What are the better assessment tools that are as efficient? It is only one of the many measures but it does provide a standard. Also two different tests to measure as well. Top schools also tend to want 3-5 SAT scores. Rather that just the two numbers from the SAT1.
I can see if a kid with a high adversity score and low SAT scores with academic promise for the college, then that kid will be given an opportunity and that is very important for society as a whole.
But does it also mean that those with low adversity scores will have to score say in the mid - upper 1500s to be considered?
The SAT isn’t the only indicator of academic potential and prowess since high achiever schools like UChicago, Bowdoin, Colby and Wake Forest to name a few, are test optional and they have no problems finding outstanding applicants. I sincerely hope more schools join them or that students boycott the SAT and use the ACT. Put your money where your mouth is, it’s the only thing the CB will understand.
If what you are claiming (“Lower income Whites have a higher avg SAT than upper income Blacks”) is true, it looks like this “adversity score” will do the opposite of hiding that.
Yes, but most applicants still submit test scores at all those schools. High school GPA is the best predictor of college academic success. A couple of studies have shown GPA plus SAT to be a better predictor…while some studies have not shown that.
@Building excellent question! It’s potentially the Harvard/Asian issue expanded to all kids below a certain adversity score.
I’m struggling to find congruence between need-blind admission and CB twisting the data into a pretzel for the purpose of approximating an applicant’s neediness (when the applicant’s actual data is sitting behind that wall over there, in the financial aid office). What colleges might prefer: a box to check on the Common App for Pell eligibility.
To ucbalumnus
Atlanta68 wrote:
"‘This is an obvious attempt at hiding real average group differences to please the SJW crowd. Lower income Whites have a higher avg SAT than upper income Blacks. And Asians of all income levels tend to out perform everyone else. This is an attempt to hide not change real average differences in scores across racial groups.’
If what you are claiming (“Lower income Whites have a higher avg SAT than upper income Blacks”) is true, it looks like this “adversity score” will do the opposite of hiding that."
It is 100 per cent true: http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html
"But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these observable facts from The College Board’s 2006 data on the SAT:
• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of more than $100,000."
My point was that your other claim that “This is an obvious attempt at hiding real average group differences” is not true in the context of your claim about racial differences, in that the “adversity score” may highlight, rather than hide, that claim.
I see your point, however, I don’t believe the SES context for lower income Whites matches that of lower income Blacks. For example, the crime rate is far lower within lower income White communities. And crime rate is one of those things that go into adversity points.
What will they do with homeschoolers, who don’t have a school catchment area or obviously do not get free lunches, etc.
You make your kids pay for lunches at home? 
@murray93 By your description we could be in the same NY school district, but I imagine we would not be alone. Within one zip code in our district we go from farms, to suburbia, to small city with a wide range of incomes represented.
The lack of transparency is my biggest issue. Why keep “the score” from students if they (CB and schools) believe it is an accurate representation? Would be interested in knowing the 50 schools that piloted the program this year.
My kid wants to play D1 basketball but he is 5’2". Can he please be only compared to the kids his size? I don’t see why we don’t hold a spot for him. When are we going to see that trying to make everything even is not the answer? What about the kids who are zoned to a public high school with a terrible sports program? Is that fair if they are trying to get a football scholarship? Are they supposed to lie and go to the neighboring school? When does the madness stop?
We’ll see what gerrymandering occurs.
I really do not like this. It’s being done now but in a holistic basis. A lot of this simply is not reducible to formula which is what they are trying to do.
Probably not a lot will change. The colleges that already consider this type of stuff will just have more data to consider (which may also provide a secondary check against applicants exaggerating the adverse conditions in their schools/neighborhoods). The colleges that do not will probably ignore it.
There are a lot of ridiculous things about this country, politics, world, people, college admissions, work, etc., but I just can’t get too worked up over this. In the end, you can only (and should)
- Control only what you can control.
- Try to put things in (or move out) of your circle of control.
As of now:
- Large National Merit Scholarships will still be determined in large part on performance on the PSAT.
- Automatic scholarships would still come from hitting various test scores and GPAs.
So much else really isn’t completely within your control.
This seems insane. You can’t quantify adversity so simplistically. Many top schools do not offer AP’s so they get a bump. Kids with divorced parents who may have a far more stable home life get a bump than a disfunctional married household. Kids who live in cities in million dollar plus dwellings get a bump for increased crime. Kids in massive public schools with large classes but have every ap available get hit while their counterparts at intimate publics with less students get a bump. English as a second language gets a bump when in fact they may have come from a high income educated family. Kids with from parents who have limited income but tremendous wealth get a bump. Just because a kid comes from a high income family does not mean they have advantages. The same goes for lower income. Adversity is not limited to income, school, crime rate, number of ap courses, primary language, housing values. They left out learning disabilities, medical issues, death, unemployment, drug abuse and countless other issues families across this nation face. They have way over simplified a very complex issue that will hurt and help students because there is no context. I see lawsuits coming on this one.
I guess the next step is for College Board to ADJUST the SAT score according to a kid’s “adversity score.”
Can’t you just get a P.O. box in the hood and game this very easily? Lol.