Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way this can work is to make it OPTIONAL. Plenty of people will want to report their neighborhood adversity score, and plenty won't. It is profiling and just as disclosing your race is optional and applicants have strict control over what they wish to present in their applications (even teacher recs--you can opt to see them but of course most would not), having a mark on your application which may be inaccurate and stereotyping should be something you can OPT OUT of.

The colleges don't need the college board to do this. Right now they are fully aware of the economic and racial demographics AND the average standardized test scores (SAT/ACT and state proficiency exams) AND using this to inform where they recruit and to contextualize students who apply.

They also use census tract data -- from which income, age, racial composition, voting behavior -- is all available. It not only is used for admissions, colleges use it to inform their marketing, especially at schools that give generous scholarships and are looking to create a more diverse class.

You cannot opt in or opt out of sharing your address and the name of your high school with a college you are applying to. And that's all they need to figure out what you object to.

This

I simply don't understand why any college admissions need College Board to compute some likely inaccurate and misleading scores, when they are already doing a much more comprehensive review of applicants' background.

Thought I read somewhere that a dean a state university in Florida said that this will hurt the privileged kid who is on the bubble of getting in. It sure will.

Why can't we just go back to test scores that's the whole point. Social engineering has nothing to do with education. Software code, cancer etc don't care whether it's black, white or yellow hands working to solve problems.

1. The test literally is social engineering, so if you don't want social engineering we need to get rid of the test all together.

2. We have not cured cancer because some really intelligent kid that could have cured cancer was not accepted to a college because of his inaccurate test scores. The test score showed more about his SES than his ability to learn and reason. We already know the test does not indicate ability to be successful in college.

Anonymous wrote:Why can't we just go back to test scores that's the whole point. Social engineering has nothing to do with education. Software code, cancer etc don't care whether it's black, white or yellow hands working to solve problems.

You really don't get it, do you? When our kids are being kids and playing sports, acting in plays, and just hanging out with friends, there are many other kids who have jobs (not pocket money jobs, but help support the family jobs) and worries about where they will sleep, or what they will eat, or how they will have clean clothes or weather appropriate clothes, and not just for themselves but often also for younger siblings.


This is a real disadvantage that test scores don't capture. Can kids succeed under these circumstances? ABSOLUTELY. Is it easy? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Tests don't measure potential and for these kids college is their only way out. They don't have family money to fall back on.
So if an adversity score (and I am not saying this plan is perfect) helps level the playing field just a bit, then I am all for it. I don't get the impression that these scores negate academic scores. It is just another data point to consider when they are looking at the whole person during the admission process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way this can work is to make it OPTIONAL. Plenty of people will want to report their neighborhood adversity score, and plenty won't. It is profiling and just as disclosing your race is optional and applicants have strict control over what they wish to present in their applications (even teacher recs--you can opt to see them but of course most would not), having a mark on your application which may be inaccurate and stereotyping should be something you can OPT OUT of.

It's not something you will be able to OPT-In or out of. The College Board provides it to the colleges and the colleges are free to use it or not. They've already piloted it so it's been happening already. This isn't about the individual information that kids provide - they are using publicly available data to provide more context.

Can people actually read about it to understand how it works? Might help to do this to be informed.

Do you understand what the word "Piloting" means? Are you aware that organizations/businesses are capable of responding to feedback, especially if they realize they will lose money if they share information associated with a performance score that the consumer doesn't want them to share. Yes, colleges can do their own assessments of adversity or privilege. The issue is that paired with a score of performance is a score that affects perception of that score, and is not viewable by the consumer. Dumb.

Excuse me I full well know what a pilot is. If you think you are going to escape this, then you are the one that is DUMB. Colleges have already been doing this type of data mining on their own and taking it into consideration during the admissions process. So I guess you plan to have your kids avoid college altogether.

How will this impact test takers who have special accommodations?

Anonymous wrote:So I wonder if it makes sense for education-centric families to move to poor performing school districts. Private school if possible in upper elementary and maybe middle, then HS in some 3/10 horror that gives and option to effectively take full days at the local community college, just coming back for gym and "leadership". 9th and 10th grades are hardest because, since those schools teach on a subpar level, kids will need to effectively homeschool in addition to spending wasted hours in the 3/10. However, maybe they can be "sick" a lot, like a lot.

And we'll never have to worry about our kids becoming SJW.

Please do that and let us know how it works out.

Pretty soon the only option for rich people, will be huge donations directly to the school.

Yale was in the pilot program and they have been using it for the past two years. They said it has helped them increase diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't we just go back to test scores that's the whole point. Social engineering has nothing to do with education. Software code, cancer etc don't care whether it's black, white or yellow hands working to solve problems.

Oddly, in today’s society comments like these are seen as racist.

Not racist just tone deaf and oblivious to white privilege.

Anonymous wrote:How will the scores be calculated for international students from rich Chinese families or Singapore or Korea?

They won't be. This is for US kids. International kids are a different pool and full pay.

Anonymous wrote:How will the scores be calculated for international students from rich Chinese families or Singapore or Korea?

Why don't you ask the College Board? My hunch is they won't be.

How will the scores be calculated for international students from rich Chinese families or Singapore or Korea?

First of all, this is not race-based affirmative action. Affirmative action is very much alive and well—necessary even, per the Supreme Court— and colleges use it as part of their holistic review. And affirmative action isn’t going anywhere. It’s pure fantasy to think that the Harvard lawsuits will reach the Supreme Court, let alone that the Court would use the cases as a means of abolishing race based affirmative action. Plus, by then, the Court will be 5-4 Dem, because a Dem President will probably have gotten a pick. Schools are throughly vetting candidates based on race, economic considerations, and the like already. But it’s a cumbersome process, especially at big schools. Si they’ll happily have someone else go the basic sorting for them. Conservatives should have no problem with the adversity score, as most of them have always said, we’ll, sure, I’m fine with taking economic hardships into consideration so long as race into taken into account. We’ll see if they were sincere about this or not. Having said all this, the policy is vulnerable to criticism for not being transparent. People should be able to see how their score was arrived at with an appeals process, if necessary. There’s no constitutional hook for making this argument, but Trump’s Education Department is going to be pissed.

When you get certified in pmp, network engineering, security etc why would a demographic matter