SAT to add 'adversity score' that will factor student hardships into college admissions

I'm not sure I'd want to send my kid to a school in a DMZ just to score diversity points on his SATs, not even for one year, because that would be part of it.

It's one thing to buy a house there and either homeschool or spring for a private school, but it's another to send your kid to one of those failing systems.

I generally support affirmative action, but this is stupid.

The issue is that the SAT is very dubious as a measure of college performance after a certain point. The schools and college board know this... in addition, college admissions is about more than a singular test score.

A big problem is the upper income / classes tend to utilize tutors, testing coaches, and attend schools which already have a culture of success. So it is not surprising that there is a high correlation between income and SAT performance.

On the other hand, some students who do score well, but maybe not quite as high may be coming from more adverse backgrounds and the schools / test want to recognize this disparity.

For example, who is really more accomplished? An upper class student who scores 1500 with tutors/coaches and attends a top private school OR a 1400 scorer who went to a ghetto school, raised by single mom.

The theory is that the lower scoring student could actually be a better student / more accomplished had they had the same opportunities and access.

Put another, since sports analogies are always good. Let's say you are a track coach. You can recruit a star athlete from a top program who runs say a 10 second 100 meter. You hear about a kid who is running a 10.1 or 10.2 second 100 meter, but the kicker is the kid had no training, coaching, or even attended a school with a track program.

As a coach, you have to be thinking, if I gave this kid running a 10.2 with the same level coaching that my 10 flat guy is getting, maybe the slower kid could actually run a 9.75 since he is already pretty close with huge disadvantages.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I'm not sure I'd want to send my kid to a school in a DMZ just to score diversity points on his SATs, not even for one year, because that would be part of it.

It's one thing to buy a house there and either homeschool or spring for a private school, but it's another to send your kid to one of those failing systems.

People game the system all the time...

In my community, we have a ton of kids who lie about their residency to attend (mostly ghetto kids from Chicago). On the other hand, in NYC, a lot of very rich parents actually buy small studio apartments so they can claim residency to attend certain high performing public schools even though they don't live in said district.

As long as there are huge disparities in quality of colleges and demand far and away outstrips supply at the most prestigous schools, there will always be people looking to game the system in some way...

The wealthy will continue to buy their way in outside of the normal channels and special interest groups whether athletes, musicians, or minorities will get in with lower standards. The average kids in the middle who aren't rich or don't have any special "hooks" are the ones who are getting squeezed.

It isn't fair, but nothing in life is...

a reply to: dug88

To me, what it really tries to do is to aid students that may have financial difficulties and which may cause them problems while trying to get a higher education, such as being able to eat. If one's score is low enough then that student may have access to reduced pricing on food and other necessities.

The way I understand it, the score is still supposed to be the primary judging factor with this "adversity score" providing more context. Let's be fair, it's more impressive if a kid that has to take care of their siblings all the time because their single mother is working three jobs scores a 1600 than a kid that has the best tutors and unlimited resources who scores a 1600.

That said, the SAT is an outdated concept. Most schools don't put much weight on it at this point. It's just an excessively expensive test that allows College Board to continue to justify their existence.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: dug88

Then it's hardly a test of intelligence and more like a means-tested socioeconomic credit score.

Fact is soon all your kids will require to attend your universities is a pencil.

I'm currently in college and I would find it easy to believe that's all they require already. Some of these kids, I can't believe they finished high school. They can't write, can't do basic math. Just look at AOC. She has a degree in economics, doesn't know how the unemployment rate is calculated. Anyone can get a degree nowadays. They've become worthless.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
The way I understand it, the score is still supposed to be the primary judging factor with this "adversity score" providing more context. Let's be fair, it's more impressive if a kid that has to take care of their siblings all the time because their single mother is working three jobs scores a 1600 than a kid that has the best tutors and unlimited resources who scores a 1600.

That said, the SAT is an outdated concept. Most schools don't put much weight on it at this point. It's just an excessively expensive test that allows College Board to continue to justify their existence.

The test is used to eliminate 90% of applicants without having to waste too much time evaluating a full application package. That is the reality...

If a top school is getting 20,000 applications for 2,000 spots.... they simply don't have the time / manpower to review each application in detail. They can use the SAT to eliminate 15,000 applications almost immediately... then they only have about 5,000 that they really read and try to make a fair assessment of their potential at the school.

This is at the point that they try to make adjustments and reviewing compensating factors in making admissions decisions...

School admission at stop schools is holistic. It isn't solely GPA / Test score. The schools are trying to construct a class they think suits all students. THey often admit students from different geographies because they are underrepresented. A kid who grew up on a farm in IOWA is far more likely to be admitted to Harvard than some upper class kid from a wealthy Northeastern US suburb outside a major city. The farm kid is more of a rarity while the upper class suburban kid is a dime a dozen. Same with minorities. Black students who score high on SAT are in far more demand than yet another Asian kid raised by a "Tiger Mom" with a high score.

a reply to: face23785

Yes, some of the ""Millennials"" can be very ""special"". LoL

This is what happens when you start telling kids that they are all equal and participation is it's own reward rather than coming first.

That's by design no less, and for various nefarious reasons, I suppose.

They are not worthless if they can tick a box and consume through, point of fact they are an important commodity of sorts, that's if you like slaves that don't know they are such.

originally posted by: Wildbob77

I also think that many colleges and universities are going to find themselves obsolete and/or useless because they are only interested in the politics of a situation and not interested in teaching critical thinking

Depends what you mean by "obsolete" and "useless." While it's true they're becoming increasingly focused on politics rather than actual learning, that's what many people want and will continue to pay (or get the taxpayers to pay) to go to these places to get told what to think. As long as people are willing lemmings, colleges and universities aren't going anywhere. The practical value of a degree is decreasing dramatically, that's true. But that's not what many people going to college or even some employers are looking for. It's the social value of that piece of paper from some big name indoctrination center. Think about the recent news with the admissions scandal. Their performance at college didn't matter. Just getting into that prestigious place gave them the social clout they needed.

ETA: I myself just called degrees "worthless" 2 posts above this, so I do get your point, I'm just trying to add some context to both your post and mine above.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
The way I understand it, the score is still supposed to be the primary judging factor with this "adversity score" providing more context. Let's be fair, it's more impressive if a kid that has to take care of their siblings all the time because their single mother is working three jobs scores a 1600 than a kid that has the best tutors and unlimited resources who scores a 1600.

That said, the SAT is an outdated concept. Most schools don't put much weight on it at this point. It's just an excessively expensive test that allows College Board to continue to justify their existence.

Not really, from what I am reading the test shows complex data in relation to score differences related to race, demographics and financial background and status. It also can determine degree of success with and without stressors for certain students.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wildbob77

I also think that many colleges and universities are going to find themselves obsolete and/or useless because they are only interested in the politics of a situation and not interested in teaching critical thinking

Depends what you mean by "obsolete" and "useless." While it's true they're becoming increasingly focused on politics rather than actual learning, that's what many people want and will continue to pay (or get the taxpayers to pay) to go to these places to get told what to think. As long as people are willing lemmings, colleges and universities aren't going anywhere. The practical value of a degree is decreasing dramatically, that's true. But that's not what many people going to college or even some employers are looking for. It's the social value of that piece of paper from some big name indoctrination center. Think about the recent news with the admissions scandal. Their performance at college didn't matter. Just getting into that prestigious place gave them the social clout they needed.

All the debate about affirmative action, adversity scores, etc is really about people feeling entitled to attend certain prestigious schools. When they don't get accepted, they look for someone to blame for "taking their spot". For many of these people, they feel like failures in their social circle if they can't attend an Ivy League or other peer schools.

This is why you had people in the admissions scandal willing to pay many times more than the cost of tuition just to have their kids attend a certain school. One Chinese family paid $6.5 million to try to get their kid into Stanford! WTF? Why? Asians are very prestige oriented and attending Stanford or the the Ivy League is about social status... it doesn't have sh*t to do with education. Same reason many Asians / Indians go on to be Doctors... social prestige, not that they actual like the field of medicine. This is the dirty little secret that doesn't get discussed, particularly when people like to throw out the "Asians have high SAT scores". They ignore the cutthroat culture that generates it...

While going to college is a good thing, the reality is that there are different tiers of schools and attending certain schools automatically grants access to certain social / class circles, in particular employment opportunities that can last a lifetime.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yes, middle class families also sacrifice all the time to buy their way into better school districts then they might otherwise pay for in order to try to realize better opportunities for their kids.

This type of score hurts those families the most.

Scrimp and save to move to a better district and school to try to realize the best opportunity you can and get scored down for being too white normative on your son or daughter's test.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

Yes, middle class families also sacrifice all the time to buy their way into better school districts then they might otherwise pay for in order to try to realize better opportunities for their kids.

This type of score hurts those families the most.

Scrimp and save to move to a better district and school to try to realize the best opportunity you can and get scored down for being too white normative on your son or daughter's test.

I don't disagree with you.. no matter what system or evaluation method they come up with, someone is going to feel slighted in the process.

Again, the issue is that demand far outstrips supply at small number of elite schools and everyone is trying to figure out the magic formula to gain admission. In addition, the schools are seeking diverse student bodies and may be accepting those with less qualifications in some areas in order to meet their diversity needs because those students are much more rare. It is what it is...

Like I said, if you are an Ivy League school and you want blacks who score say 1500 on the SAT, that pool of applicants is very small. This is why you see so many blacks (with high test scores / gpas) who gain admission (to all the Ivy Leagues as the schools are competing for that student.

On the other hand, the stereotypical nerdy asian / indian kid with the neurotic tiger mom forcing him to study 15 hours a day is a dime a dozen so they have a much harder time standing out from the pack of applicants.

a reply to: Edumakated

I'm not worried so much about Ivy League as I am about scholarship access.

For middle class kids, that can make or break your college dreams. Your parents bust their butts to move you to a good school program. You take those tests and that can tip the scales in favor of financial aid or against. Now they add this crap in there?

How'd you like the be the kid who loses money because you're "too privileged" after living a life of sacrificing things other kids around you always had in order to realize an opportunity you just lost because you simply lived around those other kids?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

I'm not worried so much about Ivy League as I am about scholarship access.

For middle class kids, that can make or break your college dreams. Your parents bust their butts to move you to a good school program. You take those tests and that can tip the scales in favor of financial aid or against. Now they add this crap in there?

How'd you like the be the kid who loses money because you're "too privileged" after living a life of sacrificing things other kids around you always had in order to realize an opportunity you just lost because you simply lived around those other kids?

There are scholarships abound. The reality is that anyone who is remotely successful (even though not "rich") will find themselves in a gray area where they don't qualify for any needs based scholarships or other financial aide.

Maybe I've just accepted that life isn't fair. Whether it is school, work, etc there is always somebody somewhere who has it easier or some advantage handed to them.

I just play the hand I am dealt. If I get an advantage in some way, I don't lose any sleep. I certainly have been disadvantaged in more ways than one, so it all evens out to me imho.

I can see it now, rich and famous sends their kids to some area of the poor and high crime as they buy a 40k house to establish residency so they can take the SAT there.

a reply to: ketsuko

I was that kid.

Went to private schools with high grading scales. Barely graduated high school with a C average. Thanks to my schools heightened grading scale that was a 97%. In any public school that would have been a 4.0 instead of a 1.7, before even accounting for the harder classes.

School told me I wasn’t college material because I was in the bottom 20% of our class (in fact, I graduated dead last) despite the fact I scored a 34 on my ACT out of a 36 maximum, and I was lead to believe that score was insufficient. To the point that I never even submitted my ACT scores because I was told I wasn’t smart enough (again, my 34 was among the lowest in my class).

After graduating, I qualified for zero need based financial aid because my dad is/was the CEO of a large casino chain, who makes many millions per year. So, even though I lived with my mom who was borderline poverty, my dads income was counted against me despite him being unwilling to contribute anything.

Nevada gave every student in the year I graduated a $10,000/year scholarship for 10 years to any university in Nevada as part of a settlement with tobacco companies. Due to the school I was in, my GPA wasn’t high enough as it was limited to 3.0 GPA’s and above. So going to the school I did screwed me.

Went to school in Ohio after graduating high school. I had a decent college fund at the time, but then 9/11 and the recession hit right at the time I needed to withdraw funds to pay tuition right at the bottom of the crash. What should have lasted for about 4 years lasted for 1 semester.

Oh, and then after all of that, I came down with a severe illness that lasted years. Just because I’ve had several hardships in my life doesn’t mean I wasn’t still extremely privileged. Imagine going through all of that without having been exposed to the proper strategies in life to eventually bounce back.