Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 959 posts

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

#441

Post by _dps »

throwawayjava wrote: post #416
_dps wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 farc…

I suspect we're just going to disagree on "as long as you can pay for it". In a publicly voucher system a large part of your ability to pay is provided by the government. This is not the case today. Vouchers take the ~$5-10k allocated for you that is "locked up" in your zip code and allows you to spend it anywhere you want. This doesn't fully equalize ability to pay but it's a large step toward equalizing it.

Secondly it fixes incentive structures. Good schools in high-tax areas can now see inbound students from elsewhere as partially subsidizing the cost of the school, rather than being a pure cost center. Again this doesn't perfectly equalize anything but it's a step in the right direction.

Allowing low income students more freedom in how they spend their government-allocated funds mitigates the problems of wealth disparity. This is already how the university system works so assertions that it is a complete farce should also justify the abolition of the FAFSA system in exchange for federal funds that can only be used at the university nearest your home.

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

#442

Post by throwawayjava »

solveit wrote: post #387
throwawayjava wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly all of those studies focus on short-term and test-specific interventions; i.e., "coaching", not "tutoring". I worked with students throughout the school year with a focus on the underlying content, and only switched to "coaching" the last few weeks before the exam. For many students, I tutored them weekly or biweekly, for 1-3 hours per week, for multiple years ! NONE of the studies on the effect of coaching co…

> For many students, I tutored them weekly or biweekly, for 1-3 hours per week, for multiple years! This... is a feature, not a bug. The SAT is a tool to measure educational attainment, and you boosted scores by legitimately educating students. The SAT is not a test to measure natural ability (I can't believe this needs to be said, but so many people claim that no intervention should be able to boost SAT scores, and…

There's a huge spectrum between "raw ability" and SAT/ACT. A good test would measure somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. It's not impossible to do, but is really hard.

The SAT (and other standardized tests) make a lot of sense when you're comparing people who have spent more-or-less the same amount of time and money preparing. They also make sense as one component of a holistic picture, weighed appropriately.

The the true value of these tests for predicting potential is a lot less useful otherwise.

The huge problem, from a predict-success perspective, is that you can't tell the difference between:

1. a brilliant person;

2. a kind-of-smart person who's very driven; and

3. an average person with no work ethic who was forced to sit with a tutor for many hours each weekend.

> Then why in the world would you think legitimate education shouldn't boost SAT scores?

It should. That's what the SAT is for. As I've said twice now, the SAT is a well-designed test. I don't think the SAT should change. I'm just now sure how useful it is, especially as a holistic measure.

To be really concrete about this: colleges should shy away from the SAT because I won't be holding those students hands forcing them to study and custom-designing their course of study at their first job!

At some point soon after graduating college, the hand holding disappears and you sink or swim. Academic preparation helps, but work ethic and the ability to learn on your own is really important. Colleges are, or at least should be, attempting to select people who are more likely to "swim".

If I were a college admissions officer, I'd probably weigh "good enough scores to know you're not an idiot, plus a compelling demonstration of grit and work ethic" WAY over "great scores with no demonstration of independent drive".

(FWIW I think we're now completely disconnected from the actual topic of the article, since that's not what the hardship score is measuring)

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

#443

Post by harryh »

max76 wrote: post #375
harryh wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lot's of measures are imperfect. That doesn't mean they aren't useful.

What statistics will the Adversity Score be based on? How close to reality are those numbers? What statistics will colleges create using the Adversity Score? Those will surely be even further away from reality. The primary use of a number like Adversity Score is to create a pretty spreed sheet that generates pretty graphs that look good in board meetings, grant applications and pamphlets. While the data backing up th…

There are great high schools, decent high schools, mediocre high schools and bad high schools and we can tell the difference.

There are neighborhoods full of rich people, middle class professionals, working class people, and slums and we can tell the difference.

I don't know why you think that's so hard. It seems quite easy to me. Certainly worth trying instead of (as you seem to advocate) just giving up at the slightest difficulty.

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

#444

Post by shriphani »

colechristensen wrote: post #276
dangerbird2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the reason of the SAT's existence is the convenience of boiling down one's entire academic experience into one number. Perhaps the real problem is that university admissions allow the dualopoly of College Board and ACT control the academic fates of the nation's students with no public accountability.

A university has to reduce a person down to a binary decision to admit or not, not much of a way around that.

It is different when college board does it.

When a university makes that decision, that is the student pool they are going to bring in and they take the risk with their graduation stats, employment stats and failure rates.

When college board does it, they have literally zero skin in the game. They bill both the prospective student and the institution, produce this arbitrary number and there is no penalty for getting it wrong since they can just move the goalposts and declare success.

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

#445

Post by remote_phone »

sjy wrote: post #221
remote_phone wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already talked to my wife about this. I would retire, we would divorce, and I would rent a shitty apartment in East Palo Alto all the while living in our house. If they think they can boil my kids into a single number without bothering to find the context of who my kids are then I will game it to as much as possible. I don’t know why my family should be punished because my wife and I worked our asses off to get ahe…

Choosing to get a fake divorce so that you can game the system as much as possible isn't punishment; it's probably fraud. You could also choose to relax and let your children enjoy all the other benefits of a great upbringing, and accept that "the children of hardworking parents should be more likely to be admitted" isn't a design goal of the admissions system.

No it’s not fraud in the least. Nothing says I need to be married at all.

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

#446

Post by hermitdev »

marrone12 wrote: post #292
verylongname wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted. The United States has a system of de jure discrimination against white and asian men. Moreover, there is a great deal of de facto discretization against them as well. Many people seem to think that it is "fair" and appropriate for this to be the case, but I don't think its debatable that this is the fact of the matter. I think those who support this policy should defend it…

Ah yes, the system of discrimination that nevertheless has white and asian men disproportionately over-represented in silicon valley, tech companies, and government.

It's worth noting that all of hiring is some form of discrimination. An employer is activilly discriminating against anyone one they do not hire by any number of criteria.

This is fine. Generally accepted criteria such as fitness of duty, education, relevant experience, references and criminal background are all forms of discrimination that are generally accepted forms of discrimination.

But, unacceptable forms of discrimination include race, sex, religion and sexual orientation. If you, as an employer, engage in discrimination against better qualified employees to make a quota of an arbitrary percent of these protected classes against another based upon their class status, you are, in my opinion engaged in unlawful discrimination. It is still targetted discrimination even if it's against a majority class member such as race or gender, if that's the reason for the decision.

Promoting or accepting an underqualified minority over a more qualified minority under "affirmative action" or "diversity" is systematic, institutionalized racism/sexism.

Instead, how about we stop asking or considering "what" we are and consider what we can offer beyond our race/sex/sexual orientation?

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

#447

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

thosakwe wrote: post #328
rhegart wrote: post #131

Equality 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.

> Now Asians will be discriminated against secretly. So, a separate number being added to College Board's overall package is secret discrimination against Asian students? The "adversity score," according to the article, is calculated based on 15 different factors. The two listed (relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate/poverty level of the student’s home neighborhood) are not directly tied to…

deleted

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

#448

Post by bigendian1234 »

rhegart wrote: post #131

Equality 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.

> I’m getting pushed further and further to the right.

Cycles of poverty will never end when people with the privilege of dedicated and capable parents facilitate their success feel like victims. How about some alternate suggestions for poor kids without parents like yours?

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

#449

Post by jm__87 »

jachee wrote: post #259
GhostVII wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and every non-privileged person who gets in also hurts others who are in the same situation, since they have taken up a spot. The difference is in this case there is an actual policy which is actively punishing people for being in a perceived state of privilege.

Punishing those in privilege is how you achieve equality. They can't give up that inequality voluntarily, and wouldn't if they could.

This logic is ridiculous. No one should be punished, how about that?

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

#450

Post by harryh »

darawk wrote: post #422
harryh wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

It's a matter of degree. Some sacrifice = great. Extreme sacrifice = bad.
Post reply on HN