Adversity Score

Legion said:
Then why did you make this statement as a preface to your analogy?
Click to expand...
Because you were clearly struggling to understand, and I couldn't fathom why, since the concept is so simple. Got it now? If not, go back and reread. Good luck!
 
Oneuli said:
The SAT will soon begin reporting aspects of a student's background to colleges, in order to allow the college to factor it into admissions decisions. The idea is that someone who came from a privileged family and got great SAT scores may actually be less impressive than someone who came from a very difficult background and got merely good scores.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/us/sat-adversity-score/index.html

I like the overall idea, including as an alternative to race-based affirmative action. In school I knew some kids who were from a dirt-poor immigrant family, dealing with language, social, and economic obstacles, and yet when universities looked at them, they were just generically viewed as "Asian," and judged by harder standards than other applicants. Meanwhile, I had a friend who was the child of two doctors, whose grandparents had also gone to college, and who grew up with all the advantages money could buy. But, when colleges looked at her, she was "African American" and so assumed to have overcome major socioeconomic obstacles. Race-based affirmative action is probably better than making no attempt to address systemic racism, since it will diminish inequities more often than it will exacerbate them, just as a statistical reality. But more individualized approaches are superior.

Having said that, I question the way this particular plan is being set up. Specifically, the factors include "the crime rate and poverty levels of a student's high school and neighborhood." That's not terribly individualized, either. Consider two hypothetical students:

Student A comes from a poor family. They live in a space above the family's little restaurant, where the kids work in the evenings to help make ends meet. The restaurant, however, is in a pretty nice neighborhood... by design, since the family was desperate to get into a good school system, even if it meant cramming six people into a 900 square foot space and working themselves to the bone. (note, this hypothetical is based on a second cousin of mine)

Student B comes from a rich family. In fact, it's the wealthiest family in a whole county -- a rural county where they own the local car dealership and the patriarch is the mayor of the town. However, the town itself is pretty run-down. (note, this hypothetical is based on someone I knew in college).

Which of the two really overcame the most? Was it the one from the family scrimping and saving to live a spartan life in an expensive neighborhood, or the one living like feudal lords of an economically depressed kingdom? I'd argue that the first student overcame a lot more. You can live in a lousy town and attend a crummy school, but if you can afford to live in a gated community within that town and get expensive tutoring and enrichment opportunities, setting doesn't matter so much. In fact, you could be better off as a rich person in a poor neighborhood than a rich person in a rich one, given weaker academic competition and the ability of your dollar to go farther.

So, I'd argue in favor of an "adversity score" that was based strictly on money. Simply consider the parents' income over the prior five years, for example, and assign a score based on that. That's going to be the best realistic proxy for how much adversity the student likely faced.
Click to expand...

the thread I posted today can compliment this thread
 
anatta said:
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)
Click to expand...

Try to control your weeping about being corrected.

Anyway, it's not an adjustment to the raw score. It's a separate score that also gets reported.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
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?
Click to expand...

For the two reasons I laid out:

(1) The "best applicant" may be the one that has a worse raw score but compiled it in tougher circumstances (see the analogy to Hakeem Olajuwan versus Earl Jones).

(2) It can create greater diversity in the student body, which can mean getting more out of the average student than if she's in a bubble community of those from the same socioeconomic background.
 
potential


that is what we should be looking for



being given only a rock to solve the problem as apposed to being given all the newest technology to solve the problem


they get to the same place at the same time but the person with ONLY A FUCKING ROCK has a less refined solution


Get it you idiots


of course you wont

you are racists and racists are very stupid and dont have much potential
 
Oneuli said:
Because you were clearly struggling to understand, and I couldn't fathom why, since the concept is so simple. Got it now? If not, go back and reread. Good luck!
Click to expand...

I don't recall "struggling to understand" your sophomoric analogy. If you think there's any indication of that, go back and reread.

I'm pulling for you.
 
Oneuli said:
Try to control your weeping about being corrected.

Anyway, it's not an adjustment to the raw score. It's a separate score that also gets reported.
Click to expand...
it's STILL used as a base score// There is no good reason to adjust test scores -Universities are going to keep that adjustment secret, some will use it some wont/ how will applicant know? they won't

Why make the SAT into a social adjustment, when social adjustments can be made on circumstance like they aer now?
You guys just live for this stuff. you like to meddle for meddlings sake
 
Oneuli said:
So, I'd argue in favor of an "adversity score" that was based strictly on money. Simply consider the parents' income over the prior five years, for example, and assign a score based on that. That's going to be the best realistic proxy for how much adversity the student likely faced.
Click to expand...

So, you want parents to turn over five years of tax returns to the SAT people? Moron.

How about you just stop being a fascist fcktard wanting to manage the lives of others? How about you just top being a fascist fcktard trying to shit all over society with your libby backdoor racial discrimination? How about we just have a test that does nothing more or less than measure academic accomplishment?
 
evince said:
potential


that is what we should be looking for



being given only a rock to solve the problem as apposed to being given all the newest technology to solve the problem


they get to the same place at the same time but the person with ONLY A FUCKING ROCK has a less refined solution


Get it you idiots


of course you wont

you are racists and racists are very stupid and dont have much potential
Click to expand...

Even if we ignored all the other advantages that come from wealth and privileged background, there's just the fact that there are program like Kaplan and the Princeton Review where rich kids can essentially buy themselves an extra 100 points on their SAT scores, by learning proprietary "tips and tricks." And that's for group class -- with elite private tutoring, it's possible to buy more than 100 points. So, a poor kid with a 1200 SAT could well have gotten 1350 simply with a couple months of the kind of training rich kids' parents buy them as a matter of course. Then there's also the fact that rich families are a lot more aware of the option to get a friendly doctor to diagnose the kid with a condition that allows for an untimed test, which can make an even bigger difference.
 
Legion said:
I don't recall "struggling to understand" your sophomoric analogy.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that your struggle was so severe that you didn't even realize you were struggling-- like a tone-deaf person not having the ability to realize his singing is out of tune. Well, keep trying and eventually you'll get up to speed. Good luck.
 
Oneuli said:
It's interesting that your struggle was so severe that you didn't even realize you were struggling-- like a tone-deaf person not having the ability to realize his singing is out of tune. Well, keep trying and eventually you'll get up to speed. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Think so? Since there's no evident indication of any "struggle", it's telling that you claim to have discerned something that didn't exist.
 
Oneuli said:
Even if we ignored all the other advantages that come from wealth and privileged background, there's just the fact that there are program like Kaplan and the Princeton Review where rich kids can essentially buy themselves an extra 100 points on their SAT scores, by learning proprietary "tips and tricks." And that's for group class -- with elite private tutoring, it's possible to buy more than 100 points. So, a poor kid with a 1200 SAT could well have gotten 1350 simply with a couple months of the kind of training rich kids' parents buy them as a matter of course. Then there's also the fact that rich families are a lot more aware of the option to get a friendly doctor to diagnose the kid with a condition that allows for an untimed test, which can make an even bigger difference.
Click to expand...

"Essentially."

It appears that your issue is with the availability of coaching to those with the drive and ambition to obtain it. Those people can be said to have overcome poverty in their quest for education.

I would like to know who told you that "rich families are a lot more aware of the option to get a friendly doctor to diagnose the kid with a condition that allows for an untimed test."
 
Oneuli said:
The SAT will soon begin reporting aspects of a student's background to colleges, in order to allow the college to factor it into admissions decisions. The idea is that someone who came from a privileged family and got great SAT scores may actually be less impressive than someone who came from a very difficult background and got merely good scores.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/us/sat-adversity-score/index.html

I like the overall idea, including as an alternative to race-based affirmative action. In school I knew some kids who were from a dirt-poor immigrant family, dealing with language, social, and economic obstacles, and yet when universities looked at them, they were just generically viewed as "Asian," and judged by harder standards than other applicants. Meanwhile, I had a friend who was the child of two doctors, whose grandparents had also gone to college, and who grew up with all the advantages money could buy. But, when colleges looked at her, she was "African American" and so assumed to have overcome major socioeconomic obstacles. Race-based affirmative action is probably better than making no attempt to address systemic racism, since it will diminish inequities more often than it will exacerbate them, just as a statistical reality. But more individualized approaches are superior.

Having said that, I question the way this particular plan is being set up. Specifically, the factors include "the crime rate and poverty levels of a student's high school and neighborhood." That's not terribly individualized, either. Consider two hypothetical students:

Student A comes from a poor family. They live in a space above the family's little restaurant, where the kids work in the evenings to help make ends meet. The restaurant, however, is in a pretty nice neighborhood... by design, since the family was desperate to get into a good school system, even if it meant cramming six people into a 900 square foot space and working themselves to the bone. (note, this hypothetical is based on a second cousin of mine)

Student B comes from a rich family. In fact, it's the wealthiest family in a whole county -- a rural county where they own the local car dealership and the patriarch is the mayor of the town. However, the town itself is pretty run-down. (note, this hypothetical is based on someone I knew in college).

Which of the two really overcame the most? Was it the one from the family scrimping and saving to live a spartan life in an expensive neighborhood, or the one living like feudal lords of an economically depressed kingdom? I'd argue that the first student overcame a lot more. You can live in a lousy town and attend a crummy school, but if you can afford to live in a gated community within that town and get expensive tutoring and enrichment opportunities, setting doesn't matter so much. In fact, you could be better off as a rich person in a poor neighborhood than a rich person in a rich one, given weaker academic competition and the ability of your dollar to go farther.

So, I'd argue in favor of an "adversity score" that was based strictly on money. Simply consider the parents' income over the prior five years, for example, and assign a score based on that. That's going to be the best realistic proxy for how much adversity the student likely faced.
Click to expand...

College admissions should be based on just one thing. SAT scores. Politics has no place in such decisions.
 
anatta said:
it's STILL used as a base score// There is no good reason to adjust test scores -Universities are going to keep that adjustment secret, some will use it some wont/ how will applicant know? they won't

Why make the SAT into a social adjustment, when social adjustments can be made on circumstance like they aer now?
Click to expand...
They're providing the universities an index they can use or not. In theory, each university could do its own research about each applicant and come up with its own index to use. But surely you can see how that would be less efficient than having it done in by the testers, and then having the individual universities decide how to factor that in.

Here's another sports analogy. In the NFL, the league holds a "combine" where they apply various tests. Not ever team uses every piece of data for every prospect, I'm sure. For example, maybe you don't think the Wonderlic really matters. And certainly it would be possible to individual teams to require individual tests, instead. But it would be inefficient. If a significant number of teams want a particular test, it's more efficient for the test to be administered at the combine, rather than leaving it to the individual teams. In the same way, it's more efficient for one outfit to compile a "disadvantage" index, using a consistent metric, for all the applicants, than for each school to do so separately.

I get why this is stressing conservatives out. They're worried that it might advantage "those people." That's the defining piece of thinking of the modern US conservative movement.
 
Legion said:
Think so? Since there's no evident indication of any "struggle", it's telling that you claim to have discerned something that didn't exist.
Click to expand...
The evidence of your struggle was overwhelming. Go back and reread. You should be able to spot it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top