The New SAT "Adversity Score"
Recently the SAT came out with an odd new measure, called the "adversity score". It basically evaluates the life struggles of a student, with the intent of giving their score context.
One article I read broke down the mixed reactions toward this score well. It said that responses fell into three categories: people who thought that scoring adversity was impossible and a bad precedent; people who thought they were a move toward greater equity; and people who just disapproved of standardized testing's ability, as a whole, to even the playing field. I see logic in all those reasonings, although I probably agree most with the first group.
For example, one of their measures of adversity depends on the average wealth of the student's neighborhood. The issue with this is first that it penalizes poorer students in those areas, who struggle to get by. Secondly, it encourages gentrification, as wealthier parents will be incentivized to move to "up-and-coming" neighborhoods.
Of course, there's also the issue in general that "adversity" is not a concept that should really be quantified - to put a person's life experiences in a number. That being said, I think trying to account for adversity when looking at someone's application is great. But a "score" isn't the right way to go. And though I also agree that standardized testing is flawed, we aren't at a point where we can entirely disregard its results by having it replaced with better measures.
What bothers me most, though, is the fact that an adversity score acknowledges these issues that students face, yet does nothing to try to overcome them. Yes, now people are realizing that when rich kids do well and get into good schools, it isn't always out of merit. And they are trying in different ways to recognize that. But they aren't trying to change the things that are making these students struggle in the first place.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opinion/letters/sat-adversity-score.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2019/05/27/why-the-s-a-t-adversity-score-is-worse-than-no-score-at-all/#4577522a1ab5
One article I read broke down the mixed reactions toward this score well. It said that responses fell into three categories: people who thought that scoring adversity was impossible and a bad precedent; people who thought they were a move toward greater equity; and people who just disapproved of standardized testing's ability, as a whole, to even the playing field. I see logic in all those reasonings, although I probably agree most with the first group.
For example, one of their measures of adversity depends on the average wealth of the student's neighborhood. The issue with this is first that it penalizes poorer students in those areas, who struggle to get by. Secondly, it encourages gentrification, as wealthier parents will be incentivized to move to "up-and-coming" neighborhoods.
Of course, there's also the issue in general that "adversity" is not a concept that should really be quantified - to put a person's life experiences in a number. That being said, I think trying to account for adversity when looking at someone's application is great. But a "score" isn't the right way to go. And though I also agree that standardized testing is flawed, we aren't at a point where we can entirely disregard its results by having it replaced with better measures.
What bothers me most, though, is the fact that an adversity score acknowledges these issues that students face, yet does nothing to try to overcome them. Yes, now people are realizing that when rich kids do well and get into good schools, it isn't always out of merit. And they are trying in different ways to recognize that. But they aren't trying to change the things that are making these students struggle in the first place.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opinion/letters/sat-adversity-score.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2019/05/27/why-the-s-a-t-adversity-score-is-worse-than-no-score-at-all/#4577522a1ab5
This is the first time I'm hearing about the "adversity score". I agree with you that it is kind of impossible to quantify struggles someone faces in their life. But I understand completely that if you are ,for example, wealthier it would be easier to get the resources (such as tutoring) that would significantly help you achieve a higher score on the SAT. I think you bring up a super important point that they are kind of putting their energy in the wrong places. Why not help those families that may be struggling instead of just trying to put their lives into a score?
ReplyDelete