quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:
What is the problem?

The problem is this: posit two kids of equal intelligence, equal capability, equal ambition. One is white and rich; the other is black and poor. Despite their fundamental equality, the white, rich kid will likely have stronger quantifiable credentials. And it is incredibly expensive to look at students individually without regard to quantifiable credentials.

Nina, Can you copy and paste the 31 categories? I'm getting the paywall.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Frost:
Perhaps it’s time all schools made SAT optional.

Jf

That doesn’t solve the problem. It just removes the SAT from the equation.

Apart from whatever value it has in predicting success in college, the SAT provides the most uniform and consistent way to "compare" two applicants and highlight when "something else" is at play in admissions. No doubt the fact that Asian students with higher SAT scores than white, hispanic and black applicants are not accepted at Harvard is central to the ongoing litigation there. Harvard defends by saying it looks at other factors, some of which are no doubt codified in the adversity score. Without SATs, the initial comparison would be more holistic and the need for an adversity score much less.

jf

Yeah, but you'll still need something like an adversity score to compare a white kid from Scarsdale with an inner city kid from Montgomery, Alabama.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Yeah, but you'll still need something like an adversity score to compare a white kid from Scarsdale with an inner city kid from Montgomery, Alabama.

Doesn't have to be a score or a number. You just say this kid from Montgomery is impressive given what he was up against. There is clearly merit in that.

jf

Depends on where in Montgomery. But zip codes seem to be a reasonable proxy.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Frost:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Yeah, but you'll still need something like an adversity score to compare a white kid from Scarsdale with an inner city kid from Montgomery, Alabama.

Doesn't have to be a score or a number. You just say this kid from Montgomery is impressive given what he was up against. There is clearly merit in that.

jf

This would be my preference, but it only works when the people doing the deciding are perfectly objective.

For all of our history, they were subjective in ways that hurt poor people and people of color. It is possible that this pendulum could swing too far and things could become unfair to white people. (I personally don't think that this has happened yet, but that is my subjective perception. Others disagree and I could be wrong.)

The adversity score is an attempt to make such decisions objective. Jon has pointed out many ways that it could be gamed by the people designing the system to sway the results in directions they favor. There are also ways that students and parents could game the system to sway the results in their direction. These things are facts of life, and I'm not sure they're any reason not to try to find an objective way to assess students.

After all, that's what the SAT and ACT are supposed to be--objective measures of student potential. They measure some things pretty well, and among those things are academic achievement, parental education, and parental income. I don't have a problem with colleges trying to find an objective way to identify kids with potential that has been obscured by societal disadvantages, but it's hard to tell with such limited information whether this is it.

I'm particularly bothered by the offloading of an important function, addressing social inequity, to a for-profit firm. I'm not sure how I'd suggest remedying that. A nonprofit? A governmental agency? A department within each university overseen by the government? Each of those seems problematic, but I'd lean toward a nonprofit, I guess.

Just because we've already offloaded student screening to for-profit businesses by relying on the SAT and the ACT doesn't mean that it was a good idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
Depends on where in Montgomery. But zip codes seem to be a reasonable proxy.

For some of the factors, sure. But, if you look back at the College Board, some of them are family-specific, and some are high school-specific. Those may or may not correlate to zip codes. For example, family income is likely to be less correlated to zip code that other things. In the town in Massachusetts in which I used to live, as an example, there were high end enclaves of tech workers, and then there were lower-end apartments for service people. And then plenty of stuff in between. All in the same zip code. Taking any sort of average would do a grave injustice to the people at the bottom end of that spectrum.

Never mind. I found it.

https://professionals.collegeb...led-data-description

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Anna:

I'm particularly bothered by the offloading of an important function, addressing social inequity, to a for-profit firm. I'm not sure how I'd suggest remedying that. A nonprofit? A governmental agency? A department within each university overseen by the government? Each of those seems problematic, but I'd lean toward a nonprofit, I guess.

Just because we've already offloaded student screening to for-profit businesses by relying on the SAT and the ACT doesn't mean that it was a good idea.

This is an interesting point. I wonder why it isn't anything that one of the large foundations have focused on. This might seem particularly appropriate for Gates. Developing a competitive college exam that is more racially and class-neutral would seem to be right up his alley.

If there isn't a non-profit doing this, I suppose there must be a thought that there isn't enough gain to warrant the expenditure.