College Board Disadvantage Score

17 comments

• Papi_Chulo

  •

  5 years ago

  Another "well intentioned" progressive shit. From what I've heard blacks and Latinos, for whom affirmative action is often targeted, drop out of college and never finish getting a degree bc they are given preferential admittance where they may not o/w qualify for admittance, then when in college they are unable to handle the academic demands and end up dropping out - in essence they were kinda "helped" to fail.
• Papi_Chulo

  •

  5 years ago

  ^ drop out college and never get a degree at a higher-rate
• Muddy

  •

  5 years ago

  It’s lame as fuck
• flagooner

  •

  5 years ago

  I think it's ridiculous. The test score should be the test score. If a college wants to take adversity into account they have that right, but it should be a conscious decision that they make. It shouldn't be mixed in. I'd also be interested to know what determines this index. Does your score get reduced if you're asian?
• FishHawk

  •

  5 years ago

  Most colleges, especially the more elite ones, do a lot of background checking on their applicants cultural and family history.. If it helps balance the playing field I am not against it.
• flagooner

  •

  5 years ago

  Don't get me wrong... It is very impressive if someone perseveres through a hardship (homelessness, significant abnormality, ...) and should be considered in the admissions process. It just shouldn't be taken into account to adjust a test score.
• Member6532

  •

  5 years ago

  Fishhawk, you said it perfect, colleges already look into these factors and give you a chance to explain yourself and situation as they consider you, except why do we need to have 2 scores for 2 different people if the test results are the same. These are things already factored in, why cheat a score to make give the appearance of a better candidate if they are equal.
• JohnSmith69

  •

  5 years ago

  Just more liberal bullshit. It will inevitable lead to parents and students cheating to develop a fake disadvantaged profile.
• Papi_Chulo

  •

  5 years ago

  If their scores are not up to par they're better of going to a community college and taking remedial courses and then transferring to a 4-yr college once they are better prepared - they may have a better chance this way than getting thrown into a competitive 4-yr college nit being adequately prepared
• FishHawk

  •

  5 years ago

  Papi, I don’t disagree if in the end your goal is to go to a State School. I in fact went to a local Jr College for two years before transferring to UofF. And it served me well. If your goal is Georgetown, Yale or Harvard you may need to talke a different course. I am not sure where you go to school makes that much different once you establish yourself in your career. In fact very little of the stuff I learned in school ever helped me in the real worlld what you get out of a good education is critical thinking and problem solving skills.
• ime

  •

  5 years ago

  This is another misguided thing done by the Left that will only harm the people they want to give an advantage to, instead of letting people achieve things based on merit and their own ability. More harm than good will be the result. [view link]
• RandomMember

  •

  5 years ago

  "So now less privileged students will get a boost on SAT scores" ________________ Just to be more precise, their SAT scores are not "boosted." This is a separate "adversity" score that complements the raw SAT scores. For those of you bitching about affirmative action, I wonder how you feel about (1) varsity athletes at the Ivies who have average SAT scores 100s of points lower than the median and (2) legacy admissions for rich kids. With the exception of places like MIT and Caltech, there are very few meritocracies in US colleges. And wealthy kids have such a huge advantage. I have first-hand experience with the kids in Silicon Valley who have personal tutors and coaches in each subject. Compare that to an inner-city kid who barely has enough money to buy lunch and who receives no academic guidance from their parents. I have sympathy for the talented Asian kids suing Harvard, too. But lazy, rich, legacy students deserve nothing but contempt.
• Jascoi

  •

  5 years ago

  Will the situation help me? because I was deprived living in an area that was mainly agricultural during the 50s and the 60s. fuck the fact that the address is in East LA. really close to USC.
• Nidan111

  •

  5 years ago

  In my opinion, that is a disservice to all who apply. It is a false sense of security. If you are fucking stupid, then you are fucking stupid, If you ever intern with me, you better know your shit or I will flunk you out in a heart beat even if you have already spent $180,000 on a degree for which some progressive bullshit scheme allow you to get into. I don't give two shits about your race,color,parents money or political pull, previous grades, whether or not your BJ skills are better than most, nor anything else other than whether or not you actually know your shit and can apply that knowledge to real life situations. WARNING: vodka-infused wine kicking in!
• skibum609

  •

  5 years ago

  Progressives worship losers and as such do everything possible to make them fail. Since progressives think working is stupid and learning is work, they focus on getting the job, not being able to do it.
• JamesSD

  •

  5 years ago

  Part of the problem is it's a private company whose main product is slipping in popularity. My guess is this will greatly benefit high scoring lower income students who already would have been highly desirable but now will be easy to search for. I do hope it focuses much more on economic hardship than race, as right now high scoring black kids are super desirable to boost a colleges diversity even as most of those kids come from relatively affluent backgrounds. Basically the SAT is just providing a score that colleges are already using.
• RiskA

  •

  5 years ago

  I read reporting that detailed the 16 elements of the “adversity” index (which is separate and distinct from actual test scores), and they included things like how many AP classes were offered at the test-takers’ high school, neighborhood joblessness & vacancy rates, single parent household, etc. Nothing seemed explicitly geared to race/religion/etc or “affirmative action” (although that might result to extent such groups happen to fit the “adversity” criteria). But what’s wrong with that, if the “adversity” criteria themselves are legit and are applied equally, even to white males? I’m a white male and would have LOVED to have some objective index number to quantify my relatively shitty upbringing. And use of the adversity index apparently is still up to the colleges, as an objective uniform factor to supplement their subjective (and often liberal-biased) app reviews. I hate today’s victimology and “compensatory”/merit-ignoring affirmative action correctness as much as anyone, but this actually seems designed to help compare raw test scores more “apples to apples”. Equality of opportunity seems a better goal than this income-redistribution “equality of condition regardless of merit” BS promoted by life’s losers.