right arrow
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04

SAT to Give Students ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background

2456710

Replies to: SAT to Give Students ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background

  • Waiting2exhaleWaiting2exhale 2903 replies14 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    From College Board link in post #3:

    Allows staff to see SAT scores in context:
    “In my mind, it is the only responsible way
    to consider testing in a selective college
    context. Having standardized contextual
    information makes me feel much better
    about requiring standardized testing of our
    applicants and using the information after
    students enroll for help in transitioning
    them.”

    Have they not been able to do this all along?
    · Reply · Share
  • vpa2019vpa2019 516 replies10 threadsRegistered User Member
    I’d also like to know which schools, besides, Yale used it this year and which ones are using it next year., Where is the transparency?
    · Reply · Share
  • CheddarcheeseMNCheddarcheeseMN 3367 replies11 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    I've read three short descriptions of this and it isn't entirely clear whether neighborhood information (housing stabiity, crime rates, etc.) are measured at the school or student address. Could be different, especially for students not enrolled in neighborhood schools.
    · Reply · Share
  • cptofthehousecptofthehouse 29422 replies58 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    Well, yes, you can lie. Lying, cheating, stealing beneficial. And you can even get away with murder. If you don’t get caught, all of these things can reap big benefits. Heck, as this latest big scandal showed, looks like the cheatin’ crowd right there all along.

    So, yes, this is another way to cheat. However, at most selective colleges, where the AO attempts to get s good picture of the candidates that interest them the most, they do look at things like if URM is indicated, if the applicant is applying for financial aid, the zip code, and they ask about parent profession and level of education. Esssys and recs and ECs also give away background. If answers on the SAT questionairre do not mesh with the info at hand, further investigation may follow. Getting caught lying or exaggerating not good.

    The UCs do this sort of thing already, don’t they?

    I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t like it. It’s not new that this sort of assessment has been going on, however, for a while.

    · Reply · Share
  • chb088chb088 939 replies31 threadsRegistered User Member
  • Mwfan1921Mwfan1921 2236 replies30 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    As far as I can see, these are only stats for the school (or district) as a whole.

    This report drills down to the applicant's address level, not their school address. So in that sense it is more personalized (and accurate).
    · Reply · Share
  • Twoin18Twoin18 1589 replies17 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    "This report drills down to the applicant's address level, not their school address. So in that sense it is more personalized (and accurate)."

    The dashboard examples given only show the student's home city and school name. So it appears that the "neighborhood" is not personalized but is instead averaged across the catchment area for the high school. Indeed one reference explicitly states something like this "Family stability is a combined measure based on the proportion of two-parent families, single-parent families, and children living under the poverty line within each neighborhood, or across the neighborhoods of past students attending that high school. It is primarily based on U.S. Census–derived population data."

    So I don't see anything here which suggests it is personalized. The student's home address is not indicated to be amongst the data used.
    · Reply · Share
  • DolemiteDolemite 2117 replies34 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    This Environmental Context Framework identifies three overlapping sources of environmental
    influence related to an applicant’s access to the educational resources and support needed to
    maximize potential. The framework spans three areas of the applicant’s environment:
    § Neighborhood Environment — Measures related to the socioeconomic milieu of the applicant as they
    move between school and home, such as the housing market structure and stability; poverty measures;
    peer culture; and crime risk.
    § High School Environment — Measures related to the socioeconomic status of peers at the
    applicant’s high school, such as the percentage of students receiving free and reduced-price lunch;
    relative academic performance; access to and participation in advanced course work; and relative
    success in gaining access to college.
    § Family Environment — Measures related to family infl es, such as family income; familial
    structure and stability; educational attainment; and cultural context.
    It is important to note that even systematically and consistently measured data may not represent a
    student’s personal experience. Rather, any data on environmental context merely suggest certain
    aspects of the school and community environments to which individual students were likely exposed.
    They are not designed to substitute for firsthand knowledge of the applicant or specific
    information that is conveyed in an application. Environmental context provides an additional lens
    through which to view the student’s application that may highlight or further explain the detail
    found in the application — particularly for those high schools or neighborhoods that are less
    familiar to the admission officer.

    From one of the pdf's someone posted.

    It seems that Colleges have been doing something like this for a long time and this just takes it out of their hands and standardizes it for all schools. Colleges don't have to use it but it seems they want something like this.
    · Reply · Share
  • Mwfan1921Mwfan1921 2236 replies30 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    edited May 16
    So I don't see anything here which suggests it is personalized. The student's home address is not indicated to be amongst the data used.

    This presentation, slide 11, says that neighborhood adversity is measured at the "Census Tract' level, which is generally defined as a neighborhood of 2,500-8,000 people. https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.guidebook.com/upload/102712/xb1jRCIejfKg2Q6Pkgt9IUOzMitXuNx4IFiB.pdf

    So that may or may not be the same at the high school level. In urban areas in particular, there may be vast differences when considering an applicant's neighborhood vs their high school's.
    edited May 16
    · Reply · Share
  • Twoin18Twoin18 1589 replies17 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    edited May 16
    "So that may or may not be the same at the high school level. In urban areas in particular, there may be vast differences when considering an applicant's neighborhood vs their high school's."

    Exactly, which is why another quote above notes "It is important to note that even systematically and consistently measured data may not represent a student’s personal experience. Rather, any data on environmental context merely suggest certain aspects of the school and community environments to which individual students were likely exposed."

    As I pointed out above there appears to be averaging "across the neighborhoods of past students attending that high school" presumably because most high schools will draw from multiple census tracts.

    This whole effort appears to be targeted either at (large public?) colleges which don't do as much individual holistic evaluation, or to allow a subset of applications to be pulled out for more detailed consideration. In the end it's surely much more relevant what "adversity" was experienced by individual students, not the school as a whole.

    Also interesting to note the commonalities with "contextual evaluation" used by Oxbridge colleges to pull out disadvantaged students whose exam performance might otherwise not qualify for interview. But there it is about shortlisting students for interview, at which point everyone is on an equal footing in terms of evaluating underlying intelligence, and then adjusting their exam results projection/conditional offer for quality of school teaching. See https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/applying/contextual-data
    edited May 16
    · Reply · Share
  • Atlanta68Atlanta68 1389 replies253 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    edited May 16
    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.

    http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html

    Does anyone know if the score that reflects the addition of adversity points will be able to be used by schools when showing their avg SAT? If so, this will help raise the avg SAT of a lot of schools with higher AA enrollments, like ones in the South. I wonder if they have fully thought this through.
    edited May 16
    · Reply · Share
  • wistfulwordswistfulwords 189 replies15 threadsRegistered User Junior Member
    I don't think this is very fair. What about the high income who can buy houses in "ghetto" areas and pretend they live there? What about the low income asians who score highly? What about those who are high income but their family doesn't support them because of their personal ideology (LGBT+ children)?
    · Reply · Share
  • epiphanyepiphany 8405 replies170 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    “The purpose is to get to race without using race,” said Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce
    How cynical.
    · Reply · Share
  • sunsweetsunsweet 5 replies1 threadsRegistered User New Member
    @Atlanta68 totally agree.

    From what I understand, the score is separate and just for use for admissions, but with the lack of transparency on the part of CB, we really don't know. I don't think they have thought this through at all.
    · Reply · Share
  • epiphanyepiphany 8405 replies170 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    THIS THIS THIS
    Honestly, why bother with SAT and ACT. The fact that kids are permitted to prep for it disqualifies the tests as objective assessments. They are simply a huge money making venture.
    Talk about an ineffective tool:
    1. It has undergone numerous revisions during its full history. Some of those revisions have bene politically motivated.(read, Race)
    2. There's an entire counter-standardized-test movement called the Test Optional colleges. U of Chicago, an institution which itself places a premium on academic performance, recently went test-optional.
    3. Colleges are increasingly doubtful of the reliability of the test to assess college performance.
    4. The essay portion -- often revamped -- is still considered unreliable. None of the Ivy League colleges even consider the essay portion now; more colleges are following in their footsteps.
    5. It has spawned an international Underground Economy, including purchased exams, purchased scores, and more.
    6. Its value for admission is questionable, given that "grades + scores" are only two subsets of many for admission to top colleges, and those two are often eclipsed by other elements of the application.

    Lose the SAT/ACT. There are better assessment tools and more are possible.
    · Reply · Share
  • cptofthehousecptofthehouse 29422 replies58 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    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.
    · Reply · Share
This discussion has been closed.

Recent Activity