Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Easy - students who are low performing are given a "adversity score" and their low performance will be blamed on these adversity factors. While in reality, the student is not prepared for college, may not even WANT a college education, and would be better off learning a trade.

You have it backwards. Most lower income kids WANT a college education, it's the overindulged upper income kids like Olivia Jade who don't WANT a college education because they know they will be fine without it because of mommy and daddy's money/contacts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Easy - students who are low performing are given a "adversity score" and their low performance will be blamed on these adversity factors. While in reality, the student is not prepared for college, may not even WANT a college education, and would be better off learning a trade.

Not true. I live in a state that has "tuition free" education at community colleges for the first two years. There are far too many students who attend, not because they want to go to college, but because their parents insist on it. Their academic work ethic and their readiness for academic rigor is just not there. Most end up dropping out during or after the first year.


You have it backwards. Most lower income kids WANT a college education, it's the overindulged upper income kids like Olivia Jade who don't WANT a college education because they know they will be fine without it because of mommy and daddy's money/contacts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can not believe how many of you affluent advantaged people are now online rallying against this. Have you no shame? As you no empathy? Have you no understanding? This is not designed to hurt your kids, but to help other kids.

Because it dumbs down our colleges and our country.

No it helps identify talent that we've been ignoring. We've been accepting mediocre students who scam their way in to school for decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can not believe how many of you affluent advantaged people are now online rallying against this. Have you no shame? As you no empathy? Have you no understanding? This is not designed to hurt your kids, but to help other kids.

Because it dumbs down our colleges and our country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can not believe how many of you affluent advantaged people are now online rallying against this. Have you no shame? As you no empathy? Have you no understanding? This is not designed to hurt your kids, but to help other kids.

Because it dumbs down our colleges and our country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Easy - students who are low performing are given a "adversity score" and their low performance will be blamed on these adversity factors. While in reality, the student is not prepared for college, may not even WANT a college education, and would be better off learning a trade.

Anonymous wrote:I can not believe how many of you affluent advantaged people are now online rallying against this. Have you no shame? As you no empathy? Have you no understanding? This is not designed to hurt your kids, but to help other kids.

Anonymous wrote:The college racket is reaching peak absurdity.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.