901–910 of 959 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is not eating out or taking vacations too much sacrifice?
Yes. Really. Your family is not model to be aspirational of. Yours is a warning to others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of this sort of secrecy is to avoid people seeing how the system is gamed against them.
You seem to think that the system will be used to boost kids with high adversity scores. Many colleges desperately want kids who will pay full tuition. But they also want to claim they're "need blind." Voila. The "adversity" score tells them whether the kids came from a rich neighborhood.
To keep their tax exempt status, they must act as a “charity” by extending financial aid to at least half of their students.
The tax-exempt status enables them to invest their endowment without paying taxes on the gains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The student who spends time preparing for a test, reviewing the material, studying previous tests, drilling with practice tests, actually has more scholastic aptitude than the students who do not do this because these are actual research and preparation skills that are valuable to success in mastering college material.
The only skill you gain while cramming for the SAT is how to cram for tests like the SAT. The gameability of the SAT is not an indication of general scholastic aptitude
College is all about studying/cramming for tests.
And yes, this applies to "top" engineering colleges and otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, some kids from crappy schools and neighborhoods will get into college, when they might not otherwise, presumably taking the place of you/your children, who have “made solid decisions” and “worked my ass off for 30 years” who deserve it more? Because you/they worked harder? Ok. Cool. Just want to make sure I understand.
People who work hard deserve the fruits of their labor, regardless of their economic status. I have no problems with economically disadvantaged hard working people getting into great colleges, I have problems with equally hardworking people being disadvantaged because their parents are successful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t you agree that two people who achieve the same score on the test may not have worked equally hard? If someone scored the same as your child, except they didn’t have good security, good quality schools, parents that could help them, etc, I would say that they in fact worked much harder than your children. And by the logic of “those who worked harder deserve it more”, well I think you see where this is going.…
If this score was unrealistically perfect and able to accurately account for every possible detail, maybe. If instead it just does a cheap job of assuming anyone with a certain set of data points is at a major disadvantage, nope. The test claims to be measuring a students ability to learn in the first place, not just their current knowledge, so why not aim to make that more accurate instead of bypassing it?
The subject area is the SAT, a test, which is imperfect like all tests, with research which indicates that it's actually problematic for such a diverse country like the USA. So a test like the SAT, which boils down to a single number. Yes that's the subject.
And now they're making the results 2 numbers. The test and some, well known summary of information about the student.
And THIS, THIS is the bridge too far?
Honestly, do you even hear yourself? What should a third party think about your words? Perhaps you could help me and provide a back story of how you've been in opposition to the SAT for a long time, and how this just reinforces a flawed test.
But nope, it sure does seem like you're focusing in on how this test might provide opportunities to black and brown people.
But I'm sure that's not that, because it's hackernews, and we are so polite to each other and reasonable.
So, tell me again why the SAT is good, but SAT + adversity score is bad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A poor asian community that sends their kids to after school schools and does very well as a whole will suddenly fight themselves without the boost that others at that economic level might have. They'll also be punished for having established a low-crime neighborhood and learning english, since crime level and english as second language are also factors in the adversity score. Of course, no single one of them is en…
Who's to say that their lower-income status doesn't out-weigh the other factors you're describing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it’s not fraud in the least. Nothing says I need to be married at all.
You said you're doing all this for the sake of your kids. What do you think they'll learn from you doing this?
1. remote_phone cares deeply about his children
2. in life there are many unjust and immoral systems, and that it's okay to subvert them
I think instead of trying to lower the bar for low income students, we should work on solving the actual problems causing them to perform more poorly on the SAT (or adjust the SAT so it is more representative of their actual skills). If students are accepted with a lower SAT score because of their background, they are likely going to struggle in University, since they have lower scores than the rest of their class, s…
100%. To truly level the playing field requires far earlier intervention (of the sort we see through LeBron James' I Promise initiative), and is entirely beyond the ability of the College Board or even the university system as a whole. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. > (or adjust the SAT so it is more representative of their actual skills). The problem, as you point out just one sentence later, is…
And what happens when intervention in preschool also doesn't produce equal outcomes? Is there a point at which we accept that certain groups are just going to do better in a way that we can't eliminate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said you're doing all this for the sake of your kids. What do you think they'll learn from you doing this?
If I had to guess, probably that: 1. remote_phone cares deeply about his children 2. in life there are many unjust and immoral systems, and that it's okay to subvert them