Post by CheeringCharm on May 16, 2019 12:06:33 GMT -5
What do you think? I find this a fascinating idea and would love to know more about how the score is complied and what my own would have been!
****
The SAT, the college entrance test taken by about two millions students a year, is adding an “adversity score” to the test results that is intended to help admissions officers account for factors like educational or socioeconomic disadvantage that may depress students’ scores, the College Board, the company that administers the test, said Thursday.
Colleges have long been concerned with scoring patterns on the SAT that seem unfavorable to certain racial and economic groups — higher scores have been found to correlate with the student coming from a higher-income family, having better-educated parents, and being white or Asian rather than black or Hispanic.
David Coleman, chief executive of the College Board, has described a trial version of the tool, which has been field-tested by 50 colleges, in recent interviews. The plan to roll it out officially, to 150 schools this year and more broadly in 2020, was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
The adversity score would be a number between 1 and 100, with an average student receiving a 50. It would be calculated using 15 factors, like the relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate and poverty level of the student’s home neighborhood. The score would not be reported to the student, only to college officials.
The reason is that white affluent makes are used as the standard. So if they do prolly on a question that question gets thrown out. We need a different metric than how well actual people do on the test because it tends to favor certain types of people.
I'm interested in knowing how this did in the test schools and how many years this has been tested. A lot of Indian parents I know are really freaking about this. They feel like this might discourage schools from improving their pass rate or society in general, addressing major issues in schools and neighborhoods in the hope of getting a higher adversity score. Basically, people are worrying that this is going to turn out just like the effed up reservation system in India where every year, more and more castes are added to the backward caste list just to improve their kids' odds of getting into med school.
Post by CheeringCharm on May 16, 2019 12:30:33 GMT -5
Hmm, I guess I read it as a way for the SAT to provide schools with a little more background information about kids'neighborhoods. That, combined with the parents' financial info, could potentially fill in a lot of blanks that currently exist in the system now.
I'm more in favor of portfolio-based applications over standardized tests. My alma mater just announced that they're now making SAT/ACT optional for application as part of the American Talent Initiative and of course there has been lots of rich white hand wringing.
I'm more in favor of portfolio-based applications over standardized tests. My alma mater just announced that they're now making SAT/ACT optional for application as part of the American Talent Initiative and of course there has been lots of rich white hand wringing.
My alma mater has had SAT/ACT optional since I applied (2005) and for a few years before that they were "piloting" it. It's been a huge success and hasn't resulted in any major changes to the intellectual quality of the student body, although has been credited for a rise in domestic students of color admitted and attending. I think it's a great system.
Admittedly, I'm biased because my SAT scores were pretty abysmal even though I graduated valedictorian of my super crappy poor rural public high school. Optional standardized testing is the only reason I got to go to a top tier college which has made a HUGE difference in my life.
Post by CheeringCharm on May 16, 2019 13:02:20 GMT -5
I don't know, I think the SAT still has use. Or some type of standardized test like that. I'll use myself as an example. I was and am so so bad at math. But my transcript wouldn't have reflected that truth though because I got As in school. My teachers were the types to want to reward effort and "hard work" (maybe because it was easier for them?). For instance, before each test, they'd give these review sessions. Hardly anyone was willing to put in the time to stay after school for extra help so if you were willing, they'd basically spoon feed the test to you.
My math SAT score was low though because the reality is, I'm really bad at math. Don't schools have a right to know that?
I think the thing that it will always boil down to is that selective admissions will always feel unfair to one group or another (or one individual or another). I listened to a podcast on the admissions battle going on in NYC for Stuyvesant and Bronx Science and it was fascinating because everyone has a story. If I've learned anything from being a school counselor for over a decade is that there are a lot of really amazing kids out there. Many with really amazing stories of resilience. And it is really hard for any committee with 5-10 adults to wade through thousands of applications meaningfully. So we are always looking for a way to quantify adversity. Whether it be socioeconomic status or minority status or, as this suggests, adversity status.
I have no idea what the solution is. I've sat on scholarship committees and it is incredibly difficult to be thorough and fair. Stakeholders always want to present a better way. And you want to advocate for communities of kids without punishing other communities (which was a big part of the argument the Asian community made against doing away with admissions tests for selective NYC high schools).
I see some people advocating for portfolio admissions. But who puts those together? And who reads them? Harvard admissions cannot possibly employ enough humans to do that. And kids with the best portfolios will likely be kids who have a parent at home to help them and who go to a school with a lower student teacher ratio.
I don't know what the answer is. I try to do my part by educating and advocating for my students as a school counselor. But I know that this huge systemic issue will always be "unfair" because selective admissions, but it's very nature, says "no" to great kids. They have to. And everyone has their opinion about who is deserving. It's really an impossible thing to please everyone unless we just do no admissions. Which is a whole other can of worms.
I don't know, I think the SAT still has use. Or some type of standardized test like that. I'll use myself as an example. I was and am so so bad at math. But my transcript wouldn't have reflected that truth though because I got As in school. My teachers were the types to want to reward effort and "hard work" (maybe because it was easier for them?). For instance, before each test, they'd give these review sessions. Hardly anyone was willing to put in the time to stay after school for extra help so if you were willing, they'd basically spoon feed the test to you.
My math SAT score was low though because the reality is, I'm really bad at math. Don't schools have a right to know that?
Yes. And very competitive high schools where it's rigorous and competitive often put out higher SAT/ACT scores. A "C" at certain schools requires a lot of work while an "A" at others is earned by showing up and making an effort. I think when it comes to state college admissions the counselors at those schools learn to read rigor. They know that certain schools are very rigorous and others have inflated GPAs. I've been a school counselor at three high schools in three states and the grading and weighting of grades has been very different at each. SAT/ACT can help equalize that a bit so that students at super rigorous schools aren't punished by their lower GPAs.
It is such a complicated question. Some people are bad at standardised tests. Yet with proper training they can do well. There does need to be some way to level the system so that kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get some extra assistance, but I'm not sure this is the way. My worry is that once again, rich white parents will figure out a way to beat the system so their precious kids get through.
I think the thing that it will always boil down to is that selective admissions will always feel unfair to one group or another (or one individual or another). I listened to a podcast on the admissions battle going on in NYC for Stuyvesant and Bronx Science and it was fascinating because everyone has a story.
What is the name of the podcast? I'd like to listen to it.
Post by W.T.Faulkner on May 16, 2019 18:37:55 GMT -5
I’m a college counselor at an urban high school. My kids would directly benefit from this but it’s CollegeBoard’s way of trying to stay relevant in a field that is increasingly going test-optional. That’s all it is. They are terrified of becoming obsolete.
I’m a college counselor at an urban high school. My kids would directly benefit from this but it’s CollegeBoard’s way of trying to stay relevant in a field that is increasingly going test-optional. That’s all it is. They are terrified of becoming obsolete.
100% this. My university is going test optional starting next year. That leaves only Yale, in the state, requiring test score submissions.
I’m a college counselor at an urban high school. My kids would directly benefit from this but it’s CollegeBoard’s way of trying to stay relevant in a field that is increasingly going test-optional. That’s all it is. They are terrified of becoming obsolete.
This is what I thought that the college board wants to stay in the game AND after the admissions scandal it seems that it's easier to cheat on these exams then and that is probably bugging them a ton - especially when they talk about the adversity code being secret to the student. I guess I'm open for some ideas on college admissions being different, but the way that this score is being discussed in the article, I don't know that it will help. I mean, will everyone from a rural area with less COL/median income end up with higher adversity scores even if they are in all-white schools and have good programs? It seems like it might work to equalize things in larger cities, but it also might score a lot of white rural kids higher just b/c of COL and median incomes in the middle of the US. Should it? I'm willing to be convinced either way, but feel that it might not be easily applicable in rural vs. urban areas.
Aren't some urban high schools doing great things to prep kids for the tests now, too? I listened to the This American Life podcasts (last year) on some programs where the schools have adapted their curriculum to help kids learn the typical curriculum and prepare for college, and also they teach how to ace and focus on the testing so they can be as prepared as rich, white kids. I wonder how those programs feel about this potential change.
I'm open to change, but I would hope that it wouldn't just be a number based on the great-schools rating of your school (or something similar) and your home address. That seems like it's not going to capture many adversity factors.
Hmm, I guess I read it as a way for the SAT to provide schools with a little more background information about kids'neighborhoods. That, combined with the parents' financial info, could potentially fill in a lot of blanks that currently exist in the system now.
I've been under the impression for a long time now that college admissions offices have PLENTY of information about schools and neighborhoods. The SAT adversity score likely won't teach admissions officers anything they already don't know, which is why I think it's useless (except for the College Board) and just tells me the whole damn test should be scrapped if just the score is not helpful for admissions.
Post by imojoebunny on May 17, 2019 15:23:14 GMT -5
One problem I see with this, is the room for error in the reporting. There are roughly 36,000 high schools in the US. The adversity numbers will only be seen by the colleges, so there isn't a lot of checks and balances.
It is easy to take a place, like where I live, which is a city with its own school system, and not realize that there is a larger demographic area that surrounds it with the same name. So a kid going to a school in the city limits, is getting a much different education than a kid going to school in the unincorporated county portion. Additionally, we have historically had tuition students from the county who go to the city schools, and also, every full time city school employee (not just teachers) can send their kids or kids they have custody of to the city schools, regardless of where they live or how much they make. Yes, these are one offs, but like 4speedy, example, these kids exist, and lumping them in with some arbitrary score, is no better than credit reporting agencies lumping people from a particular zip code, and saying they have good or bad credit, regardless of their payment history, income, or other factors that determine repayment likelihood. If they want to rate the school, fine, rate the school based on data that the college boards collects, but to attribute anything in the number to an individual student, nope.
I mean, it sounds like their hearts are in the right place, but I give the College Board a 0% chance of getting this right. It’s a complicated question that can’t be boiled down to a “score.” Plenty of people look a certain way on paper but their reality isn’t captured by demographic data.
I think the answer is actually reducing the importance of the SAT/ACT in the college admissions process — but of course they are trying to stay relevant.