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

[lifesavacation]

IMHO, our country would be better off if those at the socioeconomic bottom were post-high school educated—not necessarily just college, but trade school as well. If the diversity/adversity score helps boost the education rate and outcomes for that specific group, I’m all for it. How can that be a bad thing?

My kids will be fine either way.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Of course increasing anyone's, and everyone's, opportunities is (would be) a good thing!
This, just isn't the way to go about it. Not at all.

 

[Wishing on a star]

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.

I am definitely not surprised or amazed.
And, those first two paragraphs - is that not some Hatin' and Class Prejudice??? Seriously.

Just even more division here.
Not unity, but more bad feelings and judgements and division.
Just more ill feelings and division. Over and over.

With the last paragraphs, you hit the nail on the head. If we want more equity, then THIS (Government Primary thru High School education) is where this should start.

Not some secret and manipulated and not-indicative of any one individual 'score'.

Why is nobody asking, or saying, that if there is such disparity in 'zip codes' that action has to be taken, then why not make the zip-codes more equitable to begin with. This approach is just all kinds of screwed up and class-backwards.

Again, this is more of the same old, same old. Some people are more advantaged, so we should feel entitled, and yes, 'make them pay'.
No question in my mind... the First two paragraphs there say it all.

 

[Colleen27]

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!!!!)

I agree it is about entitlement... "I worked hard and I should be able to buy my kid every advantage. It isn't faaaiiiiir that schools are interested in economic (or racial) diversity. My kid has the best scores money could buy and he DESERVES that spot!" Opposing giving schools tools to use - and that's all this is, no one is mandating their use or setting quotas - to help them identify talent independently of economic advantage is the height of entitlement, arguing that even slightly leveling out the playing field is a slight against those occupying the high ground.

Taking away unearned privilege is fairness, even though someone is negatively impacted. This is a zero-sum game; there are only so many spots. Traditionally they've been allocated by economic means. Now the mere suggestion that schools that have already decided on their own to allocate some seats according to other assessments of merit leads to an uproar from people who already enjoy every advantage in life and just can't bear the thought of losing even a miniscule portion of it.

I don't think everyone should get a top level college education. I do think that highly qualified kids from disadvantaged backgrounds should get a shot at similar educational opportunities as highly qualified kids from more affluent homes, and while starting with our primary school systems would be the ideal way to go about that, we all know it is not a politically or economically viable suggestion.

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.

I agree that no system is going to work for every student. There are always going to be exceptions and this should be one part of a holistic review. But I don't see it adding any information schools don't already have. What it does is makes that information more accessible and usable than it currently is - instead of reading a student profile for every one of the tens of thousands of applicants, admissions counselors will have this score to provide a comparison that we were told many are not taking the time to do with the information in its current form. They're not taking that close a look at each individual now, which leads to qualified kids from disadvantaged circumstances never getting a fair shot at competing with their equally qualified but more advantaged peers.

And your situation isn't really a good example of the downside, since presumably you'd have submitted both high school and college transcripts with your application, which in itself is evidence of the rigor and challenges you took on in your course load.

 

[Colleen27]

Why is nobody asking, or saying, that if there is such disparity in 'zip codes' that action has to be taken, then why not make the zip-codes more equitable to begin with. This approach is just all kinds of screwed up and class-backwards.

It is often those with the advantages that fight the hardest against attempts to making things more equitable.

Our state tried something to make school funding more equitable across district lines. Instead of the schools being funded directly by property taxes, the money for school operations all goes to the state to be doled out as a per-pupil funding amount. Sounds fair enough, right? Except that the wealthiest districts in the state successfully argued that because they had more funding before the reform, it wouldn't be fair to make them cut their spending back to the statewide per pupil funding amount. In the end, they got their funding advantage preserved in the state law and those districts still (25 years later) get 3-4K per pupil more than the base funding amount. And because local property taxes still fund school construction/renovation directly, they have a double advantage - more funds for their physical facilities by virtue of being more affluent areas and more funds for operations because of that inequity preserved in the school funding formula. But any attempt to close the gap between those higher-funded districts and the base funding amount is decried as class-motivated and punitive, not as a way to make K-12 education more fair.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Why is nobody asking, or saying, that if there is such disparity in 'zip codes' that action has to be taken, then why not make the zip-codes more equitable to begin with. This approach is just all kinds of screwed up and class-backwards.

That has been asked since before you or I were born. And for at least 50 years people have tried to remedy that. But over the years other people have been actively and passively undermining anything brought about to remedy such. And those other people have been fairly successful at doing so.

 

[Wishing on a star]

All I can say to the last three post is, WOW... Just WOW.
What untrue and prejudiced and negative comments.
Nowhere, EVER, did I say that those who have some resources should be able to BUY (illegal or unfair) advantages. EVER.... This is coming from a person who was born without and has never had any such wealth/resources. In reality, I was born every very disadvantaged in almost every way, except zip-code.

Do you guys even stop to think about the rationality of what you are posting?
The assumptions and hatred and prejudice here are just astounding.

Having said that.... carry on.....

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

When considering guests staying at the various Disney resorts, it can be said that those staying at the Deluxe resorts enjoy a sizable advantage over those staying at the Values. Just in terms of transportation options and time spent traveling to and from the parks, it is clear that Deluxe guests unfairly have the opportunity to fit more park time into their vacation due to the privilege of residing in closer proximity to the parks. Perhaps, as a way to offset the disadvantages that Value guests have to endure, Disney could try to mitigate these disparities by limiting Extra Magic Hours to only those guests that are staying at Value resorts? Maybe 90-day FP booking for Value guests would also help in this effort to level the playing field?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

When considering guests staying at the various Disney resorts, it can be said that those staying at the Deluxe resorts enjoy a sizable advantage over those staying at the Values. Just in terms of transportation options and time spent traveling to and from the parks, it is clear that Deluxe guests unfairly have the opportunity to fit more park time into their vacation due to the privilege of residing in closer proximity to the parks. Perhaps, as a way to offset the disadvantages that Value guests have to endure, Disney could try to mitigate these disparities by limiting Extra Magic Hours to only those guests that are staying at Value resorts? Maybe 90-day FP booking for Value guests would also help in this effort to level the playing field?

Actually not really. I can get to the park right up front at opening staying in a value just the same as someone staying in a deluxe whether I go by Disney bus, car, or whatever. Once in the park, they don't have any special line privileges that people in values don't have also. They don't have any special hours that those in the values don't have. The only thing they have is a bigger room and a little more convenience. They don't have anything that gives them an advantage over me in the parks. And in fact, you'll often find many people that stay in the Deluxe resorts complain that they should have advantages on the values once in the parks on either the resorts board or the theme park attractions and strategies board.

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

Actually not really. I can get to the park right up front at opening staying in a value just the same as someone staying in a deluxe whether I go by Disney bus, car, or whatever.

Yes, you have an equal opportunity to be right up front (at MK for example) when the park opens, but you will have had to invest more of your time and effort to achieve the same results as the person that walks from The Contemporary due to their closer proximity and a dedicated bag check line that is usually shorter than those arriving by bus.

Once in the park, they don't have any special line privileges that people in values don't have also.

Maybe not all Deluxe guests, but Club Level guests are offered an option to begin their day with twice as many FPs as other guests. They also have access to these FPs 30 days sooner than most everyone else. And if they view booking FPs as an arduous task, they can provide a list to a Signature Services CM that will happily see to it that their wishes are met. These advantages are not even an option for any moderate or value guests.

They don't have any special hours that those in the values don't have. The only thing they have is a bigger room and a little more convenience. They don't have anything that gives them an advantage over me in the parks. And in fact, you'll often find many people that stay in the Deluxe resorts complain that they should have advantages on the values once in the parks on either the resorts board or the theme park attractions and strategies board.

Agreed about the special hours, the bigger room and a little more convenience. I would add that some might say Deluxe guests have easier access to better and more nutritional food options at their respective resorts when compared to the values.

I should add that I’m not against any of the differences between the various resorts. To say that all resorts should have exactly the same amenities as the deluxes would mean, well, all resorts would *be* deluxes. That would be unfortunate as it would mean far fewer opportunities for me to visit.

 

[MillauFr]

All I can say to the last three post is, WOW... Just WOW.
What untrue and prejudiced and negative comments.

Can you be specific on which comments are negative? I haven't seen any comments defending that the people with the most cash should have the biggest advantage. Rather we are just commenting on the way the system works in the United States. I don't think it is just but it is the way our system works.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Your school transcripts and GPA still count for so much I can't imagine the SAT test changing can impact a college's decision to admit you that much.

I always thought the same way until my daughter was denied admission to her major of choice based on her SAT scores. It wasn't something I even realized was the case (they are generally very tight lipped about their processes) until I happened to speak to the Director of Admissions at the school and he told me so - AND that they had not even considered her GPA OR her essay (which we were told by representatives of the program was SO IMPORTANT!). Her application simply went into a "Denied" file based solely on her SAT scores because there were so many applicants to the program that SATs became the deciding factor by the admissions staff (and not the program staff). So I think SAT scores really can factor in depending on the program. Fortunately she was admitted into another, similar, major at the school and proved herself worthy for a year (while some admitted to the original program based on their SAT scores dropped or flunked out), she reapplied, eventually made it in AND she's seen the program through, needing just four more classes to graduate. I think it does speak to some of the commentary made earlier in the thread about SAT scores not telling the whole story, and that it can go either way.

I don't like that even the students don't/won't know their own adversity scores. Schools are already very secretive about admissions as it is.

 

[xjillianpaige]

I'm a person who works with young people, primarily of color, in an urban environment. And let's be clear - the system is inherently broken so this adversity score is just another group of people trying to put a bandaid on a severed arm.

Instead of trying to level the playing field by adding an adversity score, we need to level the playing field by investing in our young people from the start. Kids need to be in school from an early age, with quality teachers and materials, which means a monetary investment from the city (paid for by taxes).

How can a young person without access to new textbooks and qualified teachers on a consistent basis compete with someone in a school with all of those and more. We have people in crumbling schools and people in state of the art schools. And then we expect them to perform equally as well. It just isn't fair.

As long as kids do not have equal access to quality education, it is only fair that we level the playing field in another way. But that can't be the permanent fix.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

That has been asked since before you or I were born. And for at least 50 years people have tried to remedy that. But over the years other people have been actively and passively undermining anything brought about to remedy such. And those other people have been fairly successful at doing so.

Not an accurate comparison at all. We are saying that there are issues in educational opportunities that need to be addressed, but this Adversity Score is not the way to do that. If you wanted to compare it to going out to eat, a fair comparison would be MIL saying that she needs to eat, then when you offer to take her out to eat, she says she doesn't like that idea. She still wants to eat, but she doesn't like the method you are proposing to achieve that endeavor.

*That was supposed to be quoting the comparison to MIL saying we can eat wherever then turning down every restaurant named. Apparently, the post has been edited and that part removed.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Not an accurate comparison at all. We are saying that there are issues in educational opportunities that need to be addressed, but this Adversity Score is not the way to do that. If you wanted to compare it to going out to eat, a fair comparison would be MIL saying that she needs to eat, then when you offer to take her out to eat, she says she doesn't like that idea. She still wants to eat, but she doesn't like the method you are proposing to achieve that endeavor.

*That was supposed to be quoting the comparison to MIL saying we can eat wherever then turning down every restaurant named. Apparently, the post has been edited and that part removed.

Though it didn't violate guidelines in the least given the response, I concluded someone was upset with that particular tangent. As such, I thought it better to just take that part down. And therefore won't continue with it in open forum.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

Though it didn't violate guidelines in the least given the response, I concluded someone was upset with that particular tangent. As such, I thought it better to just take that part down. And therefore won't continue with it in open forum.

I agree that it didn't violate anything, and wasn't personally upset, but respect your approach.

 

[PollyannaMom]

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.

This is interesting, and I hadn't heard the connection before. But I do agree that's what happening - we, as a society, have somehow decided that everyone should go to college. And it's backfiring. More students than ever are dropping out, because college wasn't right for them in the first place. We need to stop telling kids that they all have to study exactly the same thing in high school, all have to go on to college, etc. If we really supported the kids who wanted to be electricians or mechanics or whatever, instead of telling them that wasn't good enough, there wouldn't be as many students competing for those few college spots, and maybe we wouldn't be arguing about how to allocate them.

My actual experience with SATs with DS is that many colleges are actually making them optional. He took them, but I think only sent them to 2 or 3 of the 5 schools he applied to. (And he got into all of them.)

I personally think the adversity score is only going to put more pressure on kids, especially the good students who also happen to (by pure chance) be born in the "right" place. What are they now going to have to do to prove they have as much grit as someone with a higher adversity score? I think it's going to increase the pressure to take more AP classes, participate in more extracurricular activities, etc., and that's not a good thing:

http://www.childrensresourcegroup.com/crg-newsletter/stress-anxiety/teens-stress-higher-ever/