3 ms·
The way you phrased it, yes. But, that isn't what the report was saying. It was using a generalized criteria of disadvantaged meaning low income or non-english
by bwanab 3y ago
The way you phrased it, yes. But, that isn't what the report was saying. It was using a generalized criteria of disadvantaged meaning low income or non-english speaking. Race based criteria can't be considered, but income can which means poor white kids from Appalachia as well as poor black and latino kids from urban areas.
- mrkstu 3y agoDepends- if they end up doing race based red-lining, where they’re only boosting minority dominated zip codes instead of generally poor ones, they could still get dinged.
- biomcgary 3y agoAlthough my family moved around too much to actually be from Appalachia, I was a white kid with an Appalachian family background that grew up on government assistance (on and off) that was significantly helped on my academic journey by the use of the ACT to award scholarships.
- troupe 3y agoYes the report sounds like Dartmouth is trying to do a good job of weighting the scores based on things that matter for college success--meaning not the race of the person. The point I was trying to make was that it appears many colleges may have an incentive to NOT require ACT SAT tests if they want to continue to use race or proxy for race and avoid what the report from Dartmouth is suggesting. Dartmouth looks like they are considering ACT/SAT along with the students background / opportunities, but specifically NOT treating people differently based on the color of their skin. Dartmouth is assuming that they will get racial diversity just by getting better at selecting the best students instead of trying to penalize or reward people for the color of their skin.