(05-20-2019 11:35 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  So you support "softly" allowing inferior candidates to take the spots versus those more qualified? Is not this the heart of this discussion?

Not trying to be combative, but you either are, or are not, in favor of a meritocracy. And at some point, the standards have to be the same to determine who gets the prize.

No. I'm challenging your definition of 'qualified'. If SAT score is your only criteria, then that is fine. If you value other things as well, then that's fine as well.

I'm essentially saying that someone who has the best teachers and schools and scores a 1400 sat may not be smarter or have more academic potential than someone who lives in the boonies, has horrible teachers and scores a 1350.... that someone who plays sports, is President of her class, works 20+ hours a week helping to support her family (or as a volunteer) and scores a 1350 might have more academic potential than someone who has no academic hobbies, never worked a day in their lives and scores a 1400

You speak of merit... but only at the much broader levels do I see college admission as a measure of the past. As you get more selective, it's more about measuring your future/potential

I could sure see a HBU or 'commuter school arm of a flagship university' giving a lot of weight to race or under-privilege.... and the flagship doing something else.

When you buy a home, you can get a loan with a 720 credit score and 20% down. If you have a 650 credit score, you may have to put 30% down... and maybe with an 800 you can get away with 10%.

How is that any different?

(05-21-2019 05:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  When you buy a home, you can get a loan with a 720 credit score and 20% down. If you have a 650 credit score, you may have to put 30% down... and maybe with an 800 you can get away with 10%.

How is that any different?

In the mortgage-loan scenario, the prospective borrower knows (or at least, has the opportunity to know) precisely what their credit score is and precisely how it is calculated.

Will students taking the SAT have the opportunity to know their “Adversity Score” and how it was calculated? Is there any good reason why that information should be withheld from them?

(05-21-2019 05:52 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-21-2019 05:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  When you buy a home, you can get a loan with a 720 credit score and 20% down. If you have a 650 credit score, you may have to put 30% down... and maybe with an 800 you can get away with 10%.

How is that any different?

In the mortgage-loan scenario, the prospective borrower knows (or at least, has the opportunity to know) precisely what their credit score is and precisely how it is calculated.

Will students taking the SAT have the opportunity to know their “Adversity Score” and how it was calculated? Is there any good reason why that information should be withheld from them?

It's still a sliding scale. It's still using something other than just a credit score meritocracy that you referred to. It's still valuing SOMETHING other than a simple credit score.

If you want to get technical, not all 650's are the same. SOME are 650 because they're excellent but only a few years old. Others are 650 because they're very deep but not very clean and others are somewhere in between. Not all 650's get loans even with 30% down, much less at the same interest rate. If they turn you down or give you a higher rate, no, they won't tell you their methodology... unless you sue them I suppose.

If they did tell you your diversity score, how would that matter? You wouldn't know everyone else's unless they volunteered them.


You made a binary comparison... either I support meritocracy or I don't. I'm saying this isn't a meritocracy. Getting into college might be... high school diploma... minimum 700 SAT.... but getting into your choice of college doesn't have to be

It seems like you are combining my comments with those of ODUsmitty, even though I don’t agree with all that he has posted on this thread.

My main point is not declaring that Rice or Dallas Baptist or Prairie View or Lamar have to use the same criteria or any particular criteria. Rather, they — well, the non-private ones — should have to explain what the criteria is and how it is determined in the case of individual applicants.

(05-21-2019 06:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If they did tell you your diversity score, how would that matter? You wouldn't know everyone else's unless they volunteered them.

How is your mortgage-loan example any different? People are still allowed to know.

(05-21-2019 06:22 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It seems like you are combining my comments with those of ODUsmitty, even though I don’t agree with all that he has posted on this thread.

I am sorry. Not intentional. Thanks for pointing it out.

(05-21-2019 06:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  My main point is not declaring that Rice or Dallas Baptist or Prairie View or Lamar have to use the same criteria or any particular criteria. Rather, they — well, the non-private ones — should have to explain what the criteria is and how it is determined in the case of individual applicants.

I generally agree... this is my comment about the legislature or University as opposed to some NFP. The only problem is, it's like hiring someone. You can have two people with the same score on a test but different backgrounds and personalities. There is 'qualified' (I think Rice sets that bar at or near 1000) and then there is picking this person over that person.

I think it would be hard to say that 'this or that' factor is worth 'this many points' without some sort of extremely complex algorithm. Anything that made it easy to understand would make it easily manipulable and thus ripe for fraud.

I'm not sure i agree with the level of detail. If you don't get accepted today, you don't get a letter telling you anyone or how many people had better or worse scores and were admitted etc etc etc

Getting accepted to a specific college has never been that transparent, and I don't like the idea that 'anyone above a 900 gets in'... except perhaps as a 'system'... meaning that you get in, but you get in to UTSA or UTEP as opposed to UT-Austin

(05-21-2019 06:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-21-2019 06:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If they did tell you your diversity score, how would that matter? You wouldn't know everyone else's unless they volunteered them.

How is your mortgage-loan example any different? People are still allowed to know.

This just feels like arguing to argue.... because we're arguing about an aside and not the real issue. If you have a different view of my example than I do, then ignore it. It just means you don't agree that this is similar, and doesn't change the issues at hand.

You don't really know how your credit score is calculated. You know what factors go into it, but you don't know the algorithm.... and banks have their own algorithms beyond that. If i have a 650 and get a loan and you have a 650 and don't, you don't know 'why'. They just say 'based on a review of your situation' or something like that.

(05-20-2019 10:58 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Full disclosure. I am the son of an orphan that earned a full ride as a white male to college based upon academic performance in high school. Certainly not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I earned it, and left college with zero debt.

You may have added this after I responded so I missed it, but this sort of makes my point.

You weren't born with a silver spoon and earned your spot. It shouldn't be taken by someone who had the silver spoon and beat your score by 5 points. Your overcoming circumstances has value as may their failing to take advantage of theirs.

"I'm essentially saying that someone who has the best teachers and schools and scores a 1400 sat may not be smarter or have more academic potential than someone who lives in the boonies, has horrible teachers and scores a 1350.... that someone who plays sports, is President of her class, works 20+ hours a week helping to support her family (or as a volunteer) and scores a 1350 might have more academic potential than someone who has no academic hobbies, never worked a day in their lives and scores a 1400"

Only one of the "mitigating factors" you mention in the paragraph about may have anything to the "adversity score". To play sports, hold class office, work not for household survival, etc. are all choices, and actually can and should be used to fully evaluate a candidate. However, to arbitrarily knock a kid up or down due their zip code reeks of bias...……..Imagine if real estate loans were meted out that way. Oh that's right, they did, and it was called redlining, and has since been deemed illegal.

(05-22-2019 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Getting accepted to a specific college has never been that transparent

True. Although, in times past, most people didn’t go to college. Admission to college was not a prerequisite to moving up in the world and having a stable/middle-class life. Now, with just a few outlier-exceptions (professional athlete, entertainer, etc.), it is. So, the power to grant/deny acceptance “to a specific college” can and does have a far deeper impact on a person’s life than it did 50 or 100 years ago.

I think the political ramifications of this change are still being sorted out. But one way or the other, I expect this process to become MUCH more transparent and obvious than it has been up until now.

‘Hambone10’ Wrote:

(05-21-2019 06:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-21-2019 06:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If they did tell you your diversity score, how would that matter? You wouldn't know everyone else's unless they volunteered them.

How is your mortgage-loan example any different? People are still allowed to know.

This just feels like arguing to argue.... because we're arguing about an aside and not the real issue. If you have a different view of my example than I do, then ignore it. It just means you don't agree that this is similar, and doesn't change the issues at hand.

No, actually I agree with you that it IS similar. And what genuine differences that exist (between the mortgage-loan application process and the college-admission process) actually argue (IMHO) for greater transparency in the college scenario.

Quote:You don't really know how your credit score is calculated. You know what factors go into it, but you don't know the algorithm.... and banks have their own algorithms beyond that. If i have a 650 and get a loan and you have a 650 and don't, you don't know 'why'. They just say 'based on a review of your situation' or something like that.

That’s true as far as it goes. It still doesn’t explain why a person’s so-called “Adversity Score” should not be disclosed to that individual. Is there any good reason why it should not be?

(05-22-2019 04:13 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  "I'm essentially saying that someone who has the best teachers and schools and scores a 1400 sat may not be smarter or have more academic potential than someone who lives in the boonies, has horrible teachers and scores a 1350.... that someone who plays sports, is President of her class, works 20+ hours a week helping to support her family (or as a volunteer) and scores a 1350 might have more academic potential than someone who has no academic hobbies, never worked a day in their lives and scores a 1400"

Only one of the "mitigating factors" you mention in the paragraph about may have anything to the "adversity score". To play sports, hold class office, work not for household survival, etc. are all choices, and actually can and should be used to fully evaluate a candidate. However, to arbitrarily knock a kid up or down due their zip code reeks of bias...……..Imagine if real estate loans were meted out that way. Oh that's right, they did, and it was called redlining, and has since been deemed illegal.

then say that. dont make the score a phoney score

(05-22-2019 04:13 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  "I'm essentially saying that someone who has the best teachers and schools and scores a 1400 sat may not be smarter or have more academic potential than someone who lives in the boonies, has horrible teachers and scores a 1350.... that someone who plays sports, is President of her class, works 20+ hours a week helping to support her family (or as a volunteer) and scores a 1350 might have more academic potential than someone who has no academic hobbies, never worked a day in their lives and scores a 1400"

Only one of the "mitigating factors" you mention in the paragraph about may have anything to the "adversity score". To play sports, hold class office, work not for household survival, etc. are all choices, and actually can and should be used to fully evaluate a candidate. However, to arbitrarily knock a kid up or down due their zip code reeks of bias...……..Imagine if real estate loans were meted out that way. Oh that's right, they did, and it was called redlining, and has since been deemed illegal.

(05-22-2019 07:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You don't really know how your credit score is calculated. You know what factors go into it, but you don't know the algorithm.... and banks have their own algorithms beyond that. If i have a 650 and get a loan and you have a 650 and don't, you don't know 'why'. They just say 'based on a review of your situation' or something like that.

That’s true as far as it goes. It still doesn’t explain why a person’s so-called “Adversity Score” should not be disclosed to that individual. Is there any good reason why it should not be?

Perhaps the reason I convoluted the comments is that I see them similarly. I think we all actually agree on 90% of this and the only difference is what if anything would convince us to go along with it. Some generic and national 'diversity score' like has been proposed is completely the wrong way to do things. I think we all agree. As mentioned, just because you live in a zip code doesn't mean you're disadvantaged. The factors that would go into that shouldn't be part of taking the SAT.

My list of 'adversities' was not intended to reflect this program, which we have all agreed is wrong... It was merely to reflect the broader issue and perhaps talk about a more effective and reasonable and fair approach, which I believe Rice has taken. Where we MAY disagree is in the details which is fine, I don't think we're going to get that granular here.

My only/biggest concern about being completely transparent is that getting into college as I said is like hiring people. Of course some of it is objective, but at the end of the day... some subjective decisions are made. Your Chemistry professor's recommendation was a bit more appealing than candidate A, but your English professors recommendation was a bit less so than candidate B... and we had a few more people drop from science this year than last, so you got in and neither A nor B did. And I think if you start having to explain something like that to everyone that gets rejected, you're in for a very long day and severely risk having to disclose information about others that may not be public. I also consider that being from Brazoria County doesn't mean you're poor or rich or whatever else, and that

Which is why I go back to a compromise, where a public state school system, like the UT system... can say that we accept everyone with a VERY transparent 'adjusted score' of some sort... and I don't pretend to know what that would look like without needing to provide 1040's and the like... that's for supporters of the plan to convince me of.... like say 900. And I've just pulled that number form thin air... but everyone with an adjusted score of 900+ is accepted to the UT system, and the individual schools within that system can make individual determinations about how they assign those acceptances based on the specific needs/plans for the university.

I'm not saying I want this to happen... at all. I'm saying it already does at the individual Universities... so if they want to make it more transparent, this is how you can do that. If you score or adjust to 900, you're going to college.

(05-23-2019 09:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 04:13 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  "I'm essentially saying that someone who has the best teachers and schools and scores a 1400 sat may not be smarter or have more academic potential than someone who lives in the boonies, has horrible teachers and scores a 1350.... that someone who plays sports, is President of her class, works 20+ hours a week helping to support her family (or as a volunteer) and scores a 1350 might have more academic potential than someone who has no academic hobbies, never worked a day in their lives and scores a 1400"

Only one of the "mitigating factors" you mention in the paragraph about may have anything to the "adversity score". To play sports, hold class office, work not for household survival, etc. are all choices, and actually can and should be used to fully evaluate a candidate. However, to arbitrarily knock a kid up or down due their zip code reeks of bias...……..Imagine if real estate loans were meted out that way. Oh that's right, they did, and it was called redlining, and has since been deemed illegal.

(05-22-2019 07:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You don't really know how your credit score is calculated. You know what factors go into it, but you don't know the algorithm.... and banks have their own algorithms beyond that. If i have a 650 and get a loan and you have a 650 and don't, you don't know 'why'. They just say 'based on a review of your situation' or something like that.

That’s true as far as it goes. It still doesn’t explain why a person’s so-called “Adversity Score” should not be disclosed to that individual. Is there any good reason why it should not be?

Perhaps the reason I convoluted the comments is that I see them similarly. I think we all actually agree on 90% of this and the only difference is what if anything would convince us to go along with it. Some generic and national 'diversity score' like has been proposed is completely the wrong way to do things. I think we all agree. As mentioned, just because you live in a zip code doesn't mean you're disadvantaged. The factors that would go into that shouldn't be part of taking the SAT.

My list of 'adversities' was not intended to reflect this program, which we have all agreed is wrong... It was merely to reflect the broader issue and perhaps talk about a more effective and reasonable and fair approach, which I believe Rice has taken. Where we MAY disagree is in the details which is fine, I don't think we're going to get that granular here.

My only/biggest concern about being completely transparent is that getting into college as I said is like hiring people. Of course some of it is objective, but at the end of the day... some subjective decisions are made. Your Chemistry professor's recommendation was a bit more appealing than candidate A, but your English professors recommendation was a bit less so than candidate B... and we had a few more people drop from science this year than last, so you got in and neither A nor B did. And I think if you start having to explain something like that to everyone that gets rejected, you're in for a very long day and severely risk having to disclose information about others that may not be public. I also consider that being from Brazoria County doesn't mean you're poor or rich or whatever else, and that

Which is why I go back to a compromise, where a public state school system, like the UT system... can say that we accept everyone with a VERY transparent 'adjusted score' of some sort... and I don't pretend to know what that would look like without needing to provide 1040's and the like... that's for supporters of the plan to convince me of.... like say 900. And I've just pulled that number form thin air... but everyone with an adjusted score of 900+ is accepted to the UT system, and the individual schools within that system can make individual determinations about how they assign those acceptances based on the specific needs/plans for the university.

I'm not saying I want this to happen... at all. I'm saying it already does at the individual Universities... so if they want to make it more transparent, this is how you can do that. If you score or adjust to 900, you're going to college.

This score is a very dangerous start to putting people in boxes and failing to treat them as individuals. What about the Black son of a doctor who is in an IB program and lives in a walled mansion in a generally poor neighborhood? Or maybe his parents are well educated, but not necessarily well paid employees of a not for profit? Yet these numbers would treat him as disadvantaged while a white kid who grew up in foster homes and spent the last couple of years in a nice neighborhood as advantaged.

It is not transparent.
It doesn't treat people as individuals.
It requires a lot of assumptions that have not been tested as to whether they really do create a disadvantage, let alone the impact of that disadvantage and the weighting of those factors.
I have no doubt some of these are totally bogus relative to academic hardship (high crime? Probably automatic advantage for urban dwellers).
It is a number created by one organization. And lets be real. The CEO or top executive of this project made the decisions. Its a formula done by one person or a very small group.