8 ms·

> Now Asians will be discriminated against secretly. So, a separate number being added to College Board's overall package is secret discrimination against Asia

> Now Asians will be discriminated against secretly. So, a separate number being added to College Board's overall package is secret discrimination against Asian students? The "adversity score," according to the article, is calculated based on 15 different factors. The two listed (relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate/poverty level of the student’s home neighborhood) are not directly tied to any one race. I know that promoting affirmative action is tantamount to blasphemy on this site, but let's be honest here. Standardized tests alone are really not the great equalizer that many might think. I am a Nigerian-American immigrant, but my parents were able to afford expensive, one-on-one ACT tutoring/prep, and I scored a 34, and was awarded the National Merit scholarship after SAT prep. Not everyone can say that they had the same opportunities I did. A so-called "adversity score" doesn't have to be the end-all, be-all. If it can provide additional context to the scores students receive, then it can really give first-generation, low-income, etc. students a fair shot at competitive universities. Besides - nobody said schools have to consider the "adversity score," anyways. > I’m getting pushed further and further to the right. I also don't understand how a single organization making a change to its testing package, in the interest of leveling the playing field, is somehow "pushing" your political beliefs in any one direction... It's your choice whether you want to align your beliefs more closely with any side.

whatshisface 7y ago
>So, a separate number being added to College Board's overall package is secret discrimination against Asian students? It sounds kind of like, "put a gold star on all of the Jewish applicants, and allow each reviewer to decide how to act on that information individually."
- thosakwe 7y ago
  It really does not, at all. How can you equate a combination of 15 factors (at least two of which are not tied to any specific identity) to improve admissions results, with a Nazi policy that directly foreran the Holocaust, and singled out groups for mass extermination?
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Who said anything about Nazis? Top schools, Harvard in particular, have long tradition of discriminating against Jews.
    - thosakwe 7y ago
      > Who said anything about Nazis? "put a gold star on all of the Jewish applicants"
      - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
        Nazis weren't the first or only people to discriminate against Jewish people.
        kaitai 7y ago
        It's the gold star thing, folks. Gold star + Jewish evokes Judenstern, to use the historic name, not preschool accomplishments. It's definitely true that Harvard and other US colleges/universities discriminated against Jews under the influence of anti-Semitism, and it's also true that there were American Nazis, for instance the German-American Bund in the 1930s. I don't think that this adversity score has anything to do with the Nazis, I have to say. It sounds like the data is publicly available financial information. So this whole little branch of HN commentary is an unnecessary diversion. To return to the article, colleges have been giving extra points to legacy admits, children of donors, people from X region, tuba players, violists (but not violinists haha), rowers, lacrosse players, merit students, Lutherans, etc etc etc forever. I think schools should have to option to get the adversity score or not. I went to Caltech; they probably don't care and should stick to their quirky admissions as many of us 'minority' admissions found it comforting in the midst of failure to know that we were admitted on nothing but the material in the application. But other schools serve a different purpose and if they want to admit twelve poor kids by "adversity score" that's great. I have to say I read the coverage and it's just a bunch more rich parents freaking out that they don't have every single last advantage possible. Ask me in 15 years -- maybe I'll be doing the same.
        7y ago
grawprog 7y ago
I did pretty well on the standardized tests in high school. If this had existed, i likely would have scored higher than average on adversity. I would be pissed to find out my score was altered in any way due to factors outside my control. If I do well on something, i want it to be from my own merits, whatever my current situation. I don't want to be pandered to because i grew up poor in a shitty neighbourhood. Everything i learned and can do is because of my own intelligence and skill. Fuck anyone giving me points for things i didn't work for or that are outside my control. I want to be recognized for the things i can do, not because i grew up in a broken, poor family in a low income neighbourhood.
- thosakwe 7y ago
  > I would be pissed to find out my score was altered As was mentioned in the article - it doesn't alter your test score.
  - winston_smith 7y ago
    You're splitting hairs. Their "score" just becomes whatever function the university uses to decide, and if they use it then their score would indeed be altered by the "adversity" score.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    It gives you a separate score.. which is graded along with the first score.. so it effectively alters like OP implied.
- mgkimsal 7y ago
  > because of my own intelligence and skill... Fuck anyone giving me points for things i didn't work for or that are outside my control... Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control. What you've done with it is at least partially under your control, but you probably weren't born with any sort of brain disorder, for example. EDIT: adding on things like your visual appearance - race, hair color, pigmentation, height, etc - all of those are outside your control, and you generally can't control how other people initially react to those things outside your control. You didn't control where you were born, or - at least early on - what resources you had access to. You were a victim of (or success due to) your geography, at least early on in your life. But hey, you 'worked hard' and didn't watch as much tv as some lazy bastards who might get a $1000 scholarship because they grew up in a high-crime area, and fuck that, right?
roenxi 7y ago
There is some correlation between race, culture and outcome. In the bad old days it was thought that race was the causal variable of the 3. Now it is accepted that culture probably plays the causal role. The classic example is Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. The Jews had a racial stereotype of being moneylenders; that stereotype didn't evolve because of a racial disparity, it evolved because Christians generally didn't charge interest. So the moneylenders were non-Christian and that correlated with being a different race. There is evidence of a slight bias where Asian migrants sacrifice more to set up their children's educational future. Policies that cheapen the impact of sacrifice will disproportionately affect them. It may not be explicitly racist, but the outcomes will likely be delectably different in different racial groups, to the net loss of the Asians.
- kaitai 7y ago
  The stereotype evolved because Jews were forbidden by law from owning land in most of Europe and also forbidden from joining the guilds that ruled the professions. So if you can't own land and can't be a professional and also might be forced out of your home in a hurry, the game-theoretic solution is to be a moneylender. I don't think this is particularly cultural, as women in India for instance have long kept their wealth in gold for the same reason. That's why women like jewelry: if you're forbidden from having a bank account and credit and can't own your home, you need to have something you can carry away and pawn. (I mean, since the 1960s women have been allowed to open their own bank accounts in the US -- but that's within my mother's lifetime!)
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
deleted
- kaitai 7y ago
  There's no evidence for this -- from what the parent poster said, he probably lived in a well-off neighborhood and went to a well-off school. The article specifically says race is not a variable, so you seem to have a factual inaccuracy in your statement. Since poverty level within zip code is one of the few variables specified, and the parent poster would show less rather than more adversity in this respect, how do you justify your argument?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dd36 7y ago
  Cool assumptions.
lettergram 7y ago
> I know that promoting affirmative action is tantamount to blasphemy on this site, but let's be honest here. Yes, let's be honest! I was from one of those locations where "adversity" would have benefited me. Worst school district in the state, low income, etc. I am and I suspect will continue to be upset that the harder I work, the less benefit I receive. I pulled myself out of that situation. People in similar situations don't. I don't think everyone can, but they have an equal opportunity to. All they have to do is study or even just work hard or join the army / navy and do their 20 years. I understand equal opportunity, but at this point we are forgoing equal opportunity and have been for a long time. By setting limits, calculating scores based on hardship, etc. We are doing the opposite of making it equal opportunity by definition. > additional context to the scores students receive Most people lack motivation to get out of their situation and improve, because either they are happy with it or they don't have drive. If they don't have drive, they likely wouldn't succeed anyway and they are taking the spot of someone with said drive. If they are happy - good for them. I’m sure they’d be happy to take a hand out, but they are taking someone else’s spot more deserving.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  > I am and I suspect will continue to be upset that the harder I work, the less benefit I receive . It seems logical and reasonable to give more help to those who need it more. And realistically, you're always going to be way better off by maximizing your own success (even if it means you might get less help) than by minimizing your own success and maximally relying on help. A life lived solely on assistance isn't really a pleasant one.
  - bufbupa 7y ago
    So I'm curious, do you believe we should switch to a communist economic model as well? Allocate resources based off who "needs it more" seems to be flirting with that ideology. A life lived solely on assistance is better than a life toiled for no gain it would seem.
  - wetpaws 7y ago
    Should we increase the score for people who are less intelligent and have worse grades on average? They would need it more.
aj7 7y ago
No. I’m an MIT SB and Berkeley PhD and I will tell you engineers never made a living in the US until around 2000 (fiberoptics and Netscape boom). The “right” will snatch that right back.
- ousta 7y ago
  r u serious? before IT, engineering in us meant making cars, space shutles, airplanes and i garantee you that those were well earning jobs.
vastbinderj 7y ago
> I also don't understand how a single organization making a change to its testing package, in the interest of leveling the playing field, is somehow "pushing" your political beliefs in any one direction... It's your choice whether you want to align your beliefs more closely with any side. Leveling the outcome is NOT leveling the playing field. And by keeping the algorithm secret, it is tyranny not justice.
wolco 7y ago
Let the gamification begin where subpar students move into crime filled areas at least on paper and into rough schools. While paying for private SAT tutors.
thereare5lights 7y ago
> So, a separate number being added to College Board's overall package is secret discrimination against Asian students? The "adversity score," according to the article, is calculated based on 15 different factors. The two listed (relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate/poverty level of the student’s home neighborhood) are not directly tied to any one race. The powers that be do not get the benefit of the of doubt after all the shenanigans they've pulled over the past century.

whatshisface 7y ago

>So, a separate number being added to College Board's overall package is secret discrimination against Asian students? It sounds kind of like, "put a gold star on all of the Jewish applicants, and allow each reviewer to decide how to act on that information individually."

thosakwe 7y ago
It really does not, at all. How can you equate a combination of 15 factors (at least two of which are not tied to any specific identity) to improve admissions results, with a Nazi policy that directly foreran the Holocaust, and singled out groups for mass extermination?
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Who said anything about Nazis? Top schools, Harvard in particular, have long tradition of discriminating against Jews.
  - thosakwe 7y ago
    > Who said anything about Nazis? "put a gold star on all of the Jewish applicants"
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
      Nazis weren't the first or only people to discriminate against Jewish people.
      - kaitai 7y ago
        It's the gold star thing, folks. Gold star + Jewish evokes Judenstern, to use the historic name, not preschool accomplishments. It's definitely true that Harvard and other US colleges/universities discriminated against Jews under the influence of anti-Semitism, and it's also true that there were American Nazis, for instance the German-American Bund in the 1930s. I don't think that this adversity score has anything to do with the Nazis, I have to say. It sounds like the data is publicly available financial information. So this whole little branch of HN commentary is an unnecessary diversion. To return to the article, colleges have been giving extra points to legacy admits, children of donors, people from X region, tuba players, violists (but not violinists haha), rowers, lacrosse players, merit students, Lutherans, etc etc etc forever. I think schools should have to option to get the adversity score or not. I went to Caltech; they probably don't care and should stick to their quirky admissions as many of us 'minority' admissions found it comforting in the midst of failure to know that we were admitted on nothing but the material in the application. But other schools serve a different purpose and if they want to admit twelve poor kids by "adversity score" that's great. I have to say I read the coverage and it's just a bunch more rich parents freaking out that they don't have every single last advantage possible. Ask me in 15 years -- maybe I'll be doing the same.
      - 7y ago

grawprog 7y ago

I did pretty well on the standardized tests in high school. If this had existed, i likely would have scored higher than average on adversity. I would be pissed to find out my score was altered in any way due to factors outside my control. If I do well on something, i want it to be from my own merits, whatever my current situation. I don't want to be pandered to because i grew up poor in a shitty neighbourhood. Everything i learned and can do is because of my own intelligence and skill. Fuck anyone giving me points for things i didn't work for or that are outside my control. I want to be recognized for the things i can do, not because i grew up in a broken, poor family in a low income neighbourhood.

thosakwe 7y ago
> I would be pissed to find out my score was altered As was mentioned in the article - it doesn't alter your test score.
- winston_smith 7y ago
  You're splitting hairs. Their "score" just becomes whatever function the university uses to decide, and if they use it then their score would indeed be altered by the "adversity" score.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  It gives you a separate score.. which is graded along with the first score.. so it effectively alters like OP implied.
mgkimsal 7y ago
> because of my own intelligence and skill... Fuck anyone giving me points for things i didn't work for or that are outside my control... Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control. What you've done with it is at least partially under your control, but you probably weren't born with any sort of brain disorder, for example. EDIT: adding on things like your visual appearance - race, hair color, pigmentation, height, etc - all of those are outside your control, and you generally can't control how other people initially react to those things outside your control. You didn't control where you were born, or - at least early on - what resources you had access to. You were a victim of (or success due to) your geography, at least early on in your life. But hey, you 'worked hard' and didn't watch as much tv as some lazy bastards who might get a $1000 scholarship because they grew up in a high-crime area, and fuck that, right?

roenxi 7y ago

There is some correlation between race, culture and outcome. In the bad old days it was thought that race was the causal variable of the 3. Now it is accepted that culture probably plays the causal role. The classic example is Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. The Jews had a racial stereotype of being moneylenders; that stereotype didn't evolve because of a racial disparity, it evolved because Christians generally didn't charge interest. So the moneylenders were non-Christian and that correlated with being a different race. There is evidence of a slight bias where Asian migrants sacrifice more to set up their children's educational future. Policies that cheapen the impact of sacrifice will disproportionately affect them. It may not be explicitly racist, but the outcomes will likely be delectably different in different racial groups, to the net loss of the Asians.

kaitai 7y ago
The stereotype evolved because Jews were forbidden by law from owning land in most of Europe and also forbidden from joining the guilds that ruled the professions. So if you can't own land and can't be a professional and also might be forced out of your home in a hurry, the game-theoretic solution is to be a moneylender. I don't think this is particularly cultural, as women in India for instance have long kept their wealth in gold for the same reason. That's why women like jewelry: if you're forbidden from having a bank account and credit and can't own your home, you need to have something you can carry away and pawn. (I mean, since the 1960s women have been allowed to open their own bank accounts in the US -- but that's within my mother's lifetime!)

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

deleted

kaitai 7y ago
There's no evidence for this -- from what the parent poster said, he probably lived in a well-off neighborhood and went to a well-off school. The article specifically says race is not a variable, so you seem to have a factual inaccuracy in your statement. Since poverty level within zip code is one of the few variables specified, and the parent poster would show less rather than more adversity in this respect, how do you justify your argument?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dd36 7y ago
Cool assumptions.

lettergram 7y ago

> I know that promoting affirmative action is tantamount to blasphemy on this site, but let's be honest here. Yes, let's be honest! I was from one of those locations where "adversity" would have benefited me. Worst school district in the state, low income, etc. I am and I suspect will continue to be upset that the harder I work, the less benefit I receive. I pulled myself out of that situation. People in similar situations don't. I don't think everyone can, but they have an equal opportunity to. All they have to do is study or even just work hard or join the army / navy and do their 20 years. I understand equal opportunity, but at this point we are forgoing equal opportunity and have been for a long time. By setting limits, calculating scores based on hardship, etc. We are doing the opposite of making it equal opportunity by definition. > additional context to the scores students receive Most people lack motivation to get out of their situation and improve, because either they are happy with it or they don't have drive. If they don't have drive, they likely wouldn't succeed anyway and they are taking the spot of someone with said drive. If they are happy - good for them. I’m sure they’d be happy to take a hand out, but they are taking someone else’s spot more deserving.

CydeWeys 7y ago
> I am and I suspect will continue to be upset that the harder I work, the less benefit I receive . It seems logical and reasonable to give more help to those who need it more. And realistically, you're always going to be way better off by maximizing your own success (even if it means you might get less help) than by minimizing your own success and maximally relying on help. A life lived solely on assistance isn't really a pleasant one.
- bufbupa 7y ago
  So I'm curious, do you believe we should switch to a communist economic model as well? Allocate resources based off who "needs it more" seems to be flirting with that ideology. A life lived solely on assistance is better than a life toiled for no gain it would seem.
- wetpaws 7y ago
  Should we increase the score for people who are less intelligent and have worse grades on average? They would need it more.

aj7 7y ago

No. I’m an MIT SB and Berkeley PhD and I will tell you engineers never made a living in the US until around 2000 (fiberoptics and Netscape boom). The “right” will snatch that right back.

ousta 7y ago
r u serious? before IT, engineering in us meant making cars, space shutles, airplanes and i garantee you that those were well earning jobs.

vastbinderj 7y ago

> I also don't understand how a single organization making a change to its testing package, in the interest of leveling the playing field, is somehow "pushing" your political beliefs in any one direction... It's your choice whether you want to align your beliefs more closely with any side. Leveling the outcome is NOT leveling the playing field. And by keeping the algorithm secret, it is tyranny not justice.

wolco 7y ago

Let the gamification begin where subpar students move into crime filled areas at least on paper and into rough schools. While paying for private SAT tutors.

thereare5lights 7y ago

> So, a separate number being added to College Board's overall package is secret discrimination against Asian students? The "adversity score," according to the article, is calculated based on 15 different factors. The two listed (relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate/poverty level of the student’s home neighborhood) are not directly tied to any one race. The powers that be do not get the benefit of the of doubt after all the shenanigans they've pulled over the past century.