SAT now scoring for the Oppression Olympics

[Derec]

That they call an "adversity score". It's basically scoring for the Oppression Olympics. And as crooked as the East German figure skating judges.
SAT adds ‘adversity score’ amid concerns that privileged students have an unfair advantage

This is ridiculous. SATs should measure Math and English aptitude, not penalize students because they are of the wrong race or socioeconomic background. College admissions offices do more than enough of that as it is.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do you say it is "Crooked"?

Its a step up from race for poverty proxy. Now they are actually looking at adversity.

 

[Derec]

Why do you say it is "Crooked"?

Its a step up from race for poverty proxy. Now they are actually looking at adversity.

For one, it is completely opaque. They do not disclose their scoring model and students won't even have access to their own scores.
And do you really believe they will not include race as a major part of the score? I would seriously be surprised if a poor white kid from Appalachia were to score better than a black Fortune 500 exec's kid from Atlanta.
I think the end goal is to equalize these curves.

But I guess it's possible I'll be pleasantly surprised. If they ever disclose the scoring model to the public.

 

[ronburgundy]

This has no impact on actual SAT scores. Rather it is a completely separate score that the College Board will compute for every student that takes the SAT. They claim race is not considered and that it is based upon publicly available data on 15 factors, such as neighborhood-specific crime stats and median wealth.

That doesn't mean the score is not problematic. Most of the factors will consists of aggregated data where it is invalid to infer that the score is accurate for any individual. For example, median income differences for different zip codes are better than chance but far from reliable indicators of the actual parental income differences between specific individuals from each zip code. Plus, a student may have lived a life full of poverty and adversity for years but then got adopted by a wealthier family, but the algorithm will assume they always lived in whatever conditions are tied to their address they give when taking the test.

OTOH, it would still be more reliable and less racist than the current practice of using race as a proxy for adversity, or allowing administrators to use their racial prejudice to just make up numbers for vague categories such as "likability" and "leadership".

 

[dismal]

Well, it's good to know that "adversity" can be reduced to a single quantitative score.

I'd like to inform the judges that I grew up in a home without central air, a dishwasher, wi-fi or cable television.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not certain how this helps other than toss another metric along side a test score. However, I ponder if poor white rural students could benefit the most from this because it provides a metric that might be overlooked.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am kinda confused by Derec's op. He's always complaining about race and reverse racialism. He's even said on occasion that race shouldn't be used as a proxy for poverty. Now, a metric, while imperfect, is trying to measure adversity (such as poverty) with no mention of race at all, but his op and follow-up comment are all about race. Now poor Asians who live in high crime areas but that excel in scholastics can be seen as having adverse conditions while African Americans living in the suburbs with money etc won't be seen as having as adverse conditions. So, why is he still ranting on and on about race?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, Derec is just upset if something comes out that could benefit someone that isn’t him or his kind, even if it can benefit him and his kind.

Where my daughter goes to school is the ‘rich’ school in the city. However, there is a rather wide income range for this school from lower (can’t afford school lunch) to upper (half million+ or so homes) as well as race. Now crime is definitely not an issue relative to other parts of the city, but it is an interesting cross section.

Certainly if such a metric has weight, it’ll be tiebreakers.

 

[Derec]

This has no impact on actual SAT scores. Rather it is a completely separate score that the College Board will compute for every student that takes the SAT. They claim race is not considered

I am sure it isn't.

For example, median income differences for different zip codes are better than chance but far from reliable indicators of the actual parental income differences between specific individuals from each zip code.

It's no more granular than a fucking zip code? That makes it useless for the purpose as zip codes are huge and comprise many different neighborhoods, some richer, some poorer.

OTOH, it would still be more reliable and less racist than the current practice of using race as a proxy for adversity, or allowing administrators to use their racial prejudice to just make up numbers for vague categories such as "likability" and "leadership".

True, unless they sneak race into this somehow.

 

[Derec]

Well, Derec is just upset if something comes out that could benefit someone that isn’t him or his kind, even if it can benefit him and his kind.

Nope. As usual, the rank and file communist is wrong.

Where my daughter goes to school is the ‘rich’ school in the city. However, there is a rather wide income range for this school from lower (can’t afford school lunch) to upper (half million+ or so homes) as well as race. Now crime is definitely not an issue relative to other parts of the city, but it is an interesting cross section.

First, everybody can afford school lunch. They are cheap, cheaper than the parens' daily Starbucks or weekly hair and nail appointment for the mom. It's a matter of priorities.
Second, it seems this Oppression Olympics score assigns family income by zip code. So the $500k home owners and can't-afford-lunch renters would be scored the same, as long as they live in the same zip code.

 

[Derec]

I am kinda confused by Derec's op. He's always complaining about race and reverse racialism. He's even said on occasion that race shouldn't be used as a proxy for poverty. Now, a metric, while imperfect, is trying to measure adversity (such as poverty) with no mention of race at all, but his op and follow-up comment are all about race.

I explained it. I don't trust the bastards because they made these codes very opaque and secretive. Not even the student himself is allowed to know their score.

Now, in principle you are right. Done well, a score like this would indeed be beneficial.

Now poor Asians who live in high crime areas but that excel in scholastics can be seen as having adverse conditions while African Americans living in the suburbs with money etc won't be seen as having as adverse conditions. So, why is he still ranting on and on about race?

It's a mistake to equate cities with poverty and suburbs with riches. I don't know how it is where you live, but around here a single zip code can and often does include both "hood" and upscale neighborhoods.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

True, unless they sneak race into this somehow.

Why are you so paranoid about race?

- - - Updated - - -

I am kinda confused by Derec's op. He's always complaining about race and reverse racialism. He's even said on occasion that race shouldn't be used as a proxy for poverty. Now, a metric, while imperfect, is trying to measure adversity (such as poverty) with no mention of race at all, but his op and follow-up comment are all about race.

I explained it. I don't trust the bastards because they made these codes very opaque and secretive. Not even the student himself is allowed to know their score.

Now, in principle you are right. Done well, a score like this would indeed be beneficial.

Now poor Asians who live in high crime areas but that excel in scholastics can be seen as having adverse conditions while African Americans living in the suburbs with money etc won't be seen as having as adverse conditions. So, why is he still ranting on and on about race?

It's a mistake to equate cities with poverty and suburbs with riches. I don't know how it is where you live, but around here a single zip code can and often does include both "hood" and upscale neighborhoods.

In other words, you're ranting about something you have no evidence for, for some reason you don't want to disclose.

 

[dismal]

I am kinda confused by Derec's op. He's always complaining about race and reverse racialism. He's even said on occasion that race shouldn't be used as a proxy for poverty. Now, a metric, while imperfect, is trying to measure adversity (such as poverty) with no mention of race at all, but his op and follow-up comment are all about race.

I explained it. I don't trust the bastards because they made these codes very opaque and secretive. Not even the student himself is allowed to know their score.

Now, in principle you are right. Done well, a score like this would indeed be beneficial.

Now poor Asians who live in high crime areas but that excel in scholastics can be seen as having adverse conditions while African Americans living in the suburbs with money etc won't be seen as having as adverse conditions. So, why is he still ranting on and on about race?

It's a mistake to equate cities with poverty and suburbs with riches. I don't know how it is where you live, but around here a single zip code can and often does include both "hood" and upscale neighborhoods.

Any college admissions office worth its ass already knows where the prestigious high schools are. And can easily look up the census data for income by zip code if it thinks it’s important. If that’s all this score does it’s probably more to point to when they get criticized for their testing being racist than to provide a needed service.

The ironic thing would be the incentives created if people did care about this score. Historically parents who wanted their kids to get a good education would sacrifice their lifestyle to live in good school districts. If this is the way of the future you’d want to stay in the bad school district. Maybe rich people will send their kids to bad schools and hire tutors to get high enough scores to get their kids into Harvard. Assuming bribing the rowing coach is out.

 

[Trausti]

Adversity is our strength.

 

[AirPoh]

Well, it's good to know that "adversity" can be reduced to a single quantitative score.

I'd like to inform the judges that I grew up in a home without central air, a dishwasher, wi-fi or cable television.

You should add in stupidity.

 

[thebeave]

I used to get wedgies as a kid. Even got an atomic wedgie once (google that at your own risk).

Is there a line in the form for that?

 

[Toni]

Well, Derec is just upset if something comes out that could benefit someone that isn’t him or his kind, even if it can benefit him and his kind.

Nope. As usual, the rank and file communist is wrong.

Where my daughter goes to school is the ‘rich’ school in the city. However, there is a rather wide income range for this school from lower (can’t afford school lunch) to upper (half million+ or so homes) as well as race. Now crime is definitely not an issue relative to other parts of the city, but it is an interesting cross section.

First, everybody can afford school lunch. They are cheap, cheaper than the parens' daily Starbucks or weekly hair and nail appointment for the mom. It's a matter of priorities.
Second, it seems this Oppression Olympics score assigns family income by zip code. So the $500k home owners and can't-afford-lunch renters would be scored the same, as long as they live in the same zip code.

You are so abysmally wrong that ‘everybody can afford school lunch’ that words completely fail me. School lunches may be cheap by your standards but are out of reach for so many families that I don’t know whether to weep, scream or vomit. In my school district, it was extremely difficult to get parents to sign their kids up for free/reduced lunch program that would have fed the kids a decent lunch and also allowed the school to access funds to provide tutoring for kids in poverty. Because very few people actually can overcome their shame by admitting their poverty.

But what do I know? I live in a town with three thrift stores (Goodwill, Salvation Army and a local charity shop) with the high end stores being one Target and one Walmart. And where most emloyers give annual raises of $0.05/hr—I shit you not. Nearest town with more shopping choices is 30 miles away.

But at least we now know that you are not the poor working class son of immigrants you’ve claimed to be.

 

[Politesse]

I don't like this idea at all. No one should be denied access or control over their own application packet, or selected for reasons they can't change or improve on in any way. Students of color are already routinely, overtly harassed by people like Derec, every day they go to class, because of the perception they got an invisible leg up. This will just make things worse, because the student themselves won't even know if its true or not.

Haven't talked to any students yet, but I bet you dollars to donuts that actual students of color and poor white students are not happy about this at all- this is upper class whites trying to make themselves look good by trampling over student rights and actual student experiences like a Humvee. Aside from being blatantly unethical, making the methods and results anonymous is a transparent attempt to skirt FERPA law (which governs student privacy in the US, and is the reason disclosure of race, sex, etc is always optional on college apllications now). The board will be sued over this, and I hope they are successfully sued and forced to publish what they've been up to.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't like this idea at all. No one should be denied access or control over their own application packet, or selected for reasons they can't change or improve on in any way. Students of color are already routinely, overtly harassed by people like Derec, every day they go to class, because of the perception they got an invisible leg up. This will just mske things worse, because the student themselves won't even know if its true or not. Aside from being blatantly unethical, making the methods and results anonymous is a transparent attempt to skirt FERPA law (which governs stident privacy, and is the reason disclosure of race, sex, etc is always optional on college apllications now). The board will be sued over this, and I hope they are successfully sued and forced to publish what they've been up to.

True. It should at least be transparent. Why hide it from the student?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

First, everybody can afford school lunch. They are cheap, cheaper than the parens' daily Starbucks or weekly hair and nail appointment for the mom. It's a matter of priorities.

You forgot to mention rims, hair weaves, and expensive headphones. Food isn't as cheap as you say. School lunches aren't outrageously expensive, but some people are particularly poor. But, it is always nice to hear about how so many white people (who are on welfare) are to blame for their kids not being able to have lunch in school, because of their Starbucks.

Second, it seems this Oppression Olympics score assigns family income by zip code. So the $500k home owners and can't-afford-lunch renters would be scored the same, as long as they live in the same zip code.

Well, at least you understood one of my points.

You are so abysmally wrong that ‘everybody can afford school lunch’ that words completely fail me. School lunches may be cheap by your standards but are out of reach for so many families that I don’t know whether to weep, scream or vomit. In my school district, it was extremely difficult to get parents to sign their kids up for free/reduced lunch program that would have fed the kids a decent lunch and also allowed the school to access funds to provide tutoring for kids in poverty. Because very few people actually can overcome their shame by admitting their poverty.

But at least we now know that you are not the poor working class son of immigrants you’ve claimed to be.

He's the shining knight who women tend to ignore. It just isn't fair.