It feels wrong that the college board reports out any other number than the actual test score.
Colleges should make there own holistic judgments about individual applicants
and not outsourcing admission criteria to a third party in order to be able to hide behind a proprietary formula.

Not disclosing the new score to the students and parents seems to go against the spirit of data protection and privacy rights.
In comparison, as a consumer I have the right to see my credit score.

What's next, are we following China in assigning social credit scores as well?

When exactly does this go into effect? When does ACT put their version into effect? I’m sorry, don’t subscribe to WSJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The adversity score is on a scale of 1-100, and takes into account the following:

Neighborhood environment:
Crime rate
Poverty rate
Housing value
Vacancy rate

Family environment:
Median income
Single parent
Education level
ESL

High school environment:
Undermatching
Curricular rigor
Free lunch rate
AP opportunity

Is this for the school address or the student's address? I'm thinking about Wilson for example; it's in a wealthy part of town but serves a lot of economically disadvantaged students.

The index will measure both the home and school addresses.

So much for parents sacrificing to move into a nice, safe neighborhood with a good neighborhood school. When you can spend half the price and buy in a crappy school system and get your kid into any school they want.

This idea is half baked.

This was not well though through.

Let's all move to the worst part of Baltimore, and have 2-3 extra children in case some are murdered.

Good news is, the survivors can go straight to Harvard!!

This idea is so f#cked.

Only in America.

Imagine... no segregation. just imagine

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it is based not on the student as an individual, but the area. Therefore, if wealthy, highly-educated families moved into bad neighborhoods, they could increase the chances of their child getting into an elite college?

Well, kind of. If families move to economically segregated neighborhoods, those neighborhoods will become less economically segregated and therefore the "boost" that a child might receive is lowered.

Just a reminder that the actual SCORE will not change. There will just be additional context on the report.

So, if your well-prepared child who is able to prepare for the SATs with no distractions, and to arrive on test day with a good night's rest and a fully stomach, gets a 1590, that score will be reported just as such.

There will also be a "context score" that may or may not make a difference to admissions, depending on the university's own policies.

This could further gentrification is urban/ close-in areas.

Anonymous wrote:So it is based not on the student as an individual, but the area. Therefore, if wealthy, highly-educated families moved into bad neighborhoods, they could increase the chances of their child getting into an elite college?

only if...

You know this is true now right?

Aside from people’s (understandable) desire to have the most opportunity available to their kids, I think a lot of disagreement on measures like these stems from disagreement about what the purposes of college admission are. Is admission a reward for the best academic performance in high school? Is admission a vehicle for finding the people who will achieve success later in life with the college’s help? Is admission a way to identify people who will become leaders in their communities and train them? Is admission a way to curate a community of students with diverse interests and backgrounds?

These purposes differ by college and often colleges are considering a mix of the above. There is often frustration from students and their parents where they see students with lower stats admitted to a college. But that views college admission as only serving the first purpose. And even then, academic achievement should—in the views of many—be assessed in context, including the resources a student had available to them and the obstacles they faced in achieving success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The adversity score is on a scale of 1-100, and takes into account the following:

Neighborhood environment:
Crime rate
Poverty rate
Housing value
Vacancy rate

Family environment:
Median income
Single parent
Education level
ESL

High school environment:
Undermatching
Curricular rigor
Free lunch rate
AP opportunity

Is this for the school address or the student's address? I'm thinking about Wilson for example; it's in a wealthy part of town but serves a lot of economically disadvantaged students.

The index will measure both the home and school addresses.

So much for parents sacrificing to move into a nice, safe neighborhood with a good neighborhood school. When you can spend half the price and buy in a crappy school system and get your kid into any school they want.

This idea is half baked.

This was not well though through.

Let's all move to the worst part of Baltimore, and have 2-3 extra children in case some are murdered.

Good news is, the survivors can go straight to Harvard!!

This idea is so f#cked.

Only in America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it is based not on the student as an individual, but the area. Therefore, if wealthy, highly-educated families moved into bad neighborhoods, they could increase the chances of their child getting into an elite college?

Seems like a possibility, but they do ask for parents education so that could reduce score but by how much is a mystery.

CB asks number of survey questions that are optional. I believe this is among them.

Anonymous wrote:So it is based not on the student as an individual, but the area. Therefore, if wealthy, highly-educated families moved into bad neighborhoods, they could increase the chances of their child getting into an elite college?

Well, kind of. If families move to economically segregated neighborhoods, those neighborhoods will become less economically segregated and therefore the "boost" that a child might receive is lowered.

Just a reminder that the actual SCORE will not change. There will just be additional context on the report.

So, if your well-prepared child who is able to prepare for the SATs with no distractions, and to arrive on test day with a good night's rest and a fully stomach, gets a 1590, that score will be reported just as such.

There will also be a "context score" that may or may not make a difference to admissions, depending on the university's own policies.

This ... THIS ... will be the end of college admissions as we know it. Not good or bad, just new. I will just have my kids do their best, follow interests and there will be a college for them. Everyone will need to reset their already ridiculous expectations that all kids go to Highly Selective Universities.

You can’t put a number on someone’s adversity.

That’s why people are so frustrated.

My mother was mentally ill and abusive my entire childhood. It was adversity, but I could never include it on an application.

I am not white.

Anonymous wrote:So it is based not on the student as an individual, but the area. Therefore, if wealthy, highly-educated families moved into bad neighborhoods, they could increase the chances of their child getting into an elite college?

Seems like a possibility, but they do ask for parents education so that could reduce score but by how much is a mystery.

Speechless.. Lived in an area where the school is rated a 1 today and that's with improvement. My mom scrounged to send me to private school. So would those two things have cancelled each other out? I never saw her and we had to scrimp and save to put me in a better school, would that qualify for neglect? The event that had the greatest impact was that I had been molested so I was bulemic all through high school. Throwing up took more time than studying.. But I've been reading about all the prep schools kids who were also molested. At least we didn't have to pay for it. Fact is, there are many things beyond your address, school, and privileges which are immeasurable. Is being molested going to be a checklist item? That should negate any positives in one's life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Plus, PP, those are great suggestions, thank you. Khan academy SAT Prep does pretty much what you are suggesting, I believe. And it's free. So that is already leveling the playing field as far as test prep.

It’s more than the actual prep course. Does the child have access to a device to take the Khan course? Does he or she have Internet at home? Or does the child have to go the library to use the Internet? Does the child have a way to get to the library? Does he or she have parents in the house to supervise nightly prep, or do the parents work at night? Does the child work at night? Do the parents know the importance of test prep, and encourage it?

In NOVA they do. Arlington gives out iPads. FCPS is expanding its pilot and every Mass and HS kid gets a laptop next year. Which they can certainly use to Kahn Academy at school or the library— or anywhere with internet.

Plus, I have heard (but don’t know first hand) that FARMS families in NoVA with kids in school can get free internet.

And do the counties also pass out surrogate parents to make sure the kids are doing their test prep? Or provide cash subsidies to replace kids getting after school jobs, so they have time to do test prep?

So it is based not on the student as an individual, but the area. Therefore, if wealthy, highly-educated families moved into bad neighborhoods, they could increase the chances of their child getting into an elite college?