Adversity Score

Adversity scoring; another laughably stupid leftist idea to ensure the further dumbing down of this society.

I feel sad for my sons future in a nation that is going full retard.

Another good reason to ensure the Party of the Jackass and their leftist dullards are marginalized and kept away from the halls of Governmental power.
 
Legion said:
The left doesn't even try to hide their contempt for the rule of law when they don't agree with it, do they?
Click to expand...

No truer statement could be made. They also arrogantly presume that laws only apply to those they disagree with, not to them.
 
Oneuli said:
It would be a good idea to factor those things in, if they could be meaningfully quantified. If someone had horrible parents and the handicap of a terrible home life, and yet still excelled academically, it suggests a great natural talent or extremely high personal discipline and character. But the problem is that's not as easy to quantify as parental earnings or local economic details. Instead, it winds up in the mushy part of the decision-making process that comes out of essays and interviews... the same way you'd factor in something like overcoming a serious childhood illness or disability.
Click to expand...

but if you really overcame it, it would be in the test scores.
 
Truth Detector said:
Adversity scoring; another laughably stupid leftist idea to ensure the further dumbing down of this society.

I feel sad for my sons future in a nation that is going full retard.

Another good reason to ensure the Party of the Jackass and their leftist dullards are marginalized and kept away from the halls of Governmental power.
Click to expand...
Indeed, TD. Same worry here.
 
Legion said:
Perhaps you can explain how "overcoming a serious childhood illness or disability" is a defensible reason for being afforded an advantage by university admissions authorities.
Click to expand...

Sure. There are two defensible reasons for it. First, it enriches university life for the full student body. Exposure to people who haven't enjoyed a great run of luck gives everyone a closer view into what can be accomplished in the face of adversity, while also making people more immediately aware of the form that adversity can take (e.g., seeing a classmate struggling with a handicap can inform a person's understanding of issues facing those with handicaps).

Second, as between two people who have covered the same distance, the one who did so over tougher ground accomplished something more impressive, suggesting greater skill or diligence. For example, picture you were putting together a track team, and you had two potential recruits, one of whom ran a 10.1 100m wearing the best racing shoes on the market and with running form that shows he's been enjoying elite coaching. The other runs a 10.2, wearing cheap and worn-out Walmart sneakers, and with a ragged form that tells you his high school coach was just a moonlighting teacher who didn't know anything about track. Which do you want on your team? I'd take the guy who ran the 10.2, because if he's that fast with so much going against him, I'm pretty sure he can wind up a lot faster than the guy who's running 10.1 with everything already in his favor. Well, in the same way, if I can recruit a student who maybe is slightly less accomplished academically, but got to that point over serious obstacles, I'm going to see more potential there.
 
Total horse manure, the person with the highest SAT, GPA etc... should be admitted first.

“Enriches life.”

Good grief

.
 
AssHatZombie said:
but if you really overcame it, it would be in the test scores.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the idea isn't to disregard those scores. It's to consider them in concert with other factors.

The concept here isn't hard to follow. Here's another sports analogy. The 2019 men's basketball teams from Virginia and UW Oshkosh are going to play. You have to bet on one. Which do you choose? They both are similarly accomplished, having won all but three games in the season, and having won their respective division's tournament. Now, if you were a great idiot, you might say you expect UW Oshkosh to win, since they won their championship by twice as big a margin as Virginia did. Or, instead, you could look at what each had to overcome to get to that championship win -- how Virginia had to beat much more talented teams to do it... how taking out Texas Tech by a small margin is a lot more impressive than taking out Swarthmore by a big one. Overcoming all the obstacles a Texas Tech can throw in the way is a much bigger deal. Again, if you were an imbecile, you might say "if they really overcame it, it would show up on the scoreboard in a bigger margin of victory." But is anyone really that stupid?

In the same way, someone who overcomes very difficult life obstacles to get an SAT score of 1400 may well be much more gifted and diligent than someone who gets a 1420 with the benefits of all the enrichment opportunities and test coaching an privileged life affords.
 
Total horse manure, the person with the highest SAT, GPA etc... should be admitted first.

“Enriches life.”

Good grief
 
the scores are no longer objective, they become subjective.
Admissions can always take into consideration "adversity" but the score itself needs to be objective
 
Earl said:
Total horse manure, the person with the highest SAT, GPA etc... should be admitted first.

“Enriches life.”

Good grief

.
Click to expand...

Take note of the fact you offered no counter-argument whatsoever -- merely a counter-assertion and a rhetorical roll of the eyes. Let me guess -- your own SAT wasn't so great, was it?
 
Oneuli said:
Take note of the fact you offered no counter-argument whatsoever -- merely a counter-assertion and a rhetorical roll of the eyes. Let me guess -- your own SAT wasn't so great, was it?
Click to expand...
My SAT allowed entrance into Vanderbilt, Snowflake.

Let me guess...yours didn’t.
 
Oneuli said:
Instead, it winds up in the mushy part of the decision-making process that comes out of essays and interviews... the same way you'd factor in something like overcoming a serious childhood illness or disability.
Click to expand...
so you prefer to make the scores themselves mushy? got it.
 
dukkha said:
the scores are no longer objective, they become subjective.
Admissions can always take into consideration "adversity" but the score itself needs to be objective
Click to expand...

I favor objective standards over subjective ones. One of the things Asians have rightly complained about is having been given lower subjective scores on personality by admissions personnel than applicants of other races. Using something like this, with hard numbers, in place of that subjective method would, I think, be a big improvement. It would be harder for me to complain, for example, if I were judged more severely because I was born on economic second base than if I'm judged more severely simply because my ancestors came from East Asia and that caused an interviewer to feel I don't have as engaging a personality as a white applicant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top