6 ms·

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

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?
- grawprog 7y ago
  How? I chose to learn the things i learned outside of school and to an extent the things i chose to learn in both high school and university. I didn't have to learn those things. I could have spent my time watching tv or doing other things. I know the things i know because i spent time and effort learning them.
  - Retric 7y ago
    “Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control.” > How? The capacity for intelligence is outside of your control for example genetic disorders are not chosen by the individual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Further, when it comes to intelligence and Nature vs Nurture it’s really both. People 15,000 years ago people had nearly identical genetics, but their society lacked the knowledge to pass a SAT level math test. Now, making the best of your social and genetic background is up to everyone. But, assuming everything is balanced is at best willful ignorance.
  - mgkimsal 7y ago
    you didn't choose your capacity for learning. there are people that try - much harder than you'll ever be capable of knowing - who can't do as much as you can. and it's not because of any factors they chose.
  - mirrorlake 7y ago
    Think about an extreme case: a hypothetical person who was born an autistic savant who is a musical genius. They sold out concert halls at age 9-10, playing the hardest classical music ever written. To what degree did they “earn” their skills and their genius? At a certain point you must agree that people are born with brains that are wired better, and they had no control over that. Effort should be rewarded, but luck should not. Determining how much of someone’s success was luck vs hard work is not at all easy to determine. Through hard work and discipline, you did the best with the hardware you were given. But don’t think for a second that you wired your own brain. Edit: and just to clarify, I think some fuzzy new metric on a standardized test will probably never summarize whether someone “earned” their score or lucked into it. My comment here is mostly a reminder to be humble.
GreaterFool 7y ago
My university (one of the top-ranked in the world) did have some sort of adjusted scaling for the final exams. The raw results were never released. One would get a number somehow adjusted for how to the whole cohort did. So that if some exams turn out to be just too damn hart it won't wipe out everybody. But it was opaque and I really hated that! I did good enough and then went on to do a Masters degree. There I'd get my direct scores. I really feel much better about it. I knew what I did right and what I did wrong. I think the adjusted score in my undergrad benefited me (some exams were too damn hard!) but I still hated the system.
- jdmichal 7y ago
  Was this anything more than just grading to a curve? Because yes, that has its ups and downs, but it's certainly not mysterious in any way.
  - GreaterFool 7y ago
    It's mysterious enough if there's no one willing to explain how the system works. Just that the results are adjusted.
- skissane 7y ago
  > My university (one of the top-ranked in the world) did have some sort of adjusted scaling for the final exams. The raw results were never released. One would get a number somehow adjusted for how to the whole cohort did In first year university, I did a semester of Latin. For the first few weeks I was feeling very motivated; then depression hit me. I stopped going to class. What I should have done, is go see a doctor or psychologist, and got a letter saying I was depressed, and given it to the university administration, and I'm sure they would have given me some form of special consideration. But I didn't do that (it simply never occurred to me that I could do that, I wish it had.) Anyway, since I'd missed more than half the semester of lectures and tutorials, I was thinking to myself - why bother turning up to the exam? I know I am going to fail anyway. But, I said to myself, I should go, you never know, I might somehow scrape through. So, I sat down at the exam. I think I got the first page right. The subsequent pages, I had no idea. I sat there and waited until they let me leave early. (The university had some rule, you couldn't leave the exam early until after the first half-hour was up, or something like that.) I waited for my results, I expected to fail. I was very surprised to find out I passed 50.0. I didn't understand how that could happen. Next semester, I was enrolled in Latin again. I decided to drop it. But I thought, before dropping it, I should just go to the first lecture. As I was leaving at the end, the lecturer pulled me aside. He said to me, "You know you failed the exam, right?". "Yes", I replied. Then he said: "Too many students failed, and the administration told us we had to give some of them passes. We liked you, thought you were really enthusiastic at the beginning, didn't know what happened to you, and are hoping you might continue the subject, so we decided you'd be one of the lucky ones whose fail gets turned into a pass." I thanked him for his kindness, but I still dropped the subject anyway. It was an interesting insight into just how "flexible" university marking can be.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
diminoten 7y ago
Yeah but you had to work harder because of the traits being measured by this score and you should get credit for that, whether or not you think you should. Sorry, but there are people who work just as hard as you and don't get as far because the deck is even more stacked against them, and this is an attempt at getting them some relief. If a poor kid in a high crime inner city school who has very limited access to tutors or mentors scores a 1600, that's a much more impressive achievement than an affluent kid in the suburbs who took the test 3 times, had access to experts in the various fields, got 3 good meals every day, etc. getting that same score. Just imagine what that poor kid could do if given the same resources as the rich kid...

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?

grawprog 7y ago
How? I chose to learn the things i learned outside of school and to an extent the things i chose to learn in both high school and university. I didn't have to learn those things. I could have spent my time watching tv or doing other things. I know the things i know because i spent time and effort learning them.
- Retric 7y ago
  “Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control.” > How? The capacity for intelligence is outside of your control for example genetic disorders are not chosen by the individual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Further, when it comes to intelligence and Nature vs Nurture it’s really both. People 15,000 years ago people had nearly identical genetics, but their society lacked the knowledge to pass a SAT level math test. Now, making the best of your social and genetic background is up to everyone. But, assuming everything is balanced is at best willful ignorance.
- mgkimsal 7y ago
  you didn't choose your capacity for learning. there are people that try - much harder than you'll ever be capable of knowing - who can't do as much as you can. and it's not because of any factors they chose.
- mirrorlake 7y ago
  Think about an extreme case: a hypothetical person who was born an autistic savant who is a musical genius. They sold out concert halls at age 9-10, playing the hardest classical music ever written. To what degree did they “earn” their skills and their genius? At a certain point you must agree that people are born with brains that are wired better, and they had no control over that. Effort should be rewarded, but luck should not. Determining how much of someone’s success was luck vs hard work is not at all easy to determine. Through hard work and discipline, you did the best with the hardware you were given. But don’t think for a second that you wired your own brain. Edit: and just to clarify, I think some fuzzy new metric on a standardized test will probably never summarize whether someone “earned” their score or lucked into it. My comment here is mostly a reminder to be humble.

GreaterFool 7y ago

My university (one of the top-ranked in the world) did have some sort of adjusted scaling for the final exams. The raw results were never released. One would get a number somehow adjusted for how to the whole cohort did. So that if some exams turn out to be just too damn hart it won't wipe out everybody. But it was opaque and I really hated that! I did good enough and then went on to do a Masters degree. There I'd get my direct scores. I really feel much better about it. I knew what I did right and what I did wrong. I think the adjusted score in my undergrad benefited me (some exams were too damn hard!) but I still hated the system.

jdmichal 7y ago
Was this anything more than just grading to a curve? Because yes, that has its ups and downs, but it's certainly not mysterious in any way.
- GreaterFool 7y ago
  It's mysterious enough if there's no one willing to explain how the system works. Just that the results are adjusted.
skissane 7y ago
> My university (one of the top-ranked in the world) did have some sort of adjusted scaling for the final exams. The raw results were never released. One would get a number somehow adjusted for how to the whole cohort did In first year university, I did a semester of Latin. For the first few weeks I was feeling very motivated; then depression hit me. I stopped going to class. What I should have done, is go see a doctor or psychologist, and got a letter saying I was depressed, and given it to the university administration, and I'm sure they would have given me some form of special consideration. But I didn't do that (it simply never occurred to me that I could do that, I wish it had.) Anyway, since I'd missed more than half the semester of lectures and tutorials, I was thinking to myself - why bother turning up to the exam? I know I am going to fail anyway. But, I said to myself, I should go, you never know, I might somehow scrape through. So, I sat down at the exam. I think I got the first page right. The subsequent pages, I had no idea. I sat there and waited until they let me leave early. (The university had some rule, you couldn't leave the exam early until after the first half-hour was up, or something like that.) I waited for my results, I expected to fail. I was very surprised to find out I passed 50.0. I didn't understand how that could happen. Next semester, I was enrolled in Latin again. I decided to drop it. But I thought, before dropping it, I should just go to the first lecture. As I was leaving at the end, the lecturer pulled me aside. He said to me, "You know you failed the exam, right?". "Yes", I replied. Then he said: "Too many students failed, and the administration told us we had to give some of them passes. We liked you, thought you were really enthusiastic at the beginning, didn't know what happened to you, and are hoping you might continue the subject, so we decided you'd be one of the lucky ones whose fail gets turned into a pass." I thanked him for his kindness, but I still dropped the subject anyway. It was an interesting insight into just how "flexible" university marking can be.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

diminoten 7y ago

Yeah but you had to work harder because of the traits being measured by this score and you should get credit for that, whether or not you think you should. Sorry, but there are people who work just as hard as you and don't get as far because the deck is even more stacked against them, and this is an attempt at getting them some relief. If a poor kid in a high crime inner city school who has very limited access to tutors or mentors scores a 1600, that's a much more impressive achievement than an affluent kid in the suburbs who took the test 3 times, had access to experts in the various fields, got 3 good meals every day, etc. getting that same score. Just imagine what that poor kid could do if given the same resources as the rich kid...