Social SAT To add ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Headkicktoleg, May 16, 2019.

  1. bandicoot

    bandicoot Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    10,194
    Likes Received:
    8,148
    Location:
    STL
    Yeah, Ben Carson is soooooo dumb, anyone can perform brain surgeries never done before if you’ve experienced enough racism.
     
    Seano likes this.
  2. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    36,030
    Likes Received:
    34,305
    In the NBA, they frequently draft off "potential". Kids who show glimmers of something that might be exceptional at the next level, even if they haven't shown it consistently at the college or high school level. No one complains about meritocracy when it comes into who gets into the NBA. And it's absolutely not a meritocracy. But people frequently complain about it when it comes to who gets into college.

    If you don't care about that stuff then there really shouldn't be any complaints about how colleges make their admissions decisions. If that's your point and I missed it, mea culpa. But I didn't get that impression - I get the impression that you expect the colleges to admit in a fashion that is nothing like the NBA.

    I'm not sure how the NBA example makes the point you're trying to make. If colleges admitted students the way the NBA drafts players then colleges would admit some kids who performed exceptionally well at the high school level and they'd admit some kids who they think could be high level professionals, even if they didn't put up big academic numbers in high school.

    And that's exactly what happens. The NBA frequently passes on kids who put up big numbers at crappy schools for kids who put up smaller numbers at more competitive environments. Why? Because they realize that the stat sheet numbers don't tell the whole story. Colleges frequently pass up kids who have great resumes for kids who excelled in tougher environments. They, the colleges, are drafting on "potential".

    Maybe you should fine tune your comparatives because they don't say what you think they say.
     
    Leagon and Quipling like this.
  3. IngaVovchanchyn

    IngaVovchanchyn Titanium Belt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    42,534
    Likes Received:
    71,708
    Lol. This.
     
    uppercutbus, esotamoc and Seano like this.
  4. ShinkanPo

    ShinkanPo I'll be the one to pluck that fleur

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    28,419
    Likes Received:
    18,267
    Location:
    Bandung, Indonesia
    Is Umar Eps in that fim?
     
    LogicalInsanity likes this.
  5. superpunch

    superpunch Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    12,998
    So one example of the new criteria is crime rates. Asian American communities have lower crime rates than African American communities at the same income levels. Are poor Asian Americans being punished for being law abiding citizens now?

    Asians that face the same class disadvantages will be punished for doing the right thing despite facing the same disadvantages. They will be punished for simply being better people when facing the same obstacles. These criteria aren't just taking concrete obstacles into account; they're also taking behavioral responses to those obstacles into account and punishing people with yellow skin for doing the right things. That puts a sick feeling in my stomach.
     
    hitcher and esotamoc like this.
  6. Lead

    Lead /Led/ Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    35,186
    Likes Received:
    23,280
    Location:
    Around Pittsburgh
    No, not "so.....". Acknowledge the poverty criteria can benefit poor white or asian students and I'll move on to the rest of that post. I'm not doing this garbage where a single fact here isn't acknowledged by you guys when I'm perfectly happy with acknowledging some of yours.

    Does the poverty criteria benefit poor white and asian students just as it benefits poor black students? Yes or no?

    Then I'll move on to this part happily.

     
  7. LogicalInsanity

    LogicalInsanity Free RR! Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    28,378
    Likes Received:
    24,157
    Omar Epps, yup
     
    ShinkanPo likes this.
  8. ocfightfan

    ocfightfan Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    21,623
    Likes Received:
    10,549
    Location:
    In the lab with Jon Jones B sample
    The NBA is not taking away opportunities from clearly worthy players to give to people on the basis of them being disadvantaged. They may gamble on the occasional prospect who just didn't have the opportunity to shine for whatever reason and seems to have the talent but they are not chasing someone whose claim to fame is growing up on the wrong side of the tracks. They are certainly not setting up a system that will be used to shift opportunity away from people that are worthy to those that are not or far less qualified.

    These schools are not rigging the system to catch a diamond in the rough. They are doing it to soothe their white guilt and pursue some adolescent fantasy about justice. I would be interested to see how many people who benefited from this type of garbage ended up washing out or needing lots of charity and mulligans to barely get by.
     
  9. WTF2008

    WTF2008 Black Belt

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,516
    Likes Received:
    3,122
    How is it the "best"
    You sound sub 100
     
  10. esotamoc

    esotamoc Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,157
    Likes Received:
    704
    yes, the only thing considered should be parents income. anything else is way too open to interpretation.
     
  11. ferrisjso

    ferrisjso Goat Lawyer

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    8,085
    Likes Received:
    4,052
    Location:
    Somewhere
    The whole point is that the current system doesn't fairly judge people on the merits though. It's like in college football some teams are in easier conferences than in others and a loss in one is different than another. Admissions officers were going to shooting into the dark about what an SAT score said anyway based on location. But what's wrong with an actual system to quantify how environment effects merit? This makes the system more merit based, not less.
     
    A.S. Deep and BarryDillon like this.
  12. Headkicktoleg

    Headkicktoleg Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    30,591
    Likes Received:
    67,472
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    Would you be happy if teachers did this too? John got a C, but he had a cold this week it should be a B+. Steve had time to study so his A is suspect I'll change it to a C-.
     
  13. ferrisjso

    ferrisjso Goat Lawyer

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    8,085
    Likes Received:
    4,052
    Location:
    Somewhere
    This is not anything close to a fair comparison dude come on.
     
  14. Mr Fahrenheit

    Mr Fahrenheit Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    878
    Lol
     
  15. Mr Fahrenheit

    Mr Fahrenheit Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    878
    My understanding is that the schools will see the breakdown, so in theory they’ll still be able to evaluate the applicants however they choose.

    This is actually better for (some) minority applicants. If you couldn’t identify what percentage of the score was “bonus points” schools would naturally begin to assume that all minority candidates had significant bonus points, and therefore had a lower performance score. That would totally burn a student from a normal neighborhood and two-parent home who had one minority parent but didn’t get many bonus points otherwise. If you’re that student you really want those schools to see that your score is almost entirely merit-based.

    Not unlike the story Thomas Sowell tells about what happens when employers can’t check criminal background. Those employers instead tend to disqualify all applicants from certain demographic groups, namely black males from certain neighborhoods, defeating the purpose of the regulation.

    That’s the thing to remember here, no matter what side of the debate you’re on. No policy helps “blacks,” or hurts “Asians,” as groups. Policies help or harm *individuals*. If a policy helps 100 blacks at the expense of 100 asians, it didn’t do anything for “blacks”. The other 49,999,900 of them weren’t affected at all (except to be made to feel like shit yet again by another government policy that everyone else hates).
     
  16. Mr Fahrenheit

    Mr Fahrenheit Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    878
    With all due respect, I think you’re making the mistake of thinking about people as groups instead of individuals. Racial discrimination by the colleges doesn’t hurt “Asians” in order to help “blacks.” It’s hurts a select group of Asian kids and helps a select group of black kids, neither of whom are responsible for how successful or disasterous their communities are.

    The assholes who turned black neighborhoods in Baltimore into a war zone aren’t the ones applying to Johns Hopkins. It’s the decent kid who had to overcome all that shit that is. And—in theory—that’s what the bonus points are for: it’s easier for an individual to learn and perform in an Asian neighborhood than a black neighbhood. Yes, that’s because of what “blacks” and “Asians” have done to their neighborhoods, respectively, but this isn’t a group sport.

    If my father walked out on my mother and my mother abused me that would make my life difficult. We wouldn’t want a school to say, “I’m not gonna help Johnson Family applicants, it’s the Johnson Family’s fault the Johnson Household is such a mess in the first place.” We’d want them to treat me as an individual.

    I’m not actually in favor of this terrible SAT idea, because our entire society has a stake in who the next generation of surgeons, engineers and business leaders are, but I do think we need to resist being lured into thinking about groups instead of individuals.
     
    Leagon likes this.
  17. Mr Fahrenheit

    Mr Fahrenheit Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    878
    If they could actually do that, great. The problem is deciding what merit means.

    Let’s say I was prodigy as a four-year old, but I was kidnapped by a pedophile and locked in a shed for the next 10 years. I escape, unable to read, write or do simple arithmetic, and badly psychologically damaged. I’m home schooled for the next four years and turn 18 with the reading and math proficiency of an 8th grader.

    What do I merit? Absent my horrifying environment I could thrive at MIT. But as a result of my environment I can barely read. Do you define merit as, “what my intrinsic talents would allow me to do in a vacuum,” or, “what I will currently be able to do in reality if given the chance”?

    If it’s the latter, that’s fine. If we can show that a guy from a poor single parent home with at 24 MCAT is likely to become a better doctor than a guy from the suburbs with a 27 MCAT, by all means give the spot to the poor kid.

    If it’s the former, you’re not helping anyone. Yea, life isn’t fair, but this isn’t the way to make it fair.
     
    hitcher likes this.
  18. lilelvis

    lilelvis Black Belt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    5,001
    Likes Received:
    8,115
    Location:
    Front Row
    The victim class will convolute this in to a shitshow immediately, or sooner.
    “What about me? I’m Lgbtaarplmfao and cant find lady’s shoes big enough. I want to go to Harvard.”
    “I’m offended”
    “I’m fat”
    “I’m ugly”
    “I should have had a dick”

    Trying to force equality of outcome will never end well.
     
    superpunch likes this.
  19. Tobacco

    Tobacco --------------------------------------------------

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    12,826
    Likes Received:
    7,781
    Much prefer this than a blanket assessment based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. That's for sure.

    I am skeptical that people will implement this properly, but such is life.

    My personal story is I worked full time while going to school for family reasons. I have no doubt my marks suffered because of it. There was actually a half semester where I didn't work and my grades skyrocketed for that half semester.

    I never had a whiff of relevant work experience while a student, and other people got to go to school while not working, except for rotation programs in big companies in the summer.

    Of course, none of that difference in experience helped me at all, I started out in the workforce without a reputation of being a high potential employee given average marks and no time for fancy extra degrees and diplomas, and in a very junior position and skyrocketed up while others joined higher and flatlined. And of course, now all I hear is how privileged I am because of my fair skin color, being a man and sexual orientation.
     
    BarryDillon likes this.
  20. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    36,030
    Likes Received:
    34,305
    You typed that then you type this...

    and this...
    You literally contradicted yourself.

    But there's a bigger problem there. Colleges are taking opportunities away from anyone nor is the NBA taking opportunities away form anyone. For that to be true, certain people have to be entitled to the opportunity to begin with. None of them are. No one is entitled to admission at the college of their choice, just like no one is entitled to be drafted into the NBA.

    Colleges and the NBA both decide if they want to gamble on kids "....who didn't have the opportunity to shine for whatever reason". The NBA drafts 64 people a year, colleges admit hundreds of thousands. When the NBA gambles on 10% of their draft picks, it's 6 kids. When Harvard does it, it's 200. When the college system does it, it's 10s of thousands. But it's the exact same thing. You take some sure bets, you take some mediocres and you take some kids who, as a broadcaster once put it, "two years away from being 2 years away."

    Seems like the core problem for you is that you think some kids are entitled to something to which they are not entitled. So, when an organization makes a choice to "...gamble on the occasional prospect...", your entitlement mentality thinks it's coming at the expense of someone else. But it's not, the someone else was never entitled to the admissions seat to begin with.


    See the above paragraph.

    But to finish with this NBA parallel. Plenty of kids who think they're going to get drafted early in the draft fall to the 2nd round. Plenty of kids who expect to get drafted, never do. They are not entitled to anything, so you know what they do? They move on. They make the best of their situation, they go play overseas in lesser leagues, they take smaller contracts, etc. They don't sit around and cry about how some kid they had better numbers than got drafted and they didn't.

    Yet, in the college space, the exact opposite happens. The parents start insisting that the colleges shouldn't be allowed to gamble on prospects because their children were entitled to a seat at that college. All that talk about resilience and dealing with adversity they don't apply to themselves. All those arguments about how circumstances are equal suddenly disappear when they don't get what they think is the best.

    Entitlement mindsets and hypocritical arguments get exposed the moment they don't get what they want.
     
    nac386, BarryDillon and Leagon like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.