SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships • Hacker News Board

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#421

Post by martin__ » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:39 AM UTC

smilekzs wrote: post #315

As a reference: The Chinese equivalent, Gaokao [0], is notorious for its brutal difficulty, but also widely regarded [citation needed] as a great equalizer. To that end, high school students spend obscene amount of their class time doing test prep (yes, in school instead of after). Although YMMV, and the total score usually spreads out quite nicely without need for curving (one such attempt was recently made [1]; it…

Actually, the Gaokao does have something that might be similar where ethnic minorities get extra points:

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1595620876524810727&wfr=spi...

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#422

Post by darawk » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:39 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #417

darawk wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Did you skip what I wrote? You say you're all about parents sacrificing for their kids. But why would they bother if their kids won't get any benefit from it?

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#423

Post by darawk » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:41 AM UTC

apocalypstyx wrote: post #413

darawk wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 accrue…

I think it's just a personal choice everyone makes. How much should they sacrifice now to have more later (either personally, or inter-generationally). We all have different preferences around that, and that's ok. If someone is willing to work harder or sacrifice more, it's reasonable for them to get more reward later on for their efforts. If you prefer to enjoy the present, that's ok too.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#424

Post by Retric » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:41 AM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #408

mgkimsal wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because of my own intelligence and skill... Fuck anyone giving me points for things i didn't work for or that are outside my control... Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control. What you've done with it is at least partially under your control, but you probably weren't born with any sort of brain disorder, for example. EDIT: adding on things like your visual appearance -…

How? I chose to learn the things i learned outside of school and to an extent the things i chose to learn in both high school and university. I didn't have to learn those things. I could have spent my time watching tv or doing other things. I know the things i know because i spent time and effort learning them.

“Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control.”

> How?

The capacity for intelligence is outside of your control for example genetic disorders are not chosen by the individual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

Further, when it comes to intelligence and Nature vs Nurture it’s really both. People 15,000 years ago people had nearly identical genetics, but their society lacked the knowledge to pass a SAT level math test.

Now, making the best of your social and genetic background is up to everyone. But, assuming everything is balanced is at best willful ignorance.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#425

Post by jorblumesea » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:42 AM UTC

So a kid is lacking math/science/reading skills, how will boosting their scores help? They're still behind, you just rigged the game in their favor. They'll still show up at some prestigious college and do poorly for the same reasons they do poorly at the SAT. Testing will never erase the inequality between income, class and race.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#426

Post by darawk » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:42 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #419

darawk wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In a world where the efforts of parents don't help their kids, parents won't make efforts. This will degrade the educational attainment of all kids. Most people consider this to be a bad thing.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#427

Post by chrisdirkis » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:42 AM UTC

john_moscow wrote: post #414

tankerdude wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The old joke is something along the lines of:

Q: What do you call the person who graduated last in their class in medical school? A: Doctor.

Sure, I'd probably prefer the higher performing doctor in this hypothetical scenario, but at the same time, it feels very much artificial (maybe a false dichotomy?). Sure, you always want the best for everything -- that's what "the best" means! Reality is that there are always going to be B students operating on people. If I were to propose my own false dichotomy, I might ask whether you prefer the B student who got tutored to pass the SAT, or one who self studied?

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#428

Post by kaitai » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:43 AM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #365

thosakwe wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who said anything about Nazis? "put a gold star on all of the Jewish applicants"

Nazis weren't the first or only people to discriminate against Jewish people.

It's the gold star thing, folks. Gold star + Jewish evokes Judenstern, to use the historic name, not preschool accomplishments. It's definitely true that Harvard and other US colleges/universities discriminated against Jews under the influence of anti-Semitism, and it's also true that there were American Nazis, for instance the German-American Bund in the 1930s.

I don't think that this adversity score has anything to do with the Nazis, I have to say. It sounds like the data is publicly available financial information. So this whole little branch of HN commentary is an unnecessary diversion.

To return to the article, colleges have been giving extra points to legacy admits, children of donors, people from X region, tuba players, violists (but not violinists haha), rowers, lacrosse players, merit students, Lutherans, etc etc etc forever. I think schools should have to option to get the adversity score or not. I went to Caltech; they probably don't care and should stick to their quirky admissions as many of us 'minority' admissions found it comforting in the midst of failure to know that we were admitted on nothing but the material in the application. But other schools serve a different purpose and if they want to admit twelve poor kids by "adversity score" that's great. I have to say I read the coverage and it's just a bunch more rich parents freaking out that they don't have every single last advantage possible. Ask me in 15 years -- maybe I'll be doing the same.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#429

Post by nimblerabit » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:44 AM UTC

_hardwaregeek wrote: post #386

Kinda feels like admissions departments are not doing their job/the College Board is attempting to do their job for them. Why should I trust a metric from the College Board? Anybody who has taken an AP test can tell you the courses are in no shape or form close to college level. And the SAT is an exercise in anal perfectionism, not intelligence. I don't trust them to accurately judge the socioeconomic background of a…

When you say AP tests are nowhere close to college level, do you mean they are easier or harder? Personally I think they are morw difficult, but your comment seems to be implying they are easier (and obviously so).

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#430

Post by darawk » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:45 AM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #391

darawk wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point is that it used to be that leftists defended freedom of speech from conservative oppression. Now it's the other way around.

Leftists aren't actually oppressing anybody. We're still under the rule of the far-right in the US (a country which does not actually have a left wing by Western standards). Voting with your dollar and pointing out bigotry and inequality is not oppression.

> Leftists aren't actually oppressing anybody.

Well, that's certainly not true. They are absolutely oppressing people. They may be oppressing people that you or even I think ought be oppressed, but that doesn't mean they're not doing it.

> We're still under the rule of the far-right in the US (a country which does not actually have a left wing by Western standards).

That's true around economic issues. It's not so true around identity politics. The political climate around those issues in the US is very much left of center.

> Voting with your dollar and pointing out bigotry and inequality is not oppression.

That kind of depends on what exactly you mean by that. Naming and shaming individuals for social transgressions based on hearsay seems pretty oppressive to me.