5 ms·

Remember when The College Board was developing an "adversity score" but then dropped it in the face of criticism? I honestly wish we would just do that. We wo

Remember when The College Board was developing an "adversity score" but then dropped it in the face of criticism? I honestly wish we would just do that. We would actually have something quantitative instead of vague generalizations about "personality". The methodology could be scrutinized, and centralized (instead of every college coming up with its own special formula), and we could stop talking about this every X months.

HPsquared 6y ago
We'd just talk about the weightings of the various "adversity factors" instead, it's the same problem.
- virtuous_signal 6y ago
  Right, at the beginning sure, and ideally it would quickly improve. But why have all of these institutions do it individually, and out of the public eye? I doubt some random Yale admissions specialist has unique societal insights that the other institutions don't.
- Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
  Except racking up points for your adversity is the point of such policies. Avoiding doing so basically means you need to rack up the inverse - privilege points - except you're not allowed to do that, so it turns into obscure "penalty points" hidden in euphemisms.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  at least it would be more intellectually honest and transparent.
president 6y ago
> We would actually have something quantitative They're called standardized tests
- Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
  To engage in this conversation you sort of need to accept the premise that colleges are being used to correct historical (and even current) injustices, and then go from there. You may not think it's the "right" thing to do, but it's the premise on which this topic is based and figuring it only muddies the quality of the conversation.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> adversity score Hm - so people who faced more "adversity" would be propelled to the top of the list? I can see that going horribly wrong: if it worked perfectly, you'd end up with yo-yo generations where one generation went to a good college and had a successful career (and if you don't believe one thing follows from the other, why bother with the adversity score at all?) while the next would be relegated to struggling, giving their children the needed "adversity". Realistically, though, you'd have smart parents finding the right mix of adversity to give their kids a leg up just just the way they find the right mix of extracurricular and volunteer activity today.
- Decker87 6y ago
  Nah, you'd just have wealthy people deciding how they calculate the score and making sure they can tweak the numbers to show their kids are disadvantaged.
  - MaximumYComb 6y ago
    My salary as a CEO was only $1 last year, therefore my children need access to this school.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Just like some wealthy parents find a friendly doctor to diagnose their child with a "learning disability" to get extra accommodations on tests. Knowing how to work the system confers huge advantages on the privileged.
- TheDong 6y ago
  You know, I'll take "yo-yo generations" over what we've got now. Right now we've got "a massive wealth divide". "yo-yo"ing would imply that some people that are right now stuck on the bottom would at least have some time a bit higher up. That sounds like a strict improvement over the current system, where those that struggle adversity are stuck trying to pull themselves up by their bootstrap forever. If that means my parents made decent money, but I can't get into a good school and have to struggle a bit? Sure, fine, that's still nothing compared to those who have parents with no money and also can't get into a decent school.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
That kind of quantitative methodology was scrutinized in Gratz v. Bollinger, and judged to be illegal.
- virtuous_signal 6y ago
  The adversity score in this case wasn't directly related to race, but I think some facts about your school and neighborhood, so not illegal in the way that assigning point values to certain races would be.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Fair, I misread the discussion.
monoideism 6y ago
Family income is a pretty good proxy for any adversity score. Because of the African American income gap, it would also serve to boost AA enrollment, particularly from disadvantaged inner city kids, while still not discriminating against the white kid growing up amid grinding poverty in rural Appalachia. It’s not a perfect indicator, but it’s a very good one. On average, it even picks up on adversities such as many medical/physical disabilities, since families usually take a big financial hit on account of such issues.
- oblio 6y ago
  That's a great idea that will never happen. Rich people will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    You're probably right about some universities, because they're attended by the children of the almost-rich. It could happen in Ivy League, however, because those who really run things there are really rich, and their children get accepted through legacy and donation quid pro quo.
- polartx 6y ago
  "poor kids are just as bright as white kids" - joe biden
  - babesh 6y ago
    That is probably not true on average. Wealth correlates with intelligence especially when there is less discrimination.
    - babesh 6y ago
      I read a study from awhile back that said that for whites, wealth correlated with intelligence but that it didn’t with blacks when there was discrimination.
xibalba 6y ago
I'm not sure an adversity could ever be anything but subjective.
Nasrudith 6y ago
A full fledged accurate adversity score (as much as such a thing can be objectively quantified) brings to mind some very weird perverse incentives resulting from it from the sheer desperation for an edge. From deliberately sandbagging income around admission (transferring to a lower paid start up). Not to mention potential absurd implication and emergent from a model like "due to statistical outliers the best thing for getting an average middle class child into the Ivy League is to both survive cancer and to survive a school shooting". It could rapidly turn into an absurdist comedy sketch about misery poker.

HPsquared 6y ago

We'd just talk about the weightings of the various "adversity factors" instead, it's the same problem.

virtuous_signal 6y ago
Right, at the beginning sure, and ideally it would quickly improve. But why have all of these institutions do it individually, and out of the public eye? I doubt some random Yale admissions specialist has unique societal insights that the other institutions don't.
Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
Except racking up points for your adversity is the point of such policies. Avoiding doing so basically means you need to rack up the inverse - privilege points - except you're not allowed to do that, so it turns into obscure "penalty points" hidden in euphemisms.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
at least it would be more intellectually honest and transparent.

president 6y ago

> We would actually have something quantitative They're called standardized tests

Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
To engage in this conversation you sort of need to accept the premise that colleges are being used to correct historical (and even current) injustices, and then go from there. You may not think it's the "right" thing to do, but it's the premise on which this topic is based and figuring it only muddies the quality of the conversation.

commandlinefan 6y ago

> adversity score Hm - so people who faced more "adversity" would be propelled to the top of the list? I can see that going horribly wrong: if it worked perfectly, you'd end up with yo-yo generations where one generation went to a good college and had a successful career (and if you don't believe one thing follows from the other, why bother with the adversity score at all?) while the next would be relegated to struggling, giving their children the needed "adversity". Realistically, though, you'd have smart parents finding the right mix of adversity to give their kids a leg up just just the way they find the right mix of extracurricular and volunteer activity today.

Decker87 6y ago
Nah, you'd just have wealthy people deciding how they calculate the score and making sure they can tweak the numbers to show their kids are disadvantaged.
- MaximumYComb 6y ago
  My salary as a CEO was only $1 last year, therefore my children need access to this school.
- nradov 6y ago
  Just like some wealthy parents find a friendly doctor to diagnose their child with a "learning disability" to get extra accommodations on tests. Knowing how to work the system confers huge advantages on the privileged.
TheDong 6y ago
You know, I'll take "yo-yo generations" over what we've got now. Right now we've got "a massive wealth divide". "yo-yo"ing would imply that some people that are right now stuck on the bottom would at least have some time a bit higher up. That sounds like a strict improvement over the current system, where those that struggle adversity are stuck trying to pull themselves up by their bootstrap forever. If that means my parents made decent money, but I can't get into a good school and have to struggle a bit? Sure, fine, that's still nothing compared to those who have parents with no money and also can't get into a decent school.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

That kind of quantitative methodology was scrutinized in Gratz v. Bollinger, and judged to be illegal.

virtuous_signal 6y ago
The adversity score in this case wasn't directly related to race, but I think some facts about your school and neighborhood, so not illegal in the way that assigning point values to certain races would be.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Fair, I misread the discussion.

monoideism 6y ago

Family income is a pretty good proxy for any adversity score. Because of the African American income gap, it would also serve to boost AA enrollment, particularly from disadvantaged inner city kids, while still not discriminating against the white kid growing up amid grinding poverty in rural Appalachia. It’s not a perfect indicator, but it’s a very good one. On average, it even picks up on adversities such as many medical/physical disabilities, since families usually take a big financial hit on account of such issues.

oblio 6y ago
That's a great idea that will never happen. Rich people will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jessaustin 6y ago
  You're probably right about some universities, because they're attended by the children of the almost-rich. It could happen in Ivy League, however, because those who really run things there are really rich, and their children get accepted through legacy and donation quid pro quo.
polartx 6y ago
"poor kids are just as bright as white kids" - joe biden
- babesh 6y ago
  That is probably not true on average. Wealth correlates with intelligence especially when there is less discrimination.
  - babesh 6y ago
    I read a study from awhile back that said that for whites, wealth correlated with intelligence but that it didn’t with blacks when there was discrimination.

xibalba 6y ago

I'm not sure an adversity could ever be anything but subjective.

Nasrudith 6y ago

A full fledged accurate adversity score (as much as such a thing can be objectively quantified) brings to mind some very weird perverse incentives resulting from it from the sheer desperation for an edge. From deliberately sandbagging income around admission (transferring to a lower paid start up). Not to mention potential absurd implication and emergent from a model like "due to statistical outliers the best thing for getting an average middle class child into the Ivy League is to both survive cancer and to survive a school shooting". It could rapidly turn into an absurdist comedy sketch about misery poker.