Well until top tier schools figure out a better way to diversify their student bodies, I guess they're giving this a go
There are a three big differences between now and then. 1) income disparities have widened so much and access to the tools required to fulfill the requirements of the admissions dog and pony show are limited. 2) better schools are much more difficult to get into now: more international competition, greater general participation in things like SAT/ACT/college prep. But there's diminishing returns to those higher standards. A kid with a 1300 SAT and 1 AP from a working class/poor area can probably hang just fine in the same/similar university environment with a kid given all the advantages in the world with 4 APs and a 1530 SAT. The third is maybe the most important: your old man didn't have the tools to conduct the types of statistical analysis we can today to see precisely what type of student (and at what test scores/background) could reasonably "hang" with those from more affluent backgrounds. Running an analysis with all of our data in r from a laptop today >>>>> a team of statisticians running things on a bunch of beast machines then. A couple of interesting data studies: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-race-and-success-how-your-school-district-compares.html The meat and potatoes of my freshman class was probably a top 1-3% or so school in terms of HS academic achievement. Economically, 22% of my uni now comes from the top 1%. 57% from the top 5% overall. Only 8% from the bottom 60%. It was similar when I was there. My parents were probably around the 90th percentile, which made me "working class" by admissions standards. Looking at the wealthiest 57%, they were a much, much higher proportion of the bottom quarter of the class at college graduation. They tended to have the lowest numbers coming in among that group as well...and we weren't a huge legacy school. There's definitely some room to apply the "adversity score" as a thumb on the scale sorta thing on a school by school basis.
You gotta put your beachfront mansion in a blind trust run through your business showing a lot of paper losses for 2-3 years though. Being rich is hard. Edit: I also see a huge opportunity for a bunch of loaded parents to run gifted school within a school concepts in underperforming/low SES schools.
Again, I am all in favor of diversity, of course. I am all in favor of taking environmental factors into consideration when admitting students. I am just not in favor of it being part of the standardized tests. This is about the best, most concise reason in favor of this scheme that I have read so far.
1) It's not part of the standardized test. It's an additional data point that schools are permitted to use at their discretion. They aren't "weighting" test takers' SAT scores based upon this index, but schools can come up with with their own x-y scatters of scores vs. adversity index to assess their admission decisions. What works for an elite school vs. what works for a flagship public vs. what works for an okay private are going to be different. 2) The college board is uniquely positioned as a data clearinghouse for all of this information. They are a huge repository of socioeconomic data for the entire college bound pool. They even have data by religious affiliation (not that they should use that). No one else has their level of information.
Just waiting for the 1st lawsuit by Citizens For Fair College Treatment (or some such Wingnut front group) representing a butthurtt Whitelandian applicant who was "screwed" by the change to the admissions process.
No need for apologies. You probably did and what I said came out harsher than I intended. Sorry for that. Just think it can't be restated enough that this is getting reported as 1500/99th percentile adversity vs. 1250/20th percentile rather than the board saying the rich and not so rich kid both scored a 1350. As far as the utility of this, the current benchmarks vs. national income averages aren't great, which is all schools can really use. Households with 18 year old kids by nature are going to have higher than average incomes (parents are in peak earnings years). Households with kids considering college will be higher still. I suppose schools could also benchmark vs. their applicant pool, but that wouldn't include those who aren't applying. The college board approach is probably the best one. It uses the best data. It places a firewall up between the schools and the data, so they can't game school specific methodologies to show how "inclusive" they are. It also could help education kids from lower SES backgrounds as to their chances at more selective schools. Imagine a decade from now if Columbia posted SAT interquartile ranges for kids in the top 10% SES vs. next 20% vs. middle 40% vs. bottom 30%. I imagine a lot of kids who previously thought they had zero chance might realize that given their background, it's worth a shot to apply. That's the real benefit IMO.
The adversity scores will be useful to universities for tracking their changes over time. They will also be a tool that outsiders can use to measure universities with, there by exerting pressure.
What’s the adversity score for being a rich self-entitled prick? Felicity Huffman tells judge she wanted daughter to have a "fair shot" at college https://t.co/PI70YOTTva pic.twitter.com/qf61qUUqYi— Variety (@Variety) September 6, 2019
When someone says the system is not rigged: Remember Tanya McDowell?She got 12 yrs for sending her son to school in Norwalk CT while she ‘lived’ in Bridgeport. She was homeless. She was convicted of “stealing“ an education.Felicity Huffman gets 30 days for bribing her daughter into college.#CollegeCheatingScandal pic.twitter.com/Sr40Oxh40R— Bishop Talbert Swan (@TalbertSwan) September 9, 2019
Well she's as Wonder bread as you can get. Did these connections let her down? Huffman was born in Bedford, New York, into a wealthy Christian family, the daughter of Grace Valle (née Ewing; 1921–2009) and Moore Peters Huffman (1910–1987), a banker and partner at Morgan Stanley. Her parents divorced a year after her birth, and she was raised by both of them.When she was a young teenager, she discovered that her biological father was Roger Tallman Maher, who was a family friend. She has six sisters and a brother. In the 1970s her mother left New York and bought property in Snowmass, Colorado, where Felicity and her siblings spent their youth. Her great-grandfather was Gershom Moore Peters (1843–1919), founder of the Peters Cartridge Company and prominent Baptist minister, author of The Master. Another great-grandfather, Frederick Berthold Ewing, graduated from Yale University and became a prominent St. Louis businessman. Her great-great-grandfather was Joseph Warren King (1814–1885), founder of the King Mills Powder Company. She has German, English, Scots-Irish, Scottish, French-Canadian, and Irish ancestry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicity_Huffman
Yeah, although I must claim complete ignorance about her and this whole saga. But her spouse is famous (too?); I don't understand why he's not being dragged through the coals like she is.
I misread your post, thinking you were asking how she got off so light compared to the sister. I don't know the answer to your question.
Macy wasn't charged, because Huffman's voice was on the call that was recorded and he and Huffman have denied his knowledge, but he knew. In other materials that were gathered he was leading the discussions about how the daughter's test scores and grades weren't good enough, how she needed to go to an SAT boot camp, etc. A cover-up, but kinda hard to break their stories if they stuck to them.
1172855749564862464 is not a valid tweet id Here is the article anyways: https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-parents-financial-advice-is-kind-of-wrong-11568367000
Required reading? This guy expects baby boomers to actually subscribe to the WSJ? Not this baby boomer.