Discussion in 'College Recruiting' started by Dos Equis, Mar 12, 2019.
You sure about that?
I’ll agree, I’m sure there’s ego involved... But only they know what was going through their minds. It was likely a combination of a lot of things... Was it a poor choice? Absolutely.
I don’t think that’s quite how they see it... sure there’s the element of pride being able to say your kid goes to XYZ school - But so does everyone else on this forum...
But regarding the tax issue, it’s not what you think. The wealthy don’t think about it as, “we get to save on taxes by donating to this charity”, rather when they donate to the charity, they see a $500k donation as only costing them $250k because the gov would’ve taken half of the $500k in taxes anyway. They don’t get to keep the tax savings. They actually spend more and keep less by giving to a tax deductible cause than if they were to not donate at all.
I'm waiting for her response.
SAT exam reportedly to give students "adversity score" in bid to level playing field
BY BRIAN PASCUS
MAY 16, 2019 / 10:03 AM / CBS NEWS
A new "adversity score" assigned by the College Board on the SAT exam will reportedly reflect students' family income, environment and educational differences in an effort to level the playing field in the highly competitive college admissions process. The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that 50 schools used the new indicator as part of a beta test last year and the College Board plans to bring more than 150 schools into the fold this fall.
The College Board is a New York-based non-profit that is in charge of overseeing the SAT. A dialogue about wealth and privilege in educational institutions exploded this year in wake of the college admissions scandal, in which 33 parentswere charged with paying huge sums of money to have their children cheat on the SAT and be admitted into top colleges under the false pretenses of being student athletes.
Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student's adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual's adversity score on a scale of one to 100.
According to the Journal, a score of 50 is considered "average." Anything above 50 proves "hardship" while anything below 50 is considered "privilege." The College Board did not immediately respond to a CBS News request for more information about the methodology behind its calculation of the adversity score and if other factors are considered.
The Journal reported that this new score will appear alongside a student's SAT score and will be featured in a section labeled the "Environmental Context Dashboard." The adversity score's formal name on the dashboard is "Overall Disadvantage Level," but it has been colloquially called the "adversity score" by college admissions officers, per The Journal's article.
Colleges already take all these factors into consideration. The first read of an application is by someone that is familiar with the student’s school. Not everyone financially secure spends money on test prepare and college advising, so this system would penalize those students.
Also essay questions provide a good opportunity for student to discuss challenges they faced.
Another good reason to take the ACT.
Just reading that makes me want to cheat.
I would hope in this day and age we could strive to provide equal educational opportunities for children in underprivileged neighborhoods. A rubric like this above pretty much gives up on that. Plus... exactly as Nefutous points out above, it then becomes unfair to "median" or even affluent families who chose not to throw thousands at test study programs and collge consultants- in other words it could serve to penalize those who do not crazily control their kids' lives.
Rubric? You lost me.
Oh forget it. I was being sarcastic in the first place. But can't you see how it might be more beneficial to do something like providing free test prep services to underprivileged students instead?
Another option could be for them to hire test proctors who don't accept bribes.
I think the overwhelming majority of test proctors don't take bribes.
Providing equal education funding to all schools instead of basing their funding on their local tax base would be an even better idea. When inner city schools don't have enough books but the school in the neighboring suburb has a campus that rivals many college campuses it highlights the inequities in our educational funding.
It doesn't matter now. SAT just announced that they will give an "adversity" score along with the regular SAT score. Don't know all the details but it will essentially take into account parents income, where the student went to high school, is it in a dangerous area, etc. etc. Anyone with more info please post.
Every article I can find quotes the WSJ or various university sources. No statement has been seen yet by the College Board, which is the organization that actually administers the test.
Here's an interesting article from a year ago about the impact of becoming "testing option" has on admissions (and the resulting class of frosh): https://www.insidehighered.com/news...est-optional-become-more-diverse-and-maintain. And here's a more recent WaPo article in the wake of the admissions scandal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/educ...lege-admissions-tests/?utm_term=.394e603887d3. (the underlying study is here: https://www.nacacnet.org/globalasse...ions/research/defining-access-report-2018.pdf).
You know that the College Board and ACT felt a deep chill in their bones when they read this: "Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California system, said in an interview last week that she created a task force last year to review the use of test scores in admissions." If UC drops standardized testing as part of admissions, the standardized test industry will be forever changed.
I disagree with you and Nefutous, it doesn't penalize anybody. All it does is document where you come from and the typical advantages or disadvantages associated with it. Put it this way, if you are not working the typical academic angle, then you better be working on another angle to get into your school of choice. I think most of us on this board are working the athletic scholarship angle. So if you're not spending the 10-20 hours per week perfecting your soccer skills, you better be doing another activity or hitting the books for those 10-20. And that is great that most schools use readers from your area so they can decipher real shit from bull shit.
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic with this quote or leading into an "affirmative action" type argument, but you bet your ass that if you come from an "advantaged" upbringing, you better score better than someone from a "disadvantaged" upbringing. I grew up in ELA and your damn right, if my dd's don't score AT LEAST 200 points higher than me on the SAT, I've been a complete and utter failure, period! They read more books through 5th grade than I did through all of high school and then some. If Bill Gate's kid scores a 1050, that is an utter disaster. If you're an inner city first generation Latino where Spanish was your first language, a 1050 score is very, very, good.
I am merely suggesting that the root problem of bad elementary and high school education for the poor needs to be addressed-- it is not solved by just some asterisk by a kid's name on a standardized test.
Beyond that, much more can be told about a student -from any background- by an essay, an exploration of past achievements over time, or just a conversation, than by a standardized test anyways.
David Coleman is the president of the college board, he is also the common core mastermind.
Just another way to destroy the middle class.
Oh, you poor little baby! Who’s playing victim politics now? Get off your lazy boy, stop eating fried twinkies and hit the f’n books!