept students who do not have the academic background nor the stamina to be successful at college.

And, the ultimate losers here are those students who work really hard and are from middle class, stable families.

^above is responding to $130K HHI poster in affluent area 4 posts up.

Anonymous wrote:The college racket is reaching peak absurdity.

Yes, the college scam is reaching absurdity. The fact that well-to-do families game the system by paying for tutors and for travel sports to get their kids an edge, and that colleges fall for it, is absurd. Travel teams are in the thousands of dollars. Most college recruiting (other than football) focuses on travel teams, not the school teams. Most of the kids I know started their sport at a young age on teams their parents paid for. My DC attends a school where I can see the difference between the kids with and without financial resources. The ability to pay for tutors when your kids need it is s huge advantage. It's not just SAT tutors that count. The math tutors or reading tutors in ES and MS make a huge difference. Having college educated parents who can help with academics is a huge advantage. I think parents paying for tutors is a great thing, but I also think that taking that fact that some kids didn't have that benefit into account is also a good thing.

Except they're looking at average neighborhood income, not your HHI. Which is part of the problem because it attributes higher income to your family.

Aggregate group level data is not supposed to be used for individual decision making but David Coleman is too stupid to know that. Universities are already doing a way better job of this with factual data about each individual applicant.

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption the kids with higher adversity scores can’t handle the rigor?

The adversity score isn’t added to the test score. So if two kids have the exact same score and Tommy has an adversity score of 20, and Billy has an adversity score of 80, why are we assuming Billy won’t do well or graduate, but Tommy will?

If anything, I would saw it’s the opposite: Tommy was likely tutored and prepped, coached and piloted by his two UMC family, and will crack once he expected to perform on his own. Billy likely had few of those resources and has been performing on his own for quite some time.

**two parents

Why is the assumption the kids with higher adversity scores can’t handle the rigor?

The adversity score isn’t added to the test score. So if two kids have the exact same score and Tommy has an adversity score of 20, and Billy has an adversity score of 80, why are we assuming Billy won’t do well or graduate, but Tommy will?

If anything, I would saw it’s the opposite: Tommy was likely tutored and prepped, coached and piloted by his two UMC family, and will crack once he expected to perform on his own. Billy likely had few of those resources and has been performing on his own for quite some time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ho boy. If you ever wanted to incentivize the appearance of disadvantage, here it is. Watch as parents rush to their department store DNA tests to claim "ancestry" in faraway lands in order to claim allegiance to some oppressed minority. Watch social failings like single-parent households, high crime rates, divorce and abuse become marketable assets. This is disgusting.

Oh, why didn't I get pregnant in my teens and live in that crime ridden neighborhood?

Too bad they didn't add refugee and immigrant status as well - it takes a lot to do well in a new country and new culture especially if relatively recent

This country is bizarre. We are not trying to keep anyone from getting a college education. But, please people, what country takes its most elite educational opportunities (where you should be expected to be advanced in both intellect AND preparation in order to take advantage of the resources), and doles out access based on fairness or population group? Why should we take opportunities paid for and developed through the resources of our country and give them to people just because they specifically don't come from our country?

Our country was not built on equality. Anyone who believes this is a fool. Our country is about capitalism and money. We fail at the capitalist game if we dont ensure our citizens are well educated and able to work and produce.

As you can see we no longer want to take in immigrants and at the same time we have some of the most advantaged people in our country scamming the college process - so yeah here we are. Do people not get what all of this is really about? It's all wrapped up in fuzzy language but it is not about doing the right thing.

I'm not for or against the adversity score. My kid is at a school that was part if the pilot so it worked out. However I'm always shocked at how people are so unsophisticated in understanding complex social problems.

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't see the problem with this. If I understand it correctly, the adversity adjustment is not going to take anything away from anyone, but simply bump up those in disadvantaged circumstances. I think this country is so screwed up in terms of the haves and the have nots. So many outside of our bubble don't have access to tutors, enrichment, stability, etc. We are very well off and both my kids get tutors when needed. My kid is going to a top 20 school and that's because he scored very high on the ACT and we were able to pay for all sorts of enrichment in his high school career. This is SO not typical in other parts of the country, and these kids should have some sort of an opportunity to break out of that cycle.

The people upset about this are probably the same ones who think that learning disabled kids should not get extra time or that everyone should get extra time. It is just amazing how selfish and heartless people can be.

I feel blessed that my kid will have an amazing college experience, but even if he didn't get into his first choice, he would have been FINE!! That would probably not be the case with these kids with the high adversity scores.

And if you really have a problem with it, just prep for the ACT. It's not like you don't have choices.

By bumping some people up, other people by default are going to be bumped down. And the reason people are upset is because the college board has no way of knowing who has faced adversity in their lives and who hasn't. Simply living in a lower income zip code or even being lower income does not necessarily mean that one is disadvantaged disproportionately. An example would be my own family. We have a HHI of $130,000 which is not low income but is lower than the majority of families that my kids go to school with, because we made the decision that I should stay at home. Our lower HHI should be a disadvantage and in some ways it is. However, we are laser focused about education and enriching our kids (which is why I stayed home in the first place) I would say our family is more education focused than the majority of other families who live near us that have higher incomes. And my kids are pretty much the top students at their school. But the College Board would only see a lower HHI and assume that my kids are actually disadvantaged as compared to the families that make more.

Like many others, I’m not sure something as complex as “adversity” can be summed up in a single number. Some of the articles have had admission officers saying the same thing—that the point of the application is to get all of the relevant information about the student in order to understand the potential obstacles the student had.
However, if this train has already left the station...
Any school that uses the “adversity” score should be required to crunch some numbers and make them public.
-% of kids at each adversity level that were admitted
-Retention rates of students broken out by their adversity scores
-Etc.

Anonymous wrote:If, say, Yale cared so much about this, why not just take an entire class that scored high in the adversity scale?

Because they want full pay as well. This will really hurt middle class families who aren't full pay, but are not from the desired low income target group.

Anonymous wrote:So this system will make it harder for stable, education focused families to send their kids to desired schools.... I’m sure this will do wonders for national unity.

It should not be lost on any one that the outcome of this sets up a disparate impact challenge on day 1.

Exactly.

I actually don't see the problem with this. If I understand it correctly, the adversity adjustment is not going to take anything away from anyone, but simply bump up those in disadvantaged circumstances. I think this country is so screwed up in terms of the haves and the have nots. So many outside of our bubble don't have access to tutors, enrichment, stability, etc. We are very well off and both my kids get tutors when needed. My kid is going to a top 20 school and that's because he scored very high on the ACT and we were able to pay for all sorts of enrichment in his high school career. This is SO not typical in other parts of the country, and these kids should have some sort of an opportunity to break out of that cycle.

The people upset about this are probably the same ones who think that learning disabled kids should not get extra time or that everyone should get extra time. It is just amazing how selfish and heartless people can be.

I feel blessed that my kid will have an amazing college experience, but even if he didn't get into his first choice, he would have been FINE!! That would probably not be the case with these kids with the high adversity scores.

And if you really have a problem with it, just prep for the ACT. It's not like you don't have choices.

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution: Parents let colleges know your kid won't be applying there if they use the College Board adversity score....There go their acceptance rates.

Colleges already factor in some measures of adversity, even subjectively, but I'd rather that than a creepy/problematic nationalized adversity score (let's face it, CB is essentially a monopoly on education.) Or maybe there is a way to request they don't use it on your application. Imagine on the short response "Is there anything else you'd like to tell us that isn't reflected in your application?" "I think my adversity score is all wrong....wait, I don't actually know what it is...but it's not fair."

Ok. You go first.