Anonymous wrote:I’ve been hearing parents in affluent schools say on here for years basically “I got mine and screw you.” Well, my family is educated and loves our kids and nonetheless lives on the wrong side of town and sends our kids to an average school with plenty of poor kids.

So, with this new adversity score, I say... “I got mine and screw you.”

Well, what counts as "average" for the adversity index? In FCPS, there are school pyramids and neighborhoods that many consider "average" or below average, but would SAT consider the neighborhood addresses "adverse" if the homes cost $500K+? Are you really going to get a boost from this just b/c your kid goes to a school with 35% FARMS, but you (and your child) live in the not-poor part of the school boundary?

I'm thinking about kids who go to West Potomac or Edison or South Lakes or Herndon -- yeah, the schools are not coveted by many, and the schools are diverse, but then you could be one of the people who live in $400K-$1mil. homes that feed into those schools. So, how do they figure the "adversity score"?

I obviously haven’t read all 40 pages but I’m kind of a cynic of this. This will essentially make need blind schools no longer need blind, right?

I’ve been hearing parents in affluent schools say on here for years basically “I got mine and screw you.” Well, my family is educated and loves our kids and nonetheless lives on the wrong side of town and sends our kids to an average school with plenty of poor kids.

So, with this new adversity score, I say... “I got mine and screw you.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an attempt for the College Board to remain relevant as a huge money maker.

As schools go SAT optional (example, JMU) because the test is inherently unfair and zero predictor of college success, they have to figure out how a way to remain relevant and keep their foothold as a huge moneymaker.

They make TONS of money by Selling student’s information that first take the PSAT. If SAT becomes completely unnecessary, they will lose this revenue stream.

Tell you what, let in a bunch of kids with 700/1600 SAT scores and good grades to MIT and see what happens.

OMG Wendy. that is not what is happening.

If it's a zero predictor, why not do this? Wouldn't make a difference right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single mom to a white boy here; English is not my first language, so I guess some bases are covered.
Now, when do I need to move to a bad school district?
As for poor disadvantaged kids, I feel for them but my ultimate responsibility is towards my own kid (and I wish their parents felt the same).

You can afford to live in a good school district. I'm pretty sure most poor families would exchange the adversity score for a good school. Also, the families do feel ultimate responsibility for their kids, it's just a harder hurdle for them because of systemic societal biases against their kids. The adversity score is race blind and helps people of lower SES, regardless of race. For a Christian society, there is a lot of whining about helping those less fortunate. The adversity score puts the actual scores in context. It doesn't add points to the actual score. Colleges still see the actual score.

Actually, families in poor neighborhoods hav a much better shot at schools. Consider the highly coveted VA state colleges - only so many applicants are accepted from the wealthy districts. It is so much easier to get in from a poor district. I thought this was well known?

Anonymous wrote:how is going to check whether the student lives at that address?

They will ask DCPS.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

how is going to check whether the student lives at that address?

Anonymous wrote:It's just one more way for people who game the system...to game the system. You could have a really, really rich person go to Wilson HS in DC and get "adversity points" and have someone from the ghetto go to Holton Arms and not get the points. Ridiculous.

The poor person will get points for their home address and should not get points if they are at Holton.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not buying it. I know people will game the system. If the idea is to get more poor kids into college..then people should have to show their tax returns like they do to get FAS.

That is not the point... so.

I'm not buying it. I know people will game the system. If the idea is to get more poor kids into college..then people should have to show their tax returns like they do to get FAS.

Anonymous wrote:It's just one more way for people who game the system...to game the system. You could have a really, really rich person go to Wilson HS in DC and get "adversity points" and have someone from the ghetto go to Holton Arms and not get the points. Ridiculous.

Not really. Because the census tract their home address is in will counter the school demographics. It is no longer a Title 1 school and less than 25% are economically disadvantaged. At the economically disadvantaged percentage is tumbling.

Now if a relatively wealthy kid lives in a non-gentrified neighborhood, and graduated from Banneker or Ballou high school, they will get some adversity points. As they probably should.

It's just one more way for people who game the system...to game the system. You could have a really, really rich person go to Wilson HS in DC and get "adversity points" and have someone from the ghetto go to Holton Arms and not get the points. Ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:Single mom to a white boy here; English is not my first language, so I guess some bases are covered.
Now, when do I need to move to a bad school district?
As for poor disadvantaged kids, I feel for them but my ultimate responsibility is towards my own kid (and I wish their parents felt the same).

Move now while you can afford the price of housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an attempt for the College Board to remain relevant as a huge money maker.

As schools go SAT optional (example, JMU) because the test is inherently unfair and zero predictor of college success, they have to figure out how a way to remain relevant and keep their foothold as a huge moneymaker.

They make TONS of money by Selling student’s information that first take the PSAT. If SAT becomes completely unnecessary, they will lose this revenue stream.

Tell you what, let in a bunch of kids with 700/1600 SAT scores and good grades to MIT and see what happens.

OMG Wendy. that is not what is happening.

Anonymous wrote:Single mom to a white boy here; English is not my first language, so I guess some bases are covered.
Now, when do I need to move to a bad school district?
As for poor disadvantaged kids, I feel for them but my ultimate responsibility is towards my own kid (and I wish their parents felt the same).

You can afford to live in a good school district. I'm pretty sure most poor families would exchange the adversity score for a good school. Also, the families do feel ultimate responsibility for their kids, it's just a harder hurdle for them because of systemic societal biases against their kids. The adversity score is race blind and helps people of lower SES, regardless of race. For a Christian society, there is a lot of whining about helping those less fortunate. The adversity score puts the actual scores in context. It doesn't add points to the actual score. Colleges still see the actual score.