SAT test to now include "adversity" score

[I Push Buttons]

I haven't taken the SAT in a long, long time, but you have to give pretty detailed information to apply for the test and, I **think,** provide your SSN. It's been about a decade and several other standardized tests ago.

But your SSN won't give them any of that information... They aren't the government, its not like applying for FAFSA, which is administered by the government, where they can actually find out you are lying to get need based aid... The College Board (company who administers the SAT) is a private company, they don't have access to any information that you don't voluntarily provide to them and there is nothing stopping you from lying about any of it, apart from your SSN.

And once again with millions, perhaps even tens of millions (don't many overseas students take it as well to attend US universities?) of people both applying to take the test and actually taking the test, many of them several times per year, how could they possibly verify any of the information given to them on any meaningful scale?

Hell look at the college admission scandal recently... In many cases they can't even verify that the actual people taking the tests are who they say they are...

[PC2]

But your SSN won't give them any of that information... They aren't the government, its not like applying for FAFSA, which is administered by the government, where they can actually find out you are lying to get need based aid... The College Board (company who administers the SAT) is a private company, they don't have access to any information that you don't voluntarily provide to them and there is nothing stopping you from lying about any of it, apart from your SSN.

And once again with millions, perhaps even tens of millions (don't many overseas students take it as well to attend US universities?) of people both applying to take the test and actually taking the test, many of them several times per year, how could they possibly verify any of the information given to them on any meaningful scale?

Hell look at the college admission scandal recently... In many cases they can't even verify that the actual people taking the tests are who they say they are...

No kidding. Since they can't verify most of it people should just fill out the forms in whatever way maximizes their score. Which is the point of the exam.

[Elkfingers]

You can start, I'd like an apology and 1000 dollars for your lack of understanding. Thanks

1000 dollars per citizen. I'm legit impressed by how poor your understanding of how alll of this works is. By the way, you never explained what Marxism actually entails. I'm like, fucking gagging for you to try to explain it even semi-coherently without copy+pasting wikipedia.

[Penguirrel]

I don't think it's appropriate to ask on the SAT about anything unrelated to your education. If you want to tell your story on your college application be my guest. It just seems crass to assign a score to be judged upon something that the student will have almost no control over. As a kid you cannot change what your parents make in year, where you live, which school you attend, your family situation, etc.. How is that fair to assign a number that carries any weight whatsoever as to if you get accepted over another student?

3 students with similar GPA, extra-curriculars, and test scores apply but with 3 different adversity scores. How is it right to say 1 deserves preferential treatment over the others? They each put in the time and effort to earn their score. Higher education is about learning and if you show you can do it then nothing else should matter.

[breslin]

1000 dollars per citizen. I'm legit impressed by how poor your understanding of how alll of this works is. By the way, you never explained what Marxism actually entails. I'm like, fucking gagging for you to try to explain it even semi-coherently without copy+pasting wikipedia.

Something tells me you'll be doing a lot of gagging regardless of what I post

[Maglen]

Just another "feel good" policy that can be easily abused / manipulated.

[Hashtronaut]

This is pretty shitty, can’t believe this is going through. Where does it stop after this?

- - - Updated - - -

Wouldn't it be better to increase funding for education so that low income areas don't have shitty schools?

Is the SAT run by the government? Thought it was a private company.

[Zython]

Just another "feel good" policy that can be easily abused / manipulated.

Yeah, imagine the SATs being gamed. That would be horrible.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems like this is a problem that could be more easily solved by getting rid of the whole eugenicist practice entirely. It's not even a good indicator of college performance.

[Elkfingers]

Something tells me you'll be doing a lot of gagging regardless of what I post

Oh wow you're super witty.

[Najnaj]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sat-adv...playing-field/

This reads like something out of a bad marxist dystopia. Do you support this?

I think you need to Google both Marxism and Dystopia.

Of course I support it. It is a small measure to get more smart than rich people into schools. Why would you not support this?

[PACOX]

A more serious reply, I kind of see what they are trying to accomplish but this isn't the way.

The way the SAT works is that your graded based on how well you did compared everyone else that year. If half the country can afford prep and you can't then your score will be at a disadvantage. You're going off raw knowledge while they are 'learning the test'. The SAT is bad is measuring actual knowledge and people with access to hundreds of dollars in prep only dilute the test more.

They aren't trying to add some weight to schools like you would do with so someone who has a 3.0 taking regular classes vs someone with a 3.0 taking all advanced classes. I don't think they are going about it the right way though or if schools will even care.

[Cracked]

Yeah, no. There's more than two centuries of history explaining why "leaving it alone" doesn't solve the problem.

Or it could be all a myth and the best and brightest just happen to resemble



Yessir, no systemic bias here.

LOL you can't be serious if you think things haven't been moving in generally the right direction for the past 200 years. Yeah, it takes time. 50 years ago, maybe 30% of population, no matter who, could even think about going to college, today, no matter who you are, if you really want to, there's probably a way to attend some college.

Like think about what you say a little. It's almost like you really can't use your brain.

[tehealadin]

No, actually the reality is that much of education funding goes to administrators and board members. The farther you are from children, the more you get paid.

This. A thousand times.

What these people do for their money, I genuinely don't know. I can only speak for my own system, but I assume it is similar in most. What we tend to see is a class of people who get into teaching, cannot wait to get out of the classroom, take part in a bunch of bullshit initiatives, usually started by people who once upon a time couldn't wait to get out of the classroom and now are trying to justify their new managerial roles, "honestly, we do good work for our much higher salary", use the correct educational buzzwords (which really seem to impress managerial types, but often have 0 substance), this in turn enables them to climb the ladder, appointed by people like them. If those people just didn't turn up for work for a month, there would be no difference in the schools they administer. There is a tendency for these people to be the types who don't actually want to work with children, weren't especially good at it, but just want to tell others how to do it. They see a job as a stepping stone to a bigger one. And there isn't necessarily anything wrong with having ambition, trying to climb up, but I find that for too many it means class teachers get extra bullshit on their tables to deal with, additional work whose main purpose is to get someone else a promotion, and that doesn't have any observable impact on the kids in the classroom, and it can be utterly demoralising. Not all of them are like that, of course. Some genuinely have good ideas about how schools should be run, and want to get into place to implement them, they just need to get high enough to make it happen. In my experience these are the few, sadly. It isn't helped by education being a political football, with too many politicians trying to make a name for themselves with some signature educational reform (despite never having worked in a school), these seem to come around every few years, and just when you are starting to make sense of the last one, the rug is pulled from under you and you need to adapt to this new stuff. Last year I had one of my courses change midway through it. I had to say to the kids, who were going into the exam year, that much of the stuff we spent the last year learning is now obsolete and we now need to cram a whole new bunch of stuff in. This kind of bullshit doesn't help kids. The powers that be could have delayed it for a year (the logical way) but they are so disconnected they didn't care.

Sorry, I went off on a rant, I have some strong feelings on that area. But yea, the farther you are from kids, the more you get paid and the more decision making power you have. And the farther you get from infants, the more money there is, at least in my country, and I assume it is similar in other places. Early years get the most, despite being the most important phase, and as you advance up the educational ladder, the funding allocation gets bigger.

[Cizr]

I think you need to Google both Marxism and Dystopia.

Of course I support it. It is a small measure to get more smart than rich people into schools. Why would you not support this?

Because its discrimination just as giving advantages to students of certain skin colour is.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Yeah, imagine the SATs being gamed. That would be horrible.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems like this is a problem that could be more easily solved by getting rid of the whole eugenicist practice entirely. It's not even a good indicator of college performance.

Agreed.

Also, its funny ... when we had that thread on the kids whose rich and famous parents paid to get in, many people were like "good for them dude!" but herre we are just suggesting a slight change in a test that is historically racist, and historically used for eugenics, and a test that is harder the poorer you are.... well then suddenly its the worst thing you could say.

By the way these are all facts. Standardized testing was started as a way to help teachers find grade school reading level, but it quickly started getting used by rich racists dudes to subjugate poor people, women, and.... you guessed it! Those dirty non-whites!. (More specifically Anglo-white)

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

In what way is the test racist? How can a test even be racist?

The person who I replied to posted an article on it. This is a well known issue with standardized testing. I know you are from Sweden, is English your first/second/third language? Your English is great, but don't you think that IF you were someone who was smart, but had English as a second/third language, don't you think that native English speakers would have a leg up? Read the article posted, it surprised me when I learned this as well.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

That's really not racism. English is my third language and swedish my second, if I wouldn't understand something on a test that's on me and not those who made the test.

That was an example to lead into the article. Please read the article. This stuff is well known.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

The first link gets stuck on loading and the second isn't even about this.

Not everything that could lead to bad outcomes for minorities is racist.

- - - Updated - - -

Upon reading: http://aapf.org/standardized-testing

I'm going to call bullshit. It's not racism.

Well, its completely fine to not know what you are talking about.

“For some college officials, an aptitude test, which is presumed to measure intelligence, is appealing since at this time (1926) intelligence and ethnic origin are thought to be connected, and therefore the results of such a test could be used to limit the admissions of particularly undesirable ethnicities.”

Eugenicists believed that Caucasian people were, based on genetics, more intelligent, more likely to behave morally or ethically, and less susceptible to diseases, defects, or disabilities (and less likely to pass them on to children).

If you know anything about this stuff, I'll give you a hint. Caucasian people are not more intelligent, more likely to be "moral" (whatever that even means), not more ethical, not less susceptible to disease, defects, or disabilities....

The tests are racist in many ways.

[Najnaj]

Because its discrimination just as giving advantages to students of certain skin colour is.

If that is discrimination then food stamps is discrimination too... seriously, get a grip.

- - - Updated - - -

All I see is screaming racist to something that isn't racist. If you don't perform well on a test, that's because you lack knowledge of what's being tested or you're not very smart, neither of them is racist.

neither of them are NECESSARILY racist but they were well could be. There is no such thing as total impartiality and the background of who ever created a test will shine through.

[Minikin]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sat-adv...playing-field/

This reads like something out of a bad marxist dystopia. Do you support this?

Don't support this method (due to obvious reasons) but I do see where it's coming from. Beyond the recent scandal, there has been an issue of inefficient use of resources. As in to a certain extend kids living in much better conditions as compared to international kids or poor kids performing worse. Of course it's a grandiose generalization hence the non support but I've noticed at least two universities in the GTA region having some talks on this.