SAT To Add 'Adversity Score' That Rates Students' Hardships (cbsnews.com) 444
The SAT, the college entrance test taken by about two million students a year, is adding an "adversity score" to the test results (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) that is intended to help admissions officers account for factors like educational or socioeconomic disadvantage that may depress students' scores, the College Board, the company that administers the test, said Thursday. The New York Times reports: Colleges have long been concerned with scoring patterns on the SAT that seem unfavorable to certain socioeconomic groups: Higher scores have been found to correlate with students coming from a higher-income families and having better-educated parents. David Coleman, chief executive of the College Board, has described a trial version of the tool, which has been field-tested by 50 colleges, in recent interviews. The plan to roll it out officially, to 150 schools this year and more broadly in 2020, was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
The adversity score would be a number between 1 and 100, with an average student receiving a 50. It would be calculated using 15 factors, like the relative quality of the student's high school and the crime rate and poverty level of the student's home neighborhood. The score would not be reported to the student, only to college officials. "We've got to admit the truth, that wealth inequality has progressed to such a degree that it isn't fair to look at test scores alone," Mr. Coleman recently told The Associated Press. "You must look at them in context of the adversity students face." The new tool could potentially give colleges a way of doing that. But at the same time, it could invite a backlash from more affluent families and from students who do well on the test and worry that their adversity score will put them at a disadvantage.
The adversity score would be a number between 1 and 100, with an average student receiving a 50. It would be calculated using 15 factors, like the relative quality of the student's high school and the crime rate and poverty level of the student's home neighborhood. The score would not be reported to the student, only to college officials. "We've got to admit the truth, that wealth inequality has progressed to such a degree that it isn't fair to look at test scores alone," Mr. Coleman recently told The Associated Press. "You must look at them in context of the adversity students face." The new tool could potentially give colleges a way of doing that. But at the same time, it could invite a backlash from more affluent families and from students who do well on the test and worry that their adversity score will put them at a disadvantage.
Before anyone asks (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm kinda OK with this. I just put a kid into college from high school. If I'd had more money she could have done much better on her SATs. I could have afforded tutors. Plus being really broke (she hit high school just after the 2008 crash) I couldn't even afford many extra curricular activities (and her health problems meant sports wasn't happening). I kind of expected between the poverty and the health problems that there'd be some help, but I found out damn quick there wasn't after applying for a couple hundred scholarships and getting turned down because her SAT scores were just a tad above average and no sports...
Also, rich parents have been getting their kids an ADHD diagnosis so they can get a disability waiver and take the SAT over several days. I'm under no illusion I can strip the wealthy of their unearned advantages easily, so this sounds like a step in the right direction. I doubt they're gonna send their kids to crap schools in a war zone neighborhood just to have a 10% increase in the odds of getting admitted...
Re:Before anyone asks (Score:5, Insightful)
no, they're not using skin color or race. It's economic demographics only.
Right, no correlation there. Giving an advantage to kids whose families don't speak English also is totally not about race, they might be Welsh.
Bad argument (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
no, they're not using skin color or race. It's economic demographics only.
I suspect areas with high adversity scores are places like Harlem and Watts.
Re: Before anyone asks (Score:2)
If had more money, she could have been granted a water polo scholarship...
So the A student from the top high school gets bumped for a B student from a shit high school, there's no basis to assume the B student can perform at the level required to succeed at the school their adversity score qualified them for...
Why can't colleges and universities be meritocracies?
Why can't we focus on improving the lousy schools rather than rate students on a curve based on their neighborhood?
Re: Before anyone asks (Score:5, Informative)
Why can't colleges and universities be meritocracies?
Because it is all about feelings.
Reality has no place in an American university.
Re:Before anyone asks (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'd had more money she could have done much better on her SATs
If I'd had been born taller, I would be a much better basketball player. Should short people in the NBA get to make 5 pointers?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a sample of one. It might seem like you're helping, but when the answer is already known, you're not really helping.
Scientist: "We studied thousands of men, and the biggest dicks belong to the more agreeable members of the population".
You: "He's right, you know".
We're past that. Better to reinforce the sentiment than point out how you fit the mold. Read it from the top again.
Re: Combined score - 822 (Score:5, Insightful)
He learned study habits, developed focus and discipline and appreciated the opportunity he had.
You learn more in the military than how to kill people and break things.
There's a reason beyond 'good PR' why companies like hiring veterans.
So close, yet so far (Score:2)
The results should be shared with lawmakers and the Department of Education. You aren't going to fix the problem by (implicitly) encouraging colleges to accept poorly-educated students, whether or not the poor education is the student's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
The results should be shared with lawmakers and the Department of Education.
You're being a little "idealistic" with this thought. The DoE doesn't care about these issues and the lawmakers that do are on the wrong side of the aisle to get anything of any use passed through both houses, let alone signed by The Donald...
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not being idealistic. I know full well that if politicians wanted to fix the root problem(s), they would have done so already. Or, at least addressed them. My point is only that not addressing the root problem, and instead focusing on a consequence (the ability to be accepted into a college or university) will not be beneficial. One could argue that it will in fact be detrimental, but denying a capable student higher education in favor of someone who is unlikely to succeed.
Re: They still have to make the grade (Score:4, Interesting)
Liz Warren made $400K/yr teaching one or two classes at Harvard, Abe's not my 'go to' person for making college affordable.
When the gov't pays the tuition (with your tax dollars) they get to pick which voting block gets admitted to 'goose' their reelection numbers.
I don't think people understand that when they get gov't to pay the bill, gov't gets to choose who goes to college and where.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Liz Warren made $400K/yr teaching one or two classes at Harvard
No problem here... (Score:4, Insightful)
"So, Mister Vanderbilt, I see your home address is listed as 1234 Crappytown Drive, in the middle of the highest-crime, lowest-income area of the city. But you went to a private high school?"
"Yes, my parents scrimped and saved. A lot."
"Well, we're going to give you an extra twenty points on your hardship score."
"Thanks!"
(Leaves, climbs into Daddy's limo, and goes to his mansion, on the other side of town from the unoccupied $300 apartment his parents rented to be his official address for the SAT.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Thank you for your interest in Our School With A Massive Endowment and Generous Financial Aid, Mr. Smith. I see you have excellent SAT scores, but the average income in your town is too rich for our blood, so we'll take a pass. You can try your luck at the flagship state school. They
Re: (Score:2)
No referees were bribed. Just the coaches.
All Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Equal opportunity is my motto.
Not equal outcomes, equal opportunities. Everyone has the same chance to prove their worth on their own merits. Wahhh! Cry me a river, there's crime in your neighborhood? Should be a motivator to do even better than the rich kids with nice, easy lives. You don't score as high as them? That's on you. But you had the same opportunity as they did.
Fucking commie horseshit. As usual.
Re:All Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, some disagree.
By "some", lets label them correctly. Racists. Racists disagree with merit.
So what makes up the score (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, this works for me, no chance this could get misused
Is it just another way to enforce/sell admission and meet Quotas for the politically correct body of students.
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no more standardized (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of mixed opinions on it (it's virtually guaranteed to be abused by some to deny entry to otherwise qualified students). But the treasure trove of statistical information which would be produced by having multi-year correlative data between test scores and economic background tips me over to supporting it.
The main problem I see with it is that their method of scoring adver
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of mixed opinions on it (it's virtually guaranteed to be abused by some to deny entry to otherwise qualified students). But the treasure trove of statistical information which would be produced by having multi-year correlative data between test scores and economic background tips me over to supporting it.
A treasure trove of nonsense invented by students putting down whatever they feel will most work to their advantage.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not an adjustment, it's an additional data point provided along with the test results. You use it as additional information to compare two students who got similar scores.
Colleges will probably accept the best students right away without looking at the extra score. Then when they start filling the remaining spots, they'll be looking at a lot of students with good scores but not great scores that look similar. At that point, the students who went to college prep schools in rich neighborhoods have probab
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand what you wrote?
There are already far too many goof-offs filling college campuses. Your proposal will make matters much worse. It will also increase the frequency of violent student protests, as bored students find more interesting ways to waste their lives.
Maybe The Wrong Way (Score:5, Interesting)
So they've reinvented redlining (Score:3)
All they've done is reinvent redlining. Courts have ruled against these kind of shenanigans time and again over the years. This will be quickly challenged in court for any number of reasons. This will get to court where it will quickly be exposed for the fraud that it is and shut down.
Re:So they've reinvented redlining (Score:5, Funny)
Really? (Score:2)
It sounds like something you 'roll for' with a twenty-sided die...
How long before parents learn to game the system to give their kid an edge?
I bet it's already started...
Re: (Score:2)
A recipe for an inevitable court battle (Score:3, Informative)
A negative score will be assigned to millions of test takers, likely to be used in college admissions, and not even revealed to them.
Re: (Score:2)
And just like that, the hidden nebulous 'adversity' score was introduced... funny timing yes?
Good Idea (Score:2)
Unlike racist admission adjustments based on skin color, something that accounts for the disadvantages of growing up poor, or in worse neighborhoods is probably very helpful in allowing schools to have truly diverse mix of students.
The only danger is admitting students who are not able to handle the workload of a given college, that is just setting them up for failure - but you can probably adjust for that by taking into account the comparative improvement in an SAT score above the average for the same leve
Points for origin (Score:2)
right & proper (Score:2)
This measure is altogether right, proper, and just. That's why it will be kept secret from the people whose lives it will impact.
This helps no one. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have experience grading college applications. (Score:4, Informative)
Hi all,
I know this whole adversity score rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I don't like it either but possibly for different reasons. I have 5 years of college application reading experience for a major public research university. The training is thorough an unbiased. The focus of the comprehensive review is to put one's numeric achievements (GPA, test scores) within the context of the opportunities they had and then suggest a score based on all of it. Here is a very simplified version.
Person 1
- 3.8 GPA
- SAT: 1340
- 3 AP classes
- Requested Major: Engineering
- High School: All four years in a high school where 45% of graduates go to 4-year university
- Had access to 20 AP classes
Person 2
- 3.8 GPA
- SAT: 1340
- 3 AP classes
- Requested Major: Engineering
- High School: Two different high schools, both of which have less than 5% of graduates go on to 4-year university
- Had access to 3 AP classes at one school and 4 at the other
All of this stuff together suggests Person 2 achieved a similar level of academic success despite having faced more adversity. If these were the only two people in consideration and the only data available on them, chances are that we would offer Person 2 admission before Person 1 because that commitment to academic success in the face of adversity is generally accepted as a signal that the person is more likely to push through the stressful experiences of a 4-year research university student and graduate.
If we had room for both people, we might offer Person 2 a less loan-heavy financial aid package.
Of course, the comprehensive review doesn't take into consideration JUST the availability of AP classes. There's also hardships related to disability, finances, violence, natural disaster, etc. as well as extracurricular commitments like jobs, charitable commitments, and clubs/organizations.
Moreover, if it's not explicitly stated as a hardship (such as in the application essay(s)), we don't consider it as such. If a Latina lesbian refugee with one leg had to escape El Salvador alone at the age of 7 due to persecution for her Buddhist religion, we don't consider that unless she says it made her life hard and affected her studies. No one says, "Oh, a brown person? PLUS TWO POINTS."
The entire process of selecting students to fill limited seats is very, very complex. Tack on the burden of being expected to correct hundreds of years of systemic financial and social disenfranchisement in every damn action you take and suddenly college admissions becomes a veritable mine field.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just another step towards Idiocracy.
You are going to have morons graduating. It already is happening at Berkeley as "students of color" demand a pass on finals because they are Triggered.
Fuck them all, the stupid pieces of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
When you compare the times of two people running a 10K, and one of them was 10 seconds slower but ran without shoes or breakfast, that's notable information and you can draw some pretty interesting conclusions as far as their potential performance on a level playing field. Skin color in and of itself? Not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
When you compare the times of two people running a 10K, and one of them was 10 seconds slower but ran without shoes or breakfast, that's notable information and you can draw some pretty interesting conclusions as far as their potential performance on a level playing field.
The conclusion you can draw is that the actual "contest" was pointless. Which, honestly, the SATs always have been.
Re:Clown world (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a coach of a running team. Two people try out, and they have the same time. One guy has perfect form. One guy has shit form. Who do you choose?
A: The guy with shit form, because if you teach him the right form he'll be significantly faster.
By the same token, if you put the resources of a university at the disposal of someone who maxed out the use of what limited things they got growing up, they'll go further than someone who made some use of their opportunities.
Also, and this should just be said because you're sounding like a racist ass, but not all poor people are black. Since it measures school quality and socioeconomic factors, most of the people who benefit from this will be white people in rural areas.
Re: Clown world (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh Bullshit. The bigotry against rural peoples is so remarkably ingrained in progressive groupthink that rural people are actively run out of "selective" universities.
You mean bigotry against rural people (Score:3, Insightful)
You've mistaken the Fox News version of progressives for actual progressives. Yeah, us lefties occasionally lash out when the rural voters do stuff like try to take away healthcare (including their own), reproductive rights, access to Birth Control and force their religion on us. These are real, substantive policies that have a negative impact on both our lives and theirs. But we never stop trying to help. Mos
Re: Clown world (Score:2, Informative)
Well, I was told I was bigoted due to my "southern" accent. I guess Appalachian cultures aren't valuable enough to have our distinct accent distinguished from southerners.
Re: Clown world (Score:2, Informative)
I spent several years working at the most selective American university. During that time I encountered people from all around America and all around the world. However I encountered zero students (and very very few staff) with an Appalachian or Rustbelt background.
It's plain as day that people from my heritage are not welcome - that is, are actively discriminated against - at our most prestigious institutions.
Re: Clown world (Score:4, Funny)
You didn't follow internet rule #1:
"When insulting someone's intelligence, ensure your post is free typos and grammatical errors."
Dumpass!
Re: (Score:3)
How long have you been on Slashdot? [slashdot.org]
Re:Clown world (Score:4, Insightful)
You're a coach of a running team. Two people try out, and they have the same time. One guy has perfect form. One guy has shit form. Who do you choose?
A: The guy with shit form, because if you teach him the right form he'll be significantly faster.
Unless that person has already has a number of coaches and has max'ed out his ability to learn/adapt.
Fair enough (Score:3)
So you're saying I'm using form as a flawed proxy for ability to learn, and it would be better if I examined each runner's past and used better proxies (wealth of parents, quality of the coaches they had before, access to a track to practice on, etc?) And maybe those factors could then be standardized, and turned into another number like time. Then coaches recruiting for their team could make an educated d
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't help whites (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who uses the phrase "check your privilege" seriously should be summarily dismissed as an idiot.
Re:Won't help whites (Score:4, Insightful)
Not just an idiot but a conformist and an easily brainwashed racist. If you can get them to believe that just by forcing them to pass a 'gender studies' class at uni you can get them to believe anything and believe it for the rest of their life.
Universities are actually manufacturing racists. Hell maybe they even have gender studies classes in high school now because it's about brainwashing and not about education. Luckily this absurd racism is mostly restricted to the US and maybe the UK afaict. What ever happened to 'color blindness'? Now that made sense and was a step in the right direction. I mean you can never get people to completely not judge someone based on what they look like but that seemed like a push in the right direction.
I was watching a movie with a white guy dating a pretty black girl and she actually got angry at him for being too 'color blind'. She wanted him to see that being black was a part of who she was. That was just a movie script, but everyone is an individual. If a black person actually wants to be stereotyped well fine. I am a jew, but I prefer to be seen as an individual and not judged either positively or negatively based on what my group or race is supposed to be like.
No doubt jews and asians will be penalized (because their race or group is seen as being too smart) with this new system and it will be harder for them to get into university just because of their race. That is the New Justice. I don't understand how people who are not members of persecuted minorities cannot see that it feels bad to be judged by your group or tribe rather than as an individual. I mean you don't have to be a genius to figure that out. All you have to do is have an ounce of empathy.
If I were black I would not want that extra boost when taking my SAT. It's insulting as hell. If I were an intelligent black guy I would definitely put that I was white or even (god forbid!) asian on the actual test to screw up the system. Everyone would still not judge my scores the same as a white person after this though. The people behind this are racists no matter how good they think their intentions are. Needless to say anyone who asks you to put your race on the test or attach a photo is not judging you as an individual human being but as an example of your group or race. If that isn't racism then nothing is.
Re:Whites aren't crybaby faggots, nazis are. Check (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you just call someone who says they're Jewish a Nazi?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But this doesn't have anything to do with that. It's taking into account crime statistics and property values. Race doesn't factor into the metric. You're just looking for something to be angry about.
Re:Won't help whites (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as this rolls out, people will start gaming it. There will be consultants that will help you game it for a fee. Rich families that can afford an "adversity consultant" will have an advantage over those that can't afford one. This is the opposite of the intent.
When my daughter took the SAT, we hired an essay coach to teach her the formulaic style preferred by the SAT graders. It cost us about $1000, but was well worth it, since her writing score went up considerably, and she was accepted by her target college.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's possible it could be gamed. It's also possible that the cost of gaming it is prohibitive. I mean, would you have sent your daughter to a much worse and more dangerous school to increase her SAT scores by 100pts? Knowing that the education and opportunities she had at that school for a year might (probably would) set her back more than that score offsets?
Re:Won't help whites (Score:4, Funny)
Faking the high school your kid attended may be difficult, but faking the home address is much easier.
Faking the family income is easy if two parents can file separately for the final year of high school. One parent can report the income, and the other parent can declare the kid as a dependent.
Faking ethnicity can be difficult if the kid has an Asian surname. My kids are half Asian, but have a "white" last name, which helps. Too bad I didn't think to name them Brianna and DeShawn.
A criminal record may help. So maybe encourage your kid to get some minor drug convictions, or join a gang.
Re:Won't help whites (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? For public schools, home address determines the school. And, for private schools, it shouldn't be hard to detect people spending 50k a year who live in a shitty area as fakers.
Really? When hundreds of thousands of dollars of financial aid were on the line no one figured that out how to fake it (or catch fakes), but with a test score, people will be lining up to commit fraud.
Oh, and the SATs aren't going to have access to your tax information anyway.
Doesn't matter because they don't take ethnicity into account.
Except, of course, a criminal record hurts. And, the SATs won't have access to anyone's criminal record.
Bottom line, you're saying that an upper-middle class family is going to throw advantages away to get points for being disadvantaged. You don't seem to recognize that that hurts.
Re:Won't help whites (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of responding with a counter-argument that addresses his points, you launch into the usual anti-SJW diatribe karma-whoring rubbish.
Might be you're overthinking this. Are they karma whoring or is the general SJW bullshit hit a point, where even regular people have had enough of it? If you were paying attention to politics, and things outside of your social bubble you'd already know the answer to that.
I take this to mean that you actually can't fault their argument, or you would have done so.
There's a real simple answer to that. It's because despite what they've said, the opposite actually happens. A AC made a point that people from rural areas are already heavily discriminated against by "the learned elites in their ivory towers." If you didn't grow up rural, then you've really got no idea. And especially in the current era of progressive pandering, the kid who's supposedly had "historical injustices" and stabbed 3 people is a far better fit then the farmer hick-kid, that busted their ass to get there. It's kind of like Title IX and the "dear colleague" letter. Progressives thought it was a great idea, conservatives and centerists thought it was going to be terrible. Human action, proves that when someone is handed the ability to cheat, lie, accuse others with no ability for the accused to fight back. Abuse will happen on levels of a witch hunt.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh hey Mashiki, your sock puppet has mod points again? Gonna go back to yesterday's posts and hit them too, or are you saving them?
Oh amimojo, is that projection that I'm hearing? Considering your political leanings, and the standard trope of "no bad tactics" happens to be a key component of progressives, just gonna hazard that this is your run-of-the-mill solution to make your opinion the right one. See, between the two of us, I can openly state I have no problems with /. admins publicly posting my IP, browser fingerprint ID, and whoever modded up my comments to prove otherwise.
But on the other hand, I find it absolutely hilarious t
Re:Won't help whites (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not going into the simile about sports. Education is not a sport, and aptitude to learning is not a physical form. so in my personal opinion, the simile was irrelevant - but it was abstract enough its relevance is completely opinion-based and not worth discussing because only emotion-based arguments could be raised.
But "Actually, I do RTFA" made a bold unsubstantiated claim that white people from rural areas will benefit most. I did read the RTFA and there's nothing that would imply that. If anything, I didn't spot anything typical to hardships of rural environments in the sample "Environmental Context Dashboard" screenshots, but factors characteristic to urban "ghetto" lives are there; meanwhile race is not included. This is worth addressing: Thus, "Actually, I do RTFA" pulled that claim out of his ass here.
Re:Clown world (Score:5, Informative)
"By the same token, if you put the resources of a university at the disposal of someone who maxed out the use of what limited things they got growing up, they'll go further than someone who made some use of their opportunities."
Look my adversity score would probably be quite high if they are using actual metrics of diversity and not targeting minorities but this is still wrong. We aren't talking about a physical sport. If you spend college having to be taught high school and grade school material you'll learn less in college. If you didn't have intelligent parents to guide you then you will NEVER be as intelligent as you would have if you'd had exposure back when your brain developed as a child.
Having OVERCOME adversity is a strong indicator of intelligence, capability, and character and this would definitely be something I'd support adding but simply measuring whether there has been adversity or not does indicate anything. I'm sorry if you grew up in a place where people choose to sell drugs, fuck off, and carve desks rather than study and maybe you even did study. Great, you managed par while surrounded by people who didn't but that isn't overcoming that is still just managing par while the people you are surrounded with have absolutely no justification. It wasn't any harder to sit at the desk, do the homework, listen to the teacher than it was for anyone else. After fucking off and failing school if you go back and try to make something of yourself, THEN you face adversity because that is actually harder to do and you face societal stigma and even overt hiring opposition.
Everyone who attends public school through high school faces the same adversity, the adversity is created by resources going to private schools if the private schools didn't exist it would all be the same.
Re:Clown world (Score:4, Interesting)
You're simply wrong there. Screw-ups will try to drag their surroundings down. And if we're talking ghetto it might just be that doing well doesn't just get you being called a huge nerd but actual hospitalization.
Even just being called a nerd is a different beast if it isn't just the one asshole in school but pretty much everybody around you even including your family.
From apoint of rationality I would agree with you but human animals are very tribal. If everyone around you is actively trying to hold you back then just being average compared to people allowed to thrive is a hell of an accomplishment. Transplanting those people into a more supportive environment can lead to them blossoming.
On the other hand, a lot of kids who've always done well without effort up to high school suddenly find their diligence and motivation isn't up to par and their smarts won't carry them through college as it did in high school.
So yeah, looking at this from a different angle seems like a good idea. Whether it'll be done in a way that actually works toward the intended goal is quite a different question.
Re: (Score:3)
"Transplanting those people into a more supportive environment can lead to them blossoming."
That certainly seems like a good idea though the whole "protect our heritage" movement would fight it.
The fact is that certain cultures need to have their heritage busted. I grew up poor, in our culture we mocked anyone who used a weapon in a fight, it meant they were weak. We mocked people who didn't fight one-on-one for the same reason. As a consequence these kind of rules came directly from peer judgement and we n
Not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
By the same token, if you put the resources of a university at the disposal of someone who maxed out the use of what limited things they got growing up, they'll go further than someone who made some use of their opportunities.
Sorry but that's not always how it works in academia. If I get someone in my first-year physics course that can't do basic algebra and has no idea what a force is then no matter what potential they might have they are still going to fail the course.
Universities are not equipped to provide a basic high school education and it is not going to help these people if their scores are artificially boosted so that they get into an institute where they end up failing because they are hopelessly ill-prepared for it.
Re:Not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you went to a university, but I started my post by saying that they had the same performance metrics.. I mean, it was an analogy, but clearly I was talking about people with otherwise comparable (if not equal) SAT scores.
This isn't modifying people's math or verbal scores, it's adding another datapoint. I agree it doesn't make sense to admit someone unqualified to Harvard with a 960 on their SATs regardless, but more data is, in general, better. If Harvard thinks someone with a 1560 (poor family) score is better suited than a 1600 (upper-middle class family) score, that's kind of a judgement call for them, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
But didn't they already have this data before the 'adversity' score? In fact what does it even have to do with the SATs? If university admissions want to include yet another non-merit based factor in their decisions ok, but it should not be associated with the SAT test. Especially since they aren't even adjusting the score itself.
I really hate non-merit based factors because they aren't fair. In this case I guess they are trying to give a boost to poor kids and kids who live in dangerous neighborhoods. So i
Re:Not the same (Score:5, Interesting)
The SATs are run by a private not-for-profit corporation. Just like they are the "official" answer for standardized testing, they want to be the "official" answer for this socioeconomic question. It's a political move to bolster the company.
I mean, what is merit? Seriously. Because there are people who test poorly on the SATs who are damn smart, and others who are good at taking tests. And is someone who aces every class at a bad school somehow less meritorious because they couldn't take harder classes? Is that fair?
Fact is, the admissions process is never going to be fair. But more information should always make it more fair.
Maybe. Maybe not. There are definitely other factors than SATs that come into play. I would think it would be more interesting to weigh extracurriculars.
The very rich people tend to pay sticker. There's a lot of non-loan financial aid available at the top-tier schools, so someone with broke parents might only owe $20,000, not $200k, when they are done.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, what is merit? Seriously. Because there are people who test poorly on the SATs who are damn smart, and others who are good at taking tests.
Merit based just means judging people on how they appear to perform based on whatever standard you have set up. If you are judging people based on how well they do on some standardized test well it's like a game. You can do better on it by being smarter or by studying for it longer or harder or by just being naturally good at taking tests. The point is to do the best you can at the game without of course actually cheating. It's just one measure of a person.
And is someone who aces every class at a bad school somehow less meritorious because they couldn't take harder classes? Is that fair?
Well the classes at a 'good' school are not always
Re: (Score:3)
"I mean, what is merit?"
In the case of the SAT... prior to this change. Merit is ability to pass the test, some combination of learning and intelligence wherein you utilize that intelligence to pass the test including studying past SAT scoring systems, the SAT preferred formats for essays, the kinds of maths reviewed on the SAT, etc. If you are "damn smart" and give a fuck you used those smarts to aid you in getting a higher score on the SAT if you are "damn smart" and didn't bother you lack merit.
What is e
Re:Not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
If Harvard thinks someone with a 1560 (poor family) score is better suited than a 1600 (upper-middle class family) score
is a form of discrimination based on class.
Finally, explain how it will never be
If Harvard thinks someone with a 1560 (upper middle family) score is better suited than a 1600 (lower class family) score
which is also discrimination based on class but you have already indicated you are good with it because "that's kind of a judgement call for them".
Re:Not the same (Score:5, Interesting)
Universities are not equipped to provide a basic high school education and it is not going to help these people if their scores are artificially boosted so that they get into an institute where they end up failing because they are hopelessly ill-prepared for it.
I taught a 300-level philosophy of science class this semester and was planning to lecture on Logical Positivism and the various responses to it in the 20th century.
Although I've been teaching for many years, this was a new prep for me, and I knew my expectations were too high.
However, it turned out that my students were such blank-slates that I needed to start with Pythagoras, and teach a thumbnail sketch of the history of science up until Einstein before my students had enough background. I did not reach Otto Neurath until the middle of March.
Most of my students really have been poorly served by their educations. I mean, very few knew the deduction-induction distinction, let alone the demarcation problem. And NONE had ever encountered syllogisms or the square of logical opposition previously. But this issue cut completely across backgrounds/environments.
Most of my students are not seeking a university education, but credentials.
And this is the true problem of universities: most students don't belong there. But that's largely because they have been sold a bill of goods.
philosophy of science (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Except they are talking about boosting someone up on what is supposed to be an objective test.
If your 'boost' score is 2%, that then disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of people who likely worked hard to get that score.
And again, it comes down to "factors we decide", so, if you're problems aren't specifically listed, you don't get a boost. Almost everyone has problems. I suspect the struggles I had (which were quite insanely devastating) wouldn't be listed.
So it all comes down to bias, and a particular
Re: Clown world (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone who struggled academically in a poor school, in a bad neighborhood, raised by a single mom can't necessarily perform at Ivy League levels, but with a high enough 'adversity score' they just might get in, and if they fail, the cost of that warm fuzzy SJW glory you feel for getting him/her into an Ivy League University will be replaced by guilt when you realize that student now has $60K-Pell Grant amount in college debt and no degree to show for it.
I attended a challenging engineering school on the east coast in the 80s, and my freshman year, without telling anyone, the school converted a small dormitory to a freshman girls dorm and accepted the top female applicants in sufficient number to fill the dorm, their academics were not considered.
The vast majority of freshman girls failed out after their freshman year - they were vastly under qualified to attend the school, their only reason for applying to the school was because their dad went there, not that they were qualified.
It was a bloodbath, and the girls that could have been very successful at another school suffered a crushing failure and wound up wasting one year's time and tuition money just because the admissions department did them a favor and admitted them.
What will be the real impact on these 'adversity' students?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why. This doesn't hide any other data from the school, it adds another data point. What it might mean is someone from a poor school might only need a 1450 to be considered fro Harvard as opposed to a 1550.
I mean, you can make the same point about athletics.
I agree that unqualified peopl
Re: (Score:3)
How do you inherit non-physical traits?.
What traits are there other than physical traits? Intelligence is certainly both a physical trait and inheritable. So is decision and longer-term plan making ability, self-control and ability to delay gratification and so on and they all dependent on intelligence.
Psychology is not a science, it is a pseudo-science. If we are going to discuss nonsense why not go with chiropractic, at least that way I can get some pleasant endorphins released.
What other inconvenient views are you going to attempt to hand-wave away? Physiology? Economics? Population statistics? Behavioral and cognitive
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can tell you went to engineering school, because anyone sensible (from most other faculties) would want to follow up the "bloodbath" to see whether the longer-term outcomes were also negative for this cohort of young women. As a general rule, you haven't actually
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"So, a certain cohort bombs out of engineering school. I don't consider that "a failure", I'd consider it an objective lesson"
It's a failure to place the student appropriately. The school has failed to accept students who can handle its curriculum and in failing to accept responsibility for that failure by waiving/refunding tuition it has also saddled the students with debt.
Re: (Score:3)
What will be the real impact on these 'adversity' students?
Considering how they know that these standard lowering exercises will cause a lot of them to simply wash out I have gut feeling that they'll be using a two-punch approach this time around. Lower the entry requirements and the academic standards at the same time. Over here in Scandinavia we've got some pretty terrible examples of this particularly in Sweden where some universities completely scrapped language checking for Swedish language papers because it supposedly discriminated against people with an immi
Re: (Score:2)
You're a coach of a running team. Two people try out, and they have the same time. One guy has perfect form. One guy has shit form. Who do you choose?
A: The guy with shit form, because if you teach him the right form he'll be significantly faster.
By the same token, if you put the resources of a university at the disposal of someone who maxed out the use of what limited things they got growing up, they'll go further than someone who made some use of their opportunities.
Also, and this should just be said bec
Re: (Score:2)
You're a coach of a running team. Two people try out, and they have the same time. One guy has perfect form. One guy has shit form. Who do you choose?
You're a university admissions officer. Two people apply, and have the same SAT score. One comes from a rich family that can clearly afford to make a generous donation to your endowment. The other comes from a poor family in a crime-ridden neighborhood. Whom do you choose?
Re: (Score:3)
Whichever one interviewed best with faculty staff, and they thought would be the best fit from direct engagement.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a coach of a running team. Two people try out, and they have the same time. One guy has perfect form. One guy has shit form. Who do you choose?
A: The guy with shit form, because if you teach him the right form he'll be significantly faster.
Only in the case he can overcomes his shit form. That reminds me of Antonio Cassano [wikipedia.org], a very gifted football player, but also very undisciplined. He ruined his career thanks to his uninterrupted, self inflicted shit form.
In the best case (that is, if the so called adversity rating is meaningful, which I doubt, and not just some pseudo-random number to push quotas), you are getting it backward. If you detect some adversity, you should remove it (e.g. better welfare, better public education), not sending int
Re: (Score:2)
You're a coach of a running team. Two people try out, and they have the same time. One guy has perfect form. One guy has shit form. Who do you choose?
A: The guy with shit form, because if you teach him the right form he'll be significantly faster.
No..
Yes, you take potential and perpective into account. But given the same results, you are not going to pick the guy who would be faster if he wasn't hungover on try-out-day because you know that if that guy can't even stop drinking the night before try-out-day, that guy simply lacks the discipline to get into top form on competition day.
Re:Clown world (Score:4, Insightful)
if you put the resources of a university at the disposal of someone who maxed out the use of what limited things they got growing up, they'll go further than someone who made some use of their opportunities.
Found a fundamental flaw in your argument. A person who only makes a "C" grade in high school didn't max out their opportunities. Yet these are the same people that this change wants to promote. If you breed mediocrity, don't expect excellence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those are the same thing. There are N admissions slots. This is about tilting it towards disadvantaged people, so they get more. Advantaged people will get fewer. But, it's not "artificial". Once you eliminate the unqualified people, you still have far more people than slots.
Oh, and schools can totally use affirmative action in m
Re:Clown world (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the answer to racism is...racism!
Re:Clown world (Score:5, Insightful)
The most hated people in the former communist countries were ignorant, often low IQ hacks that got into institutions and companies because they had the "right background" which at that time was "poor and uneducated". Every time the teacher asks you "what do you parents do" the best answer was "workers".
Those people being, of course, incapable to compete on merits alone with the rest usually gravitated to positions of political officer or human resources. Where they were nothing more than the censors, ratting to the secret police, "morally superior" zealots, weasels, cowards, cruel frauds. Because again, they had no other way of competing. Attach yourself to the authoritarian power (often, secretly those people were in fact not such ardent adherents to one right party way) and you are golden.
Remind you of some developments in our society today?
My fellow westerners, you have gone crazy! Stop it, it only leads to hell. Guaranteed!
Re:Clown world (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the Democratic Socialists. No matter how glowingly they speak of others it is through the filter of race, first and foremost. Nobody engages their person until they have checked the box for your race. Only then can they make their speeches about how race doesn't matter.
28 candidates now for the Democrat Party's Presidential hopeful. 28. Campaign donations as an emergency SEP.
Walk away.
Re: (Score:2)
It's preposterous that you can't fully represent a person's abilities to a couple of numbers on a 200-800 scale?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are these so called 'poor' families supposed to get an extra 50-60k per year to pay the tuition for the best schools? If it isn't a level playing field it's due to the tuition more than anything else. If parents can afford that tuition then they aren't poor. Yes I mean it is easier to study in a quiet mansion than a noisy studio apartment in a bad neighborhood and having to go to a library or something every time you need to study does make things harder, but the elephant in the room is the ridiculous
Re: This is how they will rate papers now: (Score:2)
Neither is likely prepared to enter an elite college that their 'adversity score' qualifies them for, when they fail out, who pays the tuition for their failed attempt at a school they weren't prepared for?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, if your parents were able to afford $4,000 SAT prep course plus tutoring, and you score "only" 90th percentile on SAT (I don't know what scale they are using now; percentile is a safer reference), then that score is not a great indicator of your academic ability or your likelihood of success in college (beyond that you'll likely have some lawnmower parents who will do what they can to help you graduate).
Re: (Score:2)
Merit is bad in Pelosi's world it's "a condescending word." For progressives, meritocracy is a Men's Rights(MRA) construct. For feminists, it's sexist.
We live in a clown world, where the people who couldn't cut it are making the rules.