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.
Wait. If this is true — what on earth for?? The new revised SAT is already sad enough in its lowered expectations.
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?
But if we give average people with high adversity high scores? How are they gonna handle higher level colleges?
A few years ago I read about a guy who was Indian, didn’t get accepted into his school of choice, because of his grades. He changed his name and identified as black. He got into the school but was forced to drop out a few months later because he simply wasn’t qualified enough.
javery529 wrote:
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?
Artificially inflating the SAT score isn’t the answer, though. I read a statistical study a few years back on the dropout rates of affirmative action admissions at my old alma mater. While I’m all for giving folks a leg up, simply adjusting their SAT scores is meaningless unless their subsequent academic institution backs it up with a support program. And of course the school support system should start long, long before a kid ever takes the SAT score, but these are utopian dreams on my part.
And BTW being white and from a rich family doesn’t necessarily mean your parents are invested in how you get into college. I took my SAT’s at 14. 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. Was that an advantage for me? Sure, but life isn’t fair and some people are born smarter than others. Society can’t fix that.
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.
I figure most schools with competitive admissions figure this out on their own so I don't see this changing much. These schools have very calculated processes and the stakes are large. If a small private school doesn't fill 4 full tuition paying spots in their incoming class they are out at least a quarter of a million dollars.
I am an adult who works in medical research you turd. The fact that you could come up with such an argument is in itself "pretty awesome" for a turd. Here is an actual critical evaluation, you turd: This is not my area fyi, but a quick review shows the evidence for measuring adversity is shaky at best. Much more intensive batteries meant for clinical settings even have questionable reliability. Dumb that down to only 15 (!) demographic measures thrown into a some voodoo model, and there is no way a single score +/- of 50 will mean anything, let alone be interpreted correctly. This is a GROSS overstep by the College Board which is a money grubbing scam in itself. They will claim the scoring model is proprietary and not release it for peer review and public publishing. This is a new tool for discrimination. Will colleges release their adversity score statistics for applicants vs accepted students? Highly highly doubt it. They aren't even telling student's their score! Imagine how disheartening it will be to students studying to have no concept of whether they are studying hard enough because they don't know where they fall on the privilege spectrum and how they will be judged. So just spend every waking moment studying?
Conclusion
In this review, we identified a wide variety of measures for assessing exposure to cumulative adversity to identify children at risk for developing a toxic stress response. We observed a number of challenges with the current measures that may affect the screening of children and adolescents in pediatric clinical practice.
• Adversity categories: A lack of universal agreement on the definition of childhood adversity has contributed to inconsistency in adversity constructs included in measurement tools.
•Target population: Few tools are developed specifically for measuring exposure to adverse experiences in young children, who are the most vulnerable to being maltreated, or for measuring the health consequences of maltreatment.
•Administration method: Any particular measure is unlikely to be equally effective for children at different stages of cognitive and social development.
•Administration time: Many of the examined measures are time consuming and burdensome.
•Reliability and validity: The reliability and validity of a measure is not always available for a current version of the measure or applicable to the population of interest.
We observed a number of challenges with the current measures that may affect the screening of children and adolescents in pediatric clinical practice.
In addition to these challenges, predisposing biological, genetic, and epigenetic factors, as well as the variability of behavioral and physiologic manifestations of toxic stress, all contribute to the complexity of predicting an individual's risk for toxic stress (Bucci et al., 2016). These challenges will all need to be addressed to develop a standardized, validated, and feasible tool that can effectively assess exposure to adversity at all stages of child and adolescent development. Screening for resilience factors should also be an integral part of screening for exposure to adversity, because resilience is key to understanding a child's individual response to an adverse exposure (Haskett, Nears, Ward, & McPherson, 2006).
I like this new metric. Kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds are way more likely to have personal issues that interfere with school. This score will help schools reject those kids outright instead of accepting them only to find that they need to take a leave of absence every time a parent gets sick.
You may work in medical research but you are no "adult".
Why are people surprised when poverties engaging in poverty behavior don’t do as well in terms of life outcomes? Why do Leftists hate people who aren’t degenerate scum and can actually provide for the children that they decide to bring into this world?
my SAT aint’t your daddy’s SAT wrote:
And BTW being white and from a rich family doesn’t necessarily mean your parents are invested in how you get into college. I took my SAT’s at 14. 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. Was that an advantage for me? Sure, but life isn’t fair and some people are born smarter than others. Society can’t fix that.
Lol you’re delusional. Pretty sure the privilege your parents bestowed on you may have had something to do with both of them having PhD salaries
my SAT aint’t your daddy’s SAT wrote:
And BTW being white and from a rich family doesn’t necessarily mean your parents are invested in how you get into college. I took my SAT’s at 14. 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. Was that an advantage for me? Sure, but life isn’t fair and some people are born smarter than others. Society can’t fix that.
Do you really believe the bolded part? If your parents were parents had PhD's and careers, you probably didn't grow up in poverty. You probably had enough to eat. You probably lived in an area with good schools. My guess is you had a lot of advantages over someone with similar genes growing up a poor neighborhood.
hdbshs wrote:
my SAT aint’t your daddy’s SAT wrote:
And BTW being white and from a rich family doesn’t necessarily mean your parents are invested in how you get into college. I took my SAT’s at 14. 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. Was that an advantage for me? Sure, but life isn’t fair and some people are born smarter than others. Society can’t fix that.
Lol you’re delusional. Pretty sure the privilege your parents bestowed on you may have had something to do with both of them having PhD salaries
You’re entitled to your opinion. I had no tutors, no help with homework when younger, and I didn’t go to a private school till high school, for which they didn’t have to pay tuition because it was a merit-based admission. Same with college. I hardly ever saw my parents growing up. Not all smart people who pool their genes to produce smart kids bend over backwards to give them a head start in their academic career.
“Privilege” is just a pejorative that all you povies, lime green with envy, fling at people you want to subjugate with your Marxist beliefs. I grew up in a “socioeconomically diverse” neighborhood for the first 11 years of my life and let me tell you, most poor people are complete trash. It’s not even worth getting into a chicken and the egg type argument to pinpoint how they got that way, most are lost causes and no amount of social engineering will change a povies’ lot in life.
Personally, I agree with one poster above who said poorer kids should be accounted for but inflating test scores doesn't solve the root problem.
Almost anyone can overcome adversity. Look at how many ancient Roman social leaders (senators etc.) started from a slave background. And few thought it anything as a measure of status. So much different with the class society that infects junior high girls etc.
But the real test of character is one's benign nature when given authority over others.
I don't know whether this adversity score is wisely considered or constructed, but the notion that hardship/privilege should be determined at the level of the personal statement and interview is a bad one, because those involve how much you can spin your fundamental situation, not what that situation really is. There is a game that admissions committees have cultivated to describe your life circumstances in letters in the worst of all circumstances, as if it is a hardship Olympiad, with no attention to the total picture of factual circumstances. It is absolutely true that environment and socioeconomic background have enormous consequences on SAT scores without equally measuring fundamental potential.
Jejenen wrote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/Discuss
ACT is going to take over if they don't go down this route. Not that it matters, we know that "adversity" and "diversity" are synonyms here and that universities will disregard qualified middle class white students in order to increase their "diversity".