If a bank did that, the regulators would shut it down in a heartbeat for redlining.
SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships
411–420 of 959 posts
Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did pretty well on the standardized tests in high school. If this had existed, i likely would have scored higher than average on adversity. I would be pissed to find out my score was altered in any way due to factors outside my control. If I do well on something, i want it to be from my own merits, whatever my current situation. I don't want to be pandered to because i grew up poor in a shitty neighbourhood. Everyt…
My university (one of the top-ranked in the world) did have some sort of adjusted scaling for the final exams. The raw results were never released. One would get a number somehow adjusted for how to the whole cohort did. So that if some exams turn out to be just too damn hart it won't wipe out everybody. But it was opaque and I really hated that! I did good enough and then went on to do a Masters degree. There I'd ge…
Was this anything more than just grading to a curve? Because yes, that has its ups and downs, but it's certainly not mysterious in any way.
Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we don't want to live in a society that so strongly encourages "sacrificing vacations and eating out for 12 years (literally ate out 5x max)" and "My dad commuted 4 hours daily instead of moving." I'm all about parents sacrificing for their kids, but when the system is set up to push people that far something about the system is broken.
We should absolutely want to live in a society that rewards people for effort and sacrifice. If we do not reward people for doing those things, they won't do them, and you definitely don't want to live in that society.
I wonder if the opposite is true as well. That is, when theses sorts of discussions come up, I'm always asking: when is it over? When does the sacrifice stop? A person sacrifices for their kid for some nebulous better life, which their kid goes on to do for their kids...ad infinitum? However, through an evolutionary lens it make some sense: an individual doesn't have to have time to enjoy any advantage they've accrued through such previous sacrifice because evolution doesn't care if you're happy, just that you're reproducing successfully, and so far that's instilled (it's arguable) an instinctive sense to socially rise in order to obtain better access to such. So in such a sense there really would be no point of it being over (except for the extinction of the species). So why shouldn't someone in this great chain of sacrifice say no and kick their feet up and enjoy the fruits of all that sacrifice? This would explain why we (society at large and various specific social groups) treat the childless so negatively and use the term anti-natalist as a slur.
However, there is another component to it: one's advantage is always relative to others' lack of advantage. This is why equal access education will never be truly supported (no matter what people say); if all kids have the same advantage as their kids, then their kids don't actually have any advantage at all (in social terms).
Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships
#414Equality of opportunity over outcome for me. Now Asians will be discriminated against secretly. My family sacrificing vacations and eating out for 12 years (literally ate out 5x max) to afford to live in a good school district shouldn’t penalize us. My dad commuted 4 hours daily instead of moving...I’m getting pushed further and further to the right.
From the article: "The score will be calculated using 15 factors, including the relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate and poverty level of the student’s neighborhood." So no, it doesn't account for you to secretly discriminate against you. What it does do, for the penalization part, is that the schools that are in affluent neighborhoods have access to much better resources than ones from Co…
Imagine you are about to undergo a major surgery. Would you rather get operated by a surgeon that graduated from the medical school with A+, or by someone with a B who got the job instead because they came from a poorer neighborhood?
Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships
#415What is the complete list of factors? None of the news articles seem to have it.
Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's telling that state GOPs typically support vouchers in the name of choice, but not actual choice within the public option. Allowing any student to enroll at any public school regardless of their home zip code would be a much more meaningful form of choice than vouchers. Why not just let anyone in a metro area attend high school at the richest/best high school in the area? If you can answer that question, you can…
You have 80% of the story but the last 20% is important. Why not let anyone attend any public school? Because public schools are largely funded by local taxes. So a school in an expensive neighborhood with high taxes will naturally be a magnet for everyone else who can be a free-rider (in the economic theory sense). School vouchers fix this problem by carrying revenue along with the student instead of tying it to geo…
I'm not sure what you think I'm missing here.
School vouchers with dollars attached to kids is effectively "choice, as long as you can pay for it". It's the status quo of zip code based schooling access, on steroids. That's exactly the "systemic issue" I'm referring to in my original post.
The claim that school choice would improve access to quality education for students in poor-performing schools is a complete farce.
I'm not saying that our current system works well or that it's particularly just. I'm just pointing out that vouchers make the tie between wealth and educational access even more explicit and codified than it already is. A voucher system would deepen, not alleviate, the inequities in our educational system.
Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we don't want to live in a society that so strongly encourages "sacrificing vacations and eating out for 12 years (literally ate out 5x max)" and "My dad commuted 4 hours daily instead of moving." I'm all about parents sacrificing for their kids, but when the system is set up to push people that far something about the system is broken.
We should absolutely want to live in a society that rewards people for effort and sacrifice. If we do not reward people for doing those things, they won't do them, and you definitely don't want to live in that society.
"I'm all about parents sacrificing for their kids" <--- Did you skip the part where I wrote this?
Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships
#418Equality of opportunity over outcome for me. Now Asians will be discriminated against secretly. My family sacrificing vacations and eating out for 12 years (literally ate out 5x max) to afford to live in a good school district shouldn’t penalize us. My dad commuted 4 hours daily instead of moving...I’m getting pushed further and further to the right.
An SAT score is an assessment of how well you will do in college. It's not something you can earn or deserve. If someone does less well than you but came from a much worse school district, why shouldn't a predictor take that into account?
If this were almost any other example of adding a modifier to correct for a bias in an initial scoring system, nobody would bat an eye, and we'd be discussing specifics.
Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the College Board not recognize that kids in fact have unequal opportunities for reasons totally outside their control?
It's fine to recognize it. But if you say, z-score applicants by their 'adversity score' peer group, then you negate the impact of their parents efforts. If you negate their parents efforts, you make it not worthwhile for their parents to make those efforts in the first place. If you make it not worthwhile to make those efforts, they won't be made. And society as a whole will be worse off for it.
The whole point is to devalue those efforts. I thought OP wanted “equality of opportunity.” You can’t have equality of opportunity if some kids get a head start because of their parents.
Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships
#420The WSJ article has a more detailed list for this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-...
Also it seems Chinese and Indian kids with immigrant parents will be affected the hardest in general