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

Wait, isn't this exactly what conservatives were lobbying before instead of affirmative action: a vetting system that takes into consideration metrics that are more accurate, particularized, and neutral than race?

Yes, if you score a 1400 after being born into abject poverty and having to walk to and from school and baby sit your younger siblings every night, that is much more impressive than if you attained a 1400 after being born into wealth and having private tutors and endless time and assistance with your studies.

I agree 100% with you on that Trotsky. The only issue is how do you know that someone isn’t just saying what’s necessary to get into a good/prestigious university they wouldn’t get into otherwise? Financial status and household members are a lot easier to trust due to that information being available but the other things are difficult to measure.

One of the most gratifying things about where I work is coming across a strong willed, mature kid like the one you just described. You can literally see the hunger for success in their eyes.
 
What different standards are you talking about? THe only standard is "Do we think this student will succeed in life if provided with an education from our institution?" There have always been incentives in play. Rich guys aren't donating to schools they didn't attend for the feels. They're doing it to improve admissions odds for their kids.

Now if you want to really remove advantages based on economics then we should outlaw test prep courses and tutors. We should ensure identical schools funding on a national level and hold private schools to the same per student expenditure to eliminate any advantages that come from it.

I'm not being facetious but are you truly that committed to removing different standards based on neighborhood? Or are you only thinking about removing any advantages that are applied to bad neighborhoods and letting good ones keep their advantages?
I'm not taking offense to that line of questioning. I absolutely would like the worst schools in our country to be better. I'm not going to assume you have or have not seen bad schools but I have since my mom used to substitute at some. They are like a different world. It is terrifying.

Gun to my head, decide between federal funding of school versus this? No brainer I take the federal funding, even with my qualms with the additional taxes I'd pay.

You don't fix the problem of disadvantaged schools by awarding them bonus points.

And as far as taking away advantage from those that can afford tutoring or whatever, that's crazy
 
I agree 100% with you on that Trotsky. The only issue is how do you know that someone isn’t just saying what’s necessary to get into a good/prestigious university they wouldn’t get into otherwise? Financial status and household members are a lot easier to trust due to that information being available but the other things are difficult to measure.

Because this measure doesn't ask people anything, it looks at the statistics of their school and neighborhood.

Also, rich people have already been abusing our education system for decades. Any system we devise will be abused by those with the resources to abuse it.
 
I'm not taking offense to that line of questioning. I absolutely would like the worst schools in our country to be better. I'm not going to assume you have or have not seen bad schools but I have since my mom used to substitute at some. They are like a different world. It is terrifying.

Gun to my head, decide between federal funding of school versus this? No brainer I take the federal funding, even with my qualms with the additional taxes I'd pay.

You don't fix the problem of disadvantaged schools by awarding them bonus points.

And as far as taking away advantage from those that can afford tutoring or whatever, that's crazy

1. No one is being awarded bonus points. Why is that so hard to understand.

2. So you're okay with wealthy people using their resources to get an advantage, but you're not okay with a private company partnering with private and public colleges to mitigate that advantage?
 
1. No one is being awarded bonus points. Why is that so hard to understand.

2. So you're okay with wealthy people using their resources to get an advantage, but you're not okay with a private company partnering with private and public colleges to mitigate that advantage?
Yes I have no issue with people spending money to educate themselves

Yes i have issue with giving advantages to balance out a lack of education compared to those who seek out higher forms of it
 
Another way to keep more Asians out of Ivys
 
I'm not taking offense to that line of questioning. I absolutely would like the worst schools in our country to be better. I'm not going to assume you have or have not seen bad schools but I have since my mom used to substitute at some. They are like a different world. It is terrifying.

Gun to my head, decide between federal funding of school versus this? No brainer I take the federal funding, even with my qualms with the additional taxes I'd pay.

You don't fix the problem of disadvantaged schools by awarding them bonus points.

And as far as taking away advantage from those that can afford tutoring or whatever, that's crazy
Yes, it's crazy to take away things like tutoring and such from those who can afford it. But it's equally crazy to pretend that those things aren't advantages to the students who get them.

Whenever the conversation about bad schools and bad neighborhoods comes up and the conversation turns to not giving poor kids any advantages based on economic position, people often forget add in the economic advantage the well-to-do kids have. When asked if we really want to even the playing field...no one wants to even the playing field by reducing advantages for the well off. That's ludicrous to me. When poor kids are given benefits - no advantages, equal playing field. When rich kids are given benefits - well, that's fine.

But rich kids didn't earn those advantages, their parents did. Those kids are not paying for their own tutors, they're not paying the taxes in their school districts. It's an advantage that arises from the luck of birth, not the sweat of their brow. And yet the idea of evening the unearned benefits for other kids is always pointed to as something unreasonable.

As for fixing disadvantaged schools, you're not giving them bonus points. You're addressing the effect of disadvantaged schools on regular, every day kids. Kids in bad schools shouldn't have that issue addressed until the school, that they have no control over, is transformed into a better school? That sounds like people want to punish the kids because the school isn't better.

You ever played a video game with someone when one of the buttons on your controller doesn't work? You're going to lose more games that you win but not because you're necessarily bad at the game or even because the other guy is better. If your controller is broken, you're at a disadvantage no matter how good you are. Acknowledging that doesn't end meritocracy, it credits it. It says "Those 2 people aren't competing with the same tools. So, is there a way to judge their skills even though one guy has a bad controller?" Pretending that they're the same undermines meritocracy by burying the differences that are not the fault of the competitors. It doesn't make the guy with a good controller a bad guy and, as we agree, you wouldn't break his controller to even it up but you can't in good faith suggest that the right response is to claim that the broken controller has no impact on the game and thus should be ignored.
 
Because this measure doesn't ask people anything, it looks at the statistics of their school and neighborhood.

I’ll have to look more into this but I’m all for anyone who wants to create their own opportunities.
 
Listen, do not waste time arguing with people over this. Any read of the criteria is very clear that poor kids of every race will benefit. But their concern isn't if poor kids of all races will benefit. The issue is that for decades people have argued that the environmental circumstances in minority neighborhoods isn't a barrier to their success, it's purely a cultural problem. They've also argued that race considerations are wrong and economic circumstances would be more fair because many of the black kids who get into these schools/programs are coming from better than average economic backgrounds (which is a legitimate point).

Yet when presented with a metric that actually does that - eliminates race but accounts for economic circumstances those same people reject it. Why? Because they realize that a metric that takes economic circumstances into account will still benefit black/brown kids because many of those kids tend to live in lower SES circumstances.

All it demonstrates is that the "race shouldn't be a factor, why not economics?" crowd wasn't genuine about economic circumstances. They don't want a metric that accounts for kids' environmental circumstances - they want a metric that doesn't benefit black/brown kids. THey will argue against every proposal until they find one that does that. Meanwhile poor kids of all types will continue to be harmed by this approach. And this same approach is visible well beyond education.

For example - why would this hurt Asian kids when so many Asian kids live in low income households.
AAHighestPoverty.jpg

https://prosperitynow.org/blog/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans


Is this part where you dump the thread?

You have no credibility here anymore...
 
I can't decide if I wish society held my hand the way it does for young adults today or if I was better off having to put in work. Sometimes I feel like a fool for not gaming the system more.
 
Yes I have no issue with people spending money to educate themselves

Yes i have issue with giving advantages to balance out a lack of education compared to those who seek out higher forms of it

But you're not giving the advantages. The College Board is a private company. They're using their own money to help people and that bothers you?

Also, if you think the poorly educated people in America are just those who haven't tried to "seek out" better education, you're delusional.
 
Is this part where you dump the thread?

You have no credibility here anymore...
Don't worry about my credibility, try to do something about being an absurdly blatant hypocrite.

No, why bother...keep lying about what I said and keep being a hypocrite about the exact same subject.

Since lying and hypocrisy seem to be your new day job, better get back to it. Times a-wasting.
 
Don't worry about my credibility, try to do something about being an absurdly blatant hypocrite.

No, why bother...keep lying about what I said and keep being a hypocrite about the exact same subject.

Since lying and hypocrisy seem to be your new day job, better get back to it. Times a-wasting.

I explained the difference to you, and instead of addressing it you dick tucked and ran.

It's cool though. you have that ace up your sleeve.

When you're losing an argument you can silence posters and/or shut down threads. (Which you frequently do)

Like I said earlier, you have no credibility anymore
 
I can't decide if I wish society held my hand the way it does for young adults today or if I was better off having to put in work. Sometimes I feel like a fool for not gaming the system more.

Give us an example of how you could have gamed the system in order to work less. That comment needs context.

Sounds kind of like, “In my day, I walked to school 10 miles in the snow, uphill both ways.”

I’m sure you used the system just fine, and you got out of it what you put in. Everything requires work and dedication, nobody is being handed a college degree and a high paying job for nothing.
 
Yes, it's crazy to take away things like tutoring and such from those who can afford it. But it's equally crazy to pretend that those things aren't advantages to the students who get them.

Whenever the conversation about bad schools and bad neighborhoods comes up and the conversation turns to not giving poor kids any advantages based on economic position, people often forget add in the economic advantage the well-to-do kids have. When asked if we really want to even the playing field...no one wants to even the playing field by reducing advantages for the well off. That's ludicrous to me. When poor kids are given benefits - no advantages, equal playing field. When rich kids are given benefits - well, that's fine.

But rich kids didn't earn those advantages, their parents did. Those kids are not paying for their own tutors, they're not paying the taxes in their school districts. It's an advantage that arises from the luck of birth, not the sweat of their brow. And yet the idea of evening the unearned benefits for other kids is always pointed to as something unreasonable.

As for fixing disadvantaged schools, you're not giving them bonus points. You're addressing the effect of disadvantaged schools on regular, every day kids. Kids in bad schools shouldn't have that issue addressed until the school, that they have no control over, is transformed into a better school? That sounds like people want to punish the kids because the school isn't better.

You ever played a video game with someone when one of the buttons on your controller doesn't work? You're going to lose more games that you win but not because you're necessarily bad at the game or even because the other guy is better. If your controller is broken, you're at a disadvantage no matter how good you are. Acknowledging that doesn't end meritocracy, it credits it. It says "Those 2 people aren't competing with the same tools. So, is there a way to judge their skills even though one guy has a bad controller?" Pretending that they're the same undermines meritocracy by burying the differences that are not the fault of the competitors. It doesn't make the guy with a good controller a bad guy and, as we agree, you wouldn't break his controller to even it up but you can't in good faith suggest that the right response is to claim that the broken controller has no impact on the game and thus should be ignored.
funny, it never ended, because it never started. America was never about meritocracy, it's about privileges, that's how they put a cap on moderating a society like America. You (anybody) are an idiot if you think you are free, you are not free, you are given the illusion that you are though.
 
Give us an example of how you could have gamed the system in order to work less. That comment needs context.

Sounds kind of like, “In my day, I walked to school 10 miles in the snow, uphill both ways.”

I’m sure you used the system just fine, and you got out of it what you put in. Everything requires work and dedication, nobody is being handed a college degree and a high paying job for nothing.
shows what you know,lol. Lend me your mind, and I might show you something that you didn't see earlier.
 
I was going to stick around and work hard so my kids have a good life, but I don't want to ruin their chances at getting into a good college, so looks like I'm gonna have to be a deadbeat and start blasting in every chick I find. Those colleges are going to be filled with my half sibling kids and I never have to work again.

<GinJuice>
This is sadly true. This can also get you $1200 month subsidy to pay for your health insurance. Blast hard and deep.
 
Give us an example of how you could have gamed the system in order to work less. That comment needs context.

Sounds kind of like, “In my day, I walked to school 10 miles in the snow, uphill both ways.”

I’m sure you used the system just fine, and you got out of it what you put in. Everything requires work and dedication, nobody is being handed a college degree and a high paying job for nothing.
There's really no reason for me to work at all. I do because I'm not a bum but if I wanted to, I could get by leeching off the system.

I'd qualify for all sorts of programs up here in Maine. I wouldn't live luxuriously, but I'd get by fine.
 
There's really no reason for me to work at all. I do because I'm not a bum but if I wanted to, I could get by leeching off the system.

I'd qualify for all sorts of programs up here in Maine. I wouldn't live luxuriously, but I'd get by fine.

You...you're in Maine?

Lol, this is like a guy at the local MMA gym saying "Oh, I could easily be UFC champ if I wanted. I'm just not willing to play that bullshit politics, you know?"

You live in one of the least competitive states in one of the wealthiest countries in the world and you're saying you could easily get by if you wanted. You just love work, lol. Incredible.

This explains so much.
 
Back
Top