New Adversity Score on SAT factors in socioeconomic background into score

I think Bartholomew is incorrect and making an emotional sweeping generalization.

I think capable students of any race will find their way notwithstanding any negative impacts on admission by virtue of race preferences.

By way of example, if a capable student1450 SAT is rejected at an Ivy League school or a Duke or Stanford or Georgetown (they practice heavy race preferences), then they very likely will be successful at a Bucknell, Lehigh, and so on (all very good schools). So I don't agree that the white privilege is the main issue at hand, notwithstanding complaints from white and Asian students about the injustice of it all. Any notion of Yale or jail is remarkably false.

The real issue is one of matching a student's skills with the requirements and rigors of the school. I observed a fairly dismal state of affairs at a Tier 1 law school, where heavy preferences really did harm to the group they were designed to help. Now, a top law school may be a particularly negative example, because of its heavy emphasis on intense and rapid analysis, although with excellent and fairly honed writing skills, and rife with people with LSAT's at 97 percentile or above. . It is a painful subject, but the disparity in bar pass rates regarding those who received preferences was striking. The placement office was the only unit within the school which spoke directly to the problem with preferences, because they had to do the heavy lifting with graduates who were not ready for the marketplace. In any event, people who were admitted with two standard deviation allowances on scores and grades inevitably had the same two standard deviation variance in bar pass rates. Now, one could say that preferences still should continue, since there are not enough people of color in the profession, but that is a fairly callous view regarding the people who are set up to fail, with typically over 100,000 dollars in debt or more and three years of lost opportunity cost. You can "blame" the system, but by and large I found the victims of this enterprise to nice and interesting people who thankfully often didn't have the grind personality of many law students, and thought they were often sold a bill of goods. Note that I am not making a general mismatch statement - this is a reflection of what I observed at a single Tier 1 school and in tutoring law students at that school. But there is little doubt that had some of the preference recipients had gone to a local, lesser ranked school that drilled on local law subjects (our civil procedure course, for example, was focused on federal law and very abstract and philosophical, not much for help for practice or a bar exam), success rates would have been better, and perhaps with less debt and stress.

Query what this new SAT scoring scheme will accomplish in the long run.

Claim your parents were drunks that beat you until you changed genders.

Instant max adversity score and they can't prove it didn't happen.

my SAT aint’t your daddy’s SAT wrote:

Both my parents have PhD’s, but they had their own careers to worry about. The only privilege they had bestowed on me were good genes.

Baaaaaahaahaaaa!

I had a rough night before my SATs. Went to a party, puked up my guts up after drinking and doing some chew. Adversity score raising events??

Help the disadvantaged get into better schools through adjusting their scores is an interesting social engineering idea, but the tests aren't predictive of how well a person will succeed. I had two roommates in college. My SATs were 1420, one guy was around 1100, the other around 1200. Mr 1100 majored in geology but ended up working for a plumber in the summer one year, he now owns a plumbing company and is worth north of 10 mil. Mr 1200 dropped out, became an electrician, started a small firm, then branched out into construction and is now crazy crazy rich. I'm a contract lawyer and make a good living, but I'm also living proof that SAT scores don't predict you'll be more well off then your peers whom you trounce in the classroom.

Don't get too caught up in the scores, focus on the drive and the process of success.

javery529 wrote:

adiBRO wrote:

Is this really not an Onion article?

This world is effed. Hardship/Privilege can be determined at the level of a personal statement and interview, not a STANDARDIZED test. Tarded.

This is actually pretty awesome.

Based on your use of the word "tarded" you appear to be in high school or at least an undergrad.

It's easy as hell to score high on a test when you have a supporting home environment, parents that help you prep for the specific test and the money to be tutored when failing.

You think kids growing up wondering where their next meal is coming from or if they'll have a warm winter coat are afforded those same options and able to focus on prepping for a BS standardized test while also helping raise their siblings?

Typical brainwashed sjw. You've never been out in the real world, but of course you'll claim to have experienced it all. Lying sack. Prepping for the tests can only help a bit - if you have the intelligence in the first place. This new adversity score is merely another scam to hide affirmative action, to rationalize letting C and D level students into good schools. Only a disingenuous racist with an agenda would deny this. Are you performing your mandated monitoring for HH or the hasbarats?

This scaling of scores doesn't address the problem. An under-privileged kid scoring in the 90th percentile among those with similar adversity, simply isn't as academically prepared as a highly privileged kid scoring in the 90th percentile among other highly privileged kids.

And I have a crazy uncle Rico who lived to be 99 while smoking two packs of Marlboros a day.

Anecdotes don't mean anything, and no one claims that SAT scores are an incredibly strong predictor of life success.

How long until Jews start taking advantage of this to help their lazy and dumb kids to get into Ivy League schools?

The real reason behind this.

Student loan debt is big business. The more people going to college and taking out loans the better. All those stupid people working and not accumulating debt for 4 years can't happen, especially when they are highly susceptible to low impulse control, consumerism, and lack the future planning to pay off the debt.

Worms of worms wrote:

The real reason behind this.

Student loan debt is big business. The more people going to college and taking out loans the better. All those stupid people working and not accumulating debt for 4 years can't happen, especially when they are highly susceptible to low impulse control, consumerism, and lack the future planning to pay off the debt.

College Board doesn’t issue student loans, so how would that give them incentive?

Well, "success" cannot be measured by how much money one has. Of course, you want to have enough to live comfortable life. But beyond that, the marginal utility quickly diminishes for many people.

In a similar move, state and national medical, dental and legal boards have all decided to include adversity adjustments in their scoring so that people are free to get their medical, dental and legal licenses without fear of discrimination as there is nothing more discriminatory than a standardized test.

If your SATs scores were higher you might realize that one anecdotal report about success and SAT scores not being related proves nothing.

Uncico C. wrote:

Did anyone even read the article? The college board is not adjusting the student's SAT score. They are providing an adversity score from 1-100 in addition to the SAT score. The colleges already have this information on their applicants so this is pretty pointless.

THIS. READ THE DAMNED ARTICLE BEFORE YOU GET WORKED UP OVER NOTHING.

Sheesh.

I imagine this socioeconomic score will be based on how well other students at that student's hs and area hs's do on the sat. For instance, a school where everyone scores below average on the SAT would get a high score on the socioeconomic scale or low score, whatever least well off is. Measuring a student against similar students could be another marker of college success than just getting a 1550 in a school where everyone scores between 1500-1600, ie an elite private school. A school might want a student who scores 1100 from a school where the average is 800.