Singer also allegedly advised certain parents to list their kid-applicants as members of an underrepresented minority group. Not doing so, it was allegedly indicated, would put them at a competitive disadvantage. So I’m glad to see that the adversity index doesn’t take race into account.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the guarantee that this won't be used to devalue SAT scores for students with low adversity index? College Board doesn't address this in any of their communications that I've seen. David Coleman was interviewed on a network news program and he sounded really nervous and said nothing of substance because he knows it's bogus.

No mystery here: some marginal applicants of privilege ain’t getting in. FSU dean said as much.

that's been the case for decades

marginal URM have no business going to many of these schools. Hopefully they will get weeded out

No it hadn't been the case for decades. My boyfriend in college and all his friends were total slackers who got Cs and some Ds. All of them white upper middle class. They also all ended up with excellent jobs due to connections. This adversity score is a counterbalance to the benefits UMC kids receive. Now you know how URMs who have no control over their race and were systematically excluded felt. There are studies that show that equally qualified black men are still less likely to be hired then their white counterparts. The next time you judge an individual of color based on overall stereotypes rather than giving them the initial benefit of the doubt as an individual, think about how you feel when your kids are being "unfairly" impacted by things entirely out of their control.

Anonymous wrote:What about school ratings system? What if that would be away with?

What would this board do with its collective self? Talk only about diets and cheating spouses?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many posters suggesting that this is a bad thing for affluent families? It isn’t. It merely levels the playing field. It’s not a zero-sum game.

It doesn’t level the playing field, it creates two very different playing fields. And we must not have the same definition definition of zero sum game.

There are apparently acceptable reasons for scoring lower, and unacceptable reasons. It doesn’t change the fact that those with lower scores don’t perform as well. We can spend all day identifying the reasons, but it doesn’t miraculously make a better student.

But hey, this is America. High expectations are a thing of the past.

no good college is letting kids in with low scores. They have to choose between Becky from N. Virginia who got a 1600 with all the advantages of middle class life and James from SE DC who got a a 1500 while having to take care of his sister while him mom is on and off booze and had to avoid neighborhood gangs who wanted to recruit him. Who would you want? I'd want the resilient kid whose did well in the face of adversary and may have interesting perspectives to share with his more affluent peers. Nobody's getting in with 900s.

Guessing you’d want “Becky from N. Virginia” to be accepted too, if you were her parents, no?

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-score-to-capture-social-and-economic-background-11557999000

Wonder how they'll define adversity.

It is hard for me to support it as a "donut hole" parent, but I do recognize that this is appropriate direction given how prep classes routinely up SAT scores by 200-300 points.

Thoughts?

I'd love to find the prep class that ups the scores 2-300 points

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many posters suggesting that this is a bad thing for affluent families? It isn’t. It merely levels the playing field. It’s not a zero-sum game.

It doesn’t level the playing field, it creates two very different playing fields. And we must not have the same definition definition of zero sum game.

There are apparently acceptable reasons for scoring lower, and unacceptable reasons. It doesn’t change the fact that those with lower scores don’t perform as well. We can spend all day identifying the reasons, but it doesn’t miraculously make a better student.

But hey, this is America. High expectations are a thing of the past.

no good college is letting kids in with low scores. They have to choose between Becky from N. Virginia who got a 1600 with all the advantages of middle class life and James from SE DC who got a a 1500 while having to take care of his sister while him mom is on and off booze and had to avoid neighborhood gangs who wanted to recruit him. Who would you want? I'd want the resilient kid whose did well in the face of adversary and may have interesting perspectives to share with his more affluent peers. Nobody's getting in with 900s.

+1000

A higher SAT score is meaningless when it comes to being successful and becoming a leader in your community.

Just like high IQ. There is a range and within that range most kids perform the same.

Also... often the highest score brings a diminishing rate of return. Highest IQ people often perform lower that those in the “sweet spot”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many posters suggesting that this is a bad thing for affluent families? It isn’t. It merely levels the playing field. It’s not a zero-sum game.

It doesn’t level the playing field, it creates two very different playing fields. And we must not have the same definition definition of zero sum game.

There are apparently acceptable reasons for scoring lower, and unacceptable reasons. It doesn’t change the fact that those with lower scores don’t perform as well. We can spend all day identifying the reasons, but it doesn’t miraculously make a better student.

But hey, this is America. High expectations are a thing of the past.

no good college is letting kids in with low scores. They have to choose between Becky from N. Virginia who got a 1600 with all the advantages of middle class life and James from SE DC who got a a 1500 while having to take care of his sister while him mom is on and off booze and had to avoid neighborhood gangs who wanted to recruit him. Who would you want? I'd want the resilient kid whose did well in the face of adversary and may have interesting perspectives to share with his more affluent peers. Nobody's getting in with 900s.

What about school ratings system? What if that would be away with?

PP racist, it is rich marginal white people who are most likely to be weeded out by the new score. Maybe you should haven weeded out since you have poor analysis and reasoning?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the guarantee that this won't be used to devalue SAT scores for students with low adversity index? College Board doesn't address this in any of their communications that I've seen. David Coleman was interviewed on a network news program and he sounded really nervous and said nothing of substance because he knows it's bogus.

No mystery here: some marginal applicants of privilege ain’t getting in. FSU dean said as much.

that's been the case for decades

marginal URM have no business going to many of these schools. Hopefully they will get weeded out

Anonymous wrote:Where is the guarantee that this won't be used to devalue SAT scores for students with low adversity index? College Board doesn't address this in any of their communications that I've seen. David Coleman was interviewed on a network news program and he sounded really nervous and said nothing of substance because he knows it's bogus.

No mystery here: some marginal applicants of privilege ain’t getting in. FSU dean said as much.

Where is the guarantee that this won't be used to devalue SAT scores for students with low adversity index? College Board doesn't address this in any of their communications that I've seen. David Coleman was interviewed on a network news program and he sounded really nervous and said nothing of substance because he knows it's bogus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't they just limit the amount of times you can take the SAT to once. Everybody takes it once, at the end of junior year. That would solve a lot of these issues.

+ 1
One shot and you are done!

Most med school limit the retake effect by averaging all your MCATs.

I like this idea. But you’d just get people taking a lot of practice tests ahead of time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't they just limit the amount of times you can take the SAT to once. Everybody takes it once, at the end of junior year. That would solve a lot of these issues.

+ 1
One shot and you are done!

What would that solve? The same kids will still be able to afford test prep tutors and will just make sure they do all the tutoring ahead of one the test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't they just limit the amount of times you can take the SAT to once. Everybody takes it once, at the end of junior year. That would solve a lot of these issues.

+ 1
One shot and you are done!

Most med school limit the retake effect by averaging all your MCATs.