How could being accorded favorable consideration for having been born into circumstances a candidate had no control over be a "qualification" based on "overcoming" those circumstances?
Adversity Score
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
How could being accorded favorable consideration for having been born into circumstances a candidate had no control over be a "qualification" based on "overcoming" those circumstances?
sure it's a word - an important word for mathematics and test scores.
your'e not so childish as to attack my writing over a spelling error are you?
You dodged the question.
Getin the ring
Verified User
another great liberal strategy,
affirmative action college acceptances disguised as "adversity" points
affirmative action college acceptances disguised as "adversity" points
You misunderstood. Go back and reread.
Did you read my reply to you with the track analogy? I don't think the concept of crediting someone for overcoming tougher circumstances is such a hard one to fathom. It happens all the time in sports.
As another example, picture you are drafting for the NBA. You are choosing between two centers. Each is 7 feet tall and athletic. Each had outstanding college stats, in terms of blocks and rebounds, though Center B was much more accomplished when it came to scoring (21.7 points per game over four years, versus 13.3 points per game over three years for Center A).
Center A, accomplished all that despite two handicaps: (1) he grew up in Africa and never even touched a basketball as a child, so he had to learn all his basketball skills in just a few years in college, and (2) he had to compile those college stats playing against elite competition.
Center B, by comparison, had two big advantages: (1) he was playing basketball and getting quality basketball coaching from early childhood, and (2) in college, he ran up those stats against weak Division II opponents, where he pretty much always had several inches on his competition.
So, who do you draft, Center A, with his somewhat worse raw stats but presumably vastly higher next-level potential, or Center B who scored a lot more, but didn't have nearly as much to overcome to get there?
Well, if you answer "Center B," congratulations, you just drafted Earl Jones. He was drafted in the first round in 1984 and rode the bench for two years before flunking out of the NBA. Center A is Hakeem Olajuwan, the 12-time All Star, two-time NBA champ, and first-ballot Hall of Famer.
Last edited:
No, it isn't. That's why you had to go with a different word when you provided a definition.
You're not so childish that you're going to whine about someone helping you to improve your spelling, are you?
Affirmative Action has been a central feature of college admissions from the very start. It's just that the forms of it that conservatives tend to support are those that reinforce the existing socioeconomic structure -- for example, preferential admissions for children of alumni (GW Bush), or children of big donors (Donald Trump). You also won't usually hear them whining about affirmative action based on geographic factors that disproportionately help conservatives (e.g., preferential admissions for residents of under-represented rural areas, or for military veterans.) Especially with stuff like that weighing into the process, giving extra consideration to the children of the poor acts as a counter-balance.
Is that so?
I didn't claim you said "hard concept to fathom." Go back and reread.
Starting the week off with an early win!
Am I? I wasn't aware our discussion was a competition. I asked you if your statement is a fact. Go back and reread.
Then why did you make this statement as a preface to your analogy?
Go back and reread.
see what you did not answer in your obsession over my spelling even after I clarified for you
test scores need to be empirical as a baseline before you make social adjustments
-making adjustment to the raw score itself, makes the score fabricated ( non-empirical)
Why does anyone "need" to make "social adjustments?"
thats a decision for academia - i think it's dumb
Regardless there is no hard data, nothing empirical if you make these "adjustments" to the raw test score itself
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I'll provide a little skepticism from the left.
Adversity is real. It probably impacts SAT scores.
But if an academic institution wishes to choose the best applicants possible, why would it care?
I got decent, not great (in the 1200s combined) SAT scores coming from a working class family with no previous college graduates.
I got into a decent, not great, private university in the mid 1960s.
How should it work?
Adversity is real. It probably impacts SAT scores.
But if an academic institution wishes to choose the best applicants possible, why would it care?
I got decent, not great (in the 1200s combined) SAT scores coming from a working class family with no previous college graduates.
I got into a decent, not great, private university in the mid 1960s.
How should it work?
No, it's not. That's why Harvard University is embroiled in a lawsuit over their admissions policies.
I never thought I'd see a sensible statement from this guy. Color me impressed.