College Board's new SAT "Adversity Scores" will impact college admissions

[DopeyDame]

One of the real issues is that different cultures put different emphasis on the importance of education. Asians tend to score higher on the SAT because as a culture there is great emphasis on the importance of education which translates to better behavior at school and a greater respect for teachers.

As the mom of a pretty wild Asian little boy, PLEASE stop spouting these stereotypes.

ETA: Also, "focus on education" can mean different things to different people. Prepping for standardized tests is one way to focus on education. But it's not the only - or even the best - way. Going to chess club or stem camp is another way. Going to advanced music and art classes are other ways. Traveling is another way. etc., etc.

 

[DopeyDame]

Actually psats are given as early as 8th grade, they take their last psat junior year, and then start on the sat/act later junior year.

Lots of 6th and 7th graders take the SAT as part of talent identification programs (ala Johns Hopkins CTY or Duke TIP) Those aren't reported to college, but it's certainly helpful to have the experience before high school even begins.

 

[mjkacmom]

Lots of 6th and 7th graders take the SAT as part of talent identification programs (ala Johns Hopkins CTY or Duke TIP) Those aren't reported to college, but it's certainly helpful to have the experience before high school even begins.

My kids were offered that, but declined.

 

[iivye]

As the mom of a pretty wild Asian little boy, PLEASE stop spouting these stereotypes.

So why do you think Asians perform better on SAT's?

ETA: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/17/04/other-achievement-gap

 

[mjkacmom]

So why do you think Asians perform better on SAT's?

ETA: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/17/04/other-achievement-gap

Some Asians do, in our town, in all grades, there are groups of Asian kids who stick together, rarely socialize outside of their groups, and can be found in the library a lot. Then there are other Asians (dd22’s again friends refer to themselves as ghetto Asians) who are not part of those groups. Granted, dd’s friends were still high achievers, and dd18 has a good amount of male Asian friends who get great grades, but their lives are more balanced than the library Asians.

My kids take all honors/AP classes, but have never been welcomed into the fold of the library Asians (dd22’s best friend, salutatorian of the class, who just graduated from northeastern with a bs in chemical engineering, was sometimes asked to join their study groups, but not my kids).

 

[Wishing on a star]

These recent comments lead me to another thought. (I had already posted earlier)
Making these kinds of judgements and stereotyped based on the parameters given, zip code, etc... is VERY MUCH an act of prejudice.
Any judgements that are based on anything other than an individuals performance, actions, strengths/weaknesses etc.... IMHO that would be prejudice.

I just cannot find anything valid or positive about this new Adversity Score.

 

[Wishing on a star]

This is the information I have regarding the new SAT adversity score:


Coleman was the architect of Common Core. He believes everyone should go to college, regardless of academic abilities.

He was then hired by the SAT (also known as the College Board) to re-design the SAT to align with Common Core. The new SAT - which is nothing like the old SAT - debuted in March of 2016.

In short, the SAT was made easier to complete so EVERYONE (in theory) can do well.

However, most colleges have not been fooled and this is why more academic scholarships are connected to the ACT than the SAT.

In the past, Coleman has discussed making the SAT test "adjust" based on ethnicity, social economic status, etc. This new "adversity score" is one step toward Coleman's SAT dream.

Ohhhhh GOOD GRIEF!!!

 

[Colleen27]

These recent comments lead me to another thought. (I had already posted earlier)
Making these kinds of judgements and stereotyped based on the parameters given, zip code, etc... is VERY MUCH an act of prejudice.
Any judgements that are based on anything other than an individuals performance, actions, strengths/weaknesses etc.... IMHO that would be prejudice.

I just cannot find anything valid or positive about this new Adversity Score.

But a student's scores and resume aren't an individual accomplishment. They're partially a manifestation of the resources available to that child. Or are you really saying that a 1400 achieved the 5th time a kid takes the SAT, after a year of private test-prep, is a greater accomplishment than a 1350 from a student who took it once because that's all his parents could/would pay for? That kids who can't earn weighted grades because of the schools they attend are inherently lower performing than those who have AP and honors options available? That going away to high-end academic camps like the Johns Hopkins or Duke youth programs aren't as much about the parents' ability to afford those programs as about the child's academic talent? The whole point of the adversity score is to allow schools to control for those outside factors to actually compare individual strengths/weaknesses, talents and abilities without the biasing factor of parental income or community resources skewing the analysis.

It seems to me that most of the objections to this idea are coming from those who worked hard to buy every advantage they could for their own children and resent the idea that the value of those advantages could be reduced.

 

[china mom]

...It seems to me that most of the objections to this idea are coming from those who worked hard to buy every advantage they could for their own children and resent the idea that the value of those advantages could be reduced.

You nailed it.

 

[Lilacs4Me]

But a student's scores and resume aren't an individual accomplishment. They're partially a manifestation of the resources available to that child. Or are you really saying that a 1400 achieved the 5th time a kid takes the SAT, after a year of private test-prep, is a greater accomplishment than a 1350 from a student who took it once because that's all his parents could/would pay for? That kids who can't earn weighted grades because of the schools they attend are inherently lower performing than those who have AP and honors options available? That going away to high-end academic camps like the Johns Hopkins or Duke youth programs aren't as much about the parents' ability to afford those programs as about the child's academic talent? The whole point of the adversity score is to allow schools to control for those outside factors to actually compare individual strengths/weaknesses, talents and abilities without the biasing factor of parental income or community resources skewing the analysis.

It seems to me that most of the objections to this idea are coming from those who worked hard to buy every advantage they could for their own children and resent the idea that the value of those advantages could be reduced.

Kind of, yes lol....as I said earlier, we choose to keep paying a huge mortgage and tax payment to keep our kids in our school district that ranks in the top 2% of the state, so yes I guess I am a little salty that there are people who live less than 5 miles from us that would have the advantage who chose NOT to live in our district, yet have fancier cars, the new iPhone, better gym shoes, etc than I will ever be able/willing to buy my kids. Where I live, neighborhoods change quickly and we live just a few miles from cities with gangs/drugs/shootings/etc, and terrible schools (Chicago Public Schools are not far from us!) We don't have money for Johns Hopkins camps, or private tutoring, or any other "advantage", either, other than the school district my kids attend.

This isn't the case of the 1% vs the poor - those cases are relatively far and few between in the grand scheme of things. In the real world, a few miles, $25K difference in income, and the choice between Payless or Air Jordan X's are what make or break many, many kids' college plans.

That being said, I do agree with you that it's OK to to support the adversity scoring concept for this reason:

I was just talking to DH about this - we were saying that how our families in MI have nicer, bigger, newer houses with more land than we will ever have here in the Chicago area, but we keep telling ourselves we don't care because the schools are much better here lol. Then I said does it really matter in the long run...the kids in our family are smart (all have graduated with high GPA's and one was Valedictorian) but none of them really have Ivy League dreams anyway, so their chances of going to Michigan or Western MI or University of Illinois is going to pretty much be the same no matter where they lived and went to high school. SAT scores, applications, GPA's...adversity scoring - does any of it REALLY matter for the vast majority of kids anyway? There's pretty much a college for everyone. If it really comes down to a disadvantaged student getting into a school because of a few adversity points, he/she probably deserved to be there anyway.

 

[Wishing on a star]

It seems to me that most of the objections to this idea are coming from those who worked hard to buy every advantage they could for their own children and resent the idea that the value of those advantages could be reduced.

This looks like it might be, at least partly, directed at me.
You could NOT be more wrong.
Quite the opposite.
Period.

That is a very one-sided and very negative assumption.
Or is it an accusation.
Quite ridiculous, actually.
And, that is trying to put it nicely.

Interesting, the incredible lengths/stretches one will go to to try to justify their position, while doing nothing other than Character Assassination against those that might have a different viewpoint.

 

[Colleen27]

This looks like it might be, at least partly, directed at me.

Interesting, the incredible lengths/stretches one will go to to try to justify their position, while doing nothing other than Character Assassination against those that might have a different viewpoint.

It was a generalization made based on several conversations I'm having about this on various socials plus the commentary I've read/heard in the media, not a personal slight. And I notice you didn't answer any of my questions about how economic and social privilege translates into the kind of resumes admissions departments want to see.

So again, I ask:

Are you really saying that a 1400 achieved the 5th time a kid takes the SAT, after a year of private test-prep, is a greater accomplishment than a 1350 from a student who took it once because that's all his parents could/would pay for? That kids who can't earn weighted grades because of the schools they attend are inherently lower performing than those who have AP and honors options available? That going away to high-end academic camps like the Johns Hopkins or Duke youth programs aren't as much about the parents' ability to afford those programs as about the child's academic talent?

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this Adversity Score. It does nothing but make kids into a statistic while ignoring their individuality. There are plenty of kids who are low income, get free lunch and other govt assistance, come from single or absentee parent households, etc but who happen to live in a more wealthy district with more AP classes, etc. Kids whose parent(s) can't afford all the "advantages" the other kids at their school can, who never went to college, and who might not be able to afford the cost of the AP tests offered at the school which now give the student a lower Adversity Score. That student may be the very definition of "disadvantaged," but because they are scored by the average of their neighborhood, they are considered to have faced less adversity and may now have a harder time getting into college.

Likewise, there are wealthy kids who live in poorer neighborhoods, who have "advantages" that far surpass their peers, who don't have to try as hard to excel in their particular school. Those kids will be scored based on their neighborhood averages, giving them a higher Adversity Score.

This Score is not an accurate measure of adversity in any sense. In areas of Schools of Choice, there may be kids going to a school that's scored as "more privileged/less adversity" while the student actually lives in a crime-ridden, poorer area. A student coming from an affluent family and living in a wealthy neighborhood may be going to a school in a poorer, "less privileged" area for any number of reasons.

I think this Adversity Score will have many negative impacts. I can see some "disadvantaged" parents choosing not to sacrifice to get their kids into better schools if they feel it will hurt their kids chances of getting into college with this Score. I can also see some more affluent parents switching their kids school their Senior Year to one that will give them a higher Adversity Score. I can see kids in general not wanting to try as hard because those in "disadvantaged" districts will get a perceived boost without having to try as hard academically, while those in "advantaged" districts will have to try even harder to be seen as equal and may not think it worth it.

 

[Wishing on a star]

No, Colleen, that is not exactly what I am saying, at all.
What I am saying is that, Yes, some people have advantages in areas, and some people don't. I have absolutely no delusions that anything at all, is, or should be, EQUAL.

Academically, my son has a significant learning disability.
In absolutely no way would I ever think that it was okay to use some secret, prejudged, 'CODE' to make it possible for him to get into some top private college, or even State University. Especially if there was really no way that this code could truly reflect an individuals reality.
I simply could not support anything like this that is so secret, and lacks any transparancy, or individual recourse.

I do not give weight or credibility to the arguments that
1. EVERYBODY should get a top level college education.
2. The premise/whining that Government or higher institutions such as top colleges should make these kinds of prejudgements and policies because.... "If we don't, it is just not fair!!!!!!" Life isn't always fair. But Government should be. From what I am seeing, so called 'fairness' is the one major argument to support this.
3. Taking away from some individuals, to benefit other individuals, in the so-called name of fairness... just how is that FAIR.
If we want fairness and equal opportunity here, if we want to make sure that more people have chance at these opportunities, this effort should start with our Primary School Systems.

IMHO, this is all about entitlement.
Somebody else has something, or has attained/earned something, and I want it... so I should be entitled. (otherwise, It .. just... isn't... fair!!!!)

 

[MillauFr]

This looks like it might be, at least partly, directed at me.
You could NOT be more wrong.
Quite the opposite.
Period.

That is a very one-sided and very negative assumption.
Or is it an accusation.
Quite ridiculous, actually.
And, that is trying to put it nicely.

Interesting, the incredible lengths/stretches one will go to to try to justify their position, while doing nothing other than Character Assassination against those that might have a different viewpoint.

How do you view the article in the Wall St. Journal today? In a nutshell the wealthy parents are requesting and receiving extra time for their children to take the test. The less privileged students are not receiving the same extra benefits.

 

[MillauFr]

Here is the beginning of the article...

At Scarsdale High School north of New York City, one in five students is eligible for extra time or another accommodation such as a separate room for taking the SAT or ACT college entrance exam.

At Weston High School in Connecticut, it is one in four. At Newton North High School outside Boston, it’s one in three.

“Do I think that more than 30% of our students have a disability?” said Newton Superintendent David Fleishman. “No. We have a history of over-identification [as learning-challenged] that is certainly an issue in the district.”

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

Are you really saying that a 1400 achieved the 5th time a kid takes the SAT, after a year of private test-prep, is a greater accomplishment than a 1350 from a student who took it once because that's all his parents could/would pay for? That kids who can't earn weighted grades because of the schools they attend are inherently lower performing than those who have AP and honors options available? That going away to high-end academic camps like the Johns Hopkins or Duke youth programs aren't as much about the parents' ability to afford those programs as about the child's academic talent?

You didn't ask me directly, but I'll give you my opinion. No, a score of 1400 earned by a student on the fifth try after a year of test prep does not necessarily mean they will do better in college than someone taking it for the first time and achieving a 1350. No, the kids who have a lower GPA due to the lack of weighted classes will not necessarily do worse than the kids with a higher GPA from taking weighted courses. But the Adversity Score isn't necessarily going to help these groups of students.

I mentioned in a previous post that kids can attend school in a wealthy area that will give them a low Adversity Score, but that doesn't mean they personally had the money and resources to take the SAT 5 times like their peers may have or paid for a year of tutoring to boost their score. Let's consider we have a poorer, less advantaged student at this school who took the SAT once with a score of 1350, but they also end up with a low Adversity Score due to the average statistics for their school/area.

Now let's consider the other side. There also are kids with wealthy parents who attend lower income schools that would rate a high Adversity Score, and they might have afforded to have multiple SAT attempts and tutors, even though their classmates could not. The wealthy student at this school had the tutors and multiple tries at the SAT and scored a 1400, and is given a high Adversity Score due to the averages for his area.

Is the student with the 1400 score better than the student with the 1350 score? With this Adversity Score, it would likely make the 1400 student FAR more attractive than the student scoring 1350, because not only is the score higher, but they will be seen as having faced far more adversity. See how it doesn't really work the way you'd expect?

In regards to weighted classes, the way it worked when I applied to colleges 13 years ago (and assume it's still the same), is it said on your transcript whether any classes were weighted and what the weighted scale was. It made it very simple for colleges to see if weighted classes were a factor in your GPA. The information was right there. I'd also like to point out that not all advanced courses are weighted, even in schools that have weighted classes, which is why it's important for Admissions personnel to look at the actual courses taken and not just GPA or how many AP classes are offered in a school, as per the Adversity Score Report. That report will accompany the Adversity Score and will supposedly show the neighborhood/school data that factored into the Adversity Score, including the number of AP classes Seniors take at that school on average, presumably to compare a particular student with their classmates. What it doesn't take into consideration is there are weighted courses that are not AP as well as advanced courses that are not weighted at some schools.

Example: I spent my Senior year of HS taking classes full-time at the Community College because my school had run out of advanced classes for me. My classmates attending HS spent the year taking AP and other weighted courses, while mine taken at the college for dual enrollment were not weighted. Needless to say, I ended up with a lower GPA than my classmates, despite taking more advanced courses and doing well in them. The Adversity Score Report would simply note that my peers took numerous AP classes while I did not.

With the increasing number of applications Colleges are receiving and this new Adversity Score/Report being initiated, it is worrisome that colleges will look more at that Score and Report rather than taking a close look at each individual. Reading in the Report that Student A didn't take AP classes their Senior year when their peers did and had a lower GPA allows for a quicker glance through an application, but it ignores the closer look at the individual classes taken which is a more accurate representation of that student's academic achievement.

 

[Wishing on a star]

And, this abuse of the Federal IEP system has, exactly, what to do with this new SAT 'adversity score'?

You do realize that these same wealthy parents, if this score were to take diagnosed learning disabilities into consideration, would just do the same to get a bigger 'disadvantage'. (as some of these wealthy college scandal parents have) And, I can tell you that, while advocating and just asking for basic accommodations for my son, with a true and verified neurological disability, this overriding negative attitude that ALL of these kids are just THOSE parents, trying to game the system for an unfair advantage, did NOT help, at all.

I can find absolutely nothing that is good, or even okay or appropriate, about this thing.

 

[Tinks]

How do you view the article in the Wall St. Journal today? In a nutshell the wealthy parents are requesting and receiving extra time for their children to take the test. The less privileged students are not receiving the same extra benefits.

I'm really curious how YOU view it. Sincerely, I am.

It sounds like a problem in a few area of the East Coast that someone is allowing to happen. When you have an IEP allowing for extra time, I don't believe anyone can question you about it. What do you want people administering the tests to do?

And I am befuddled. An adversity score is a solution to this??? The SAT is nationwide. Somehow a adversity score is going to solve this? What about the other 99.99999% of areas that do not have a problem with people requesting extra time?


I hope I don't seem confrontational. I'm trying to understand what you are getting across. It looks as though you are pointing out this problem in a few areas of the East Coast as a reason that the adversity score would help. The only analogy I can come up with is it is like making it a huge pain to get any over the counter medicine with Pseudoephedrine in it because meth makers exist. Not a fix and it makes it worse for most.

 

[MillauFr]

I'm really curious how YOU view it. Sincerely, I am.

I am amazed that people are shocked that this happens. Same with the recent college admissions scandals. Neither shocks me at all. I work for a city government and it is always the wealthy neighborhoods that expect and demand special treatment. They usually get it.

I am surprised they haven't gotten so bold that they demand a head start on all athletic competitions.

The kids that attend the wealthy urban high schools in the Puget Sound have a huge advantage. Those that attend the suburban districts or even worse they rural districts have far less opportunity. They rural districts have won multiple lawsuits against the state of Washington for not funding basic education. Sure you still have to work hard to get ahead but it is much easier for a student attending high school in Seattle than their counterpart in rural Washington.