Yeah, I tell my kids that I don't care what they do as long as they are the best at it. So as long as your kid is the best subsidy tit sucker, I'd count that a success.
Your kid's SAT score depends on your income and where you live
- Thread starter ironchef
- Start date
Yeah, I tell my kids that I don't care what they do as long as they are the best at it. So as long as your kid is the best subsidy tit sucker, I'd count that a success.
Fair enough, my dad was/is an artist btw, this didn't give me a positive view of the scene, but quite an insight on where most artists's money come from (not much money for most, but probably more than they deserve).
Mate, I posted the graph that comes directly from the board of sat testing. The director of the board referenced those graphs and statistics in multiple interviews, so the board itself factors that into their bullshit score. I posted the source, what else you want me to do?
But to satisfy your curiosity why I did not quote directly. I usually post from my mobile and the wsj app does not allow copy/paste across paragraphs. I always lecture others not to quote out of context hence I live by my own advice.
Those graphs don’t mean that this hardship score will account for race. Lots of Asians have high hardship scores (think immigrant Bangladeshi taxi drivers in nyc).
A white person and a black person each born to a single opioid addicted mom in west Virginia will receive the same hardship score.
Similarly an Asian and a white child born into respective families who are hedge fund managers in Greenwich will receive the same score.
Because they are under attack from the left that the tests were "unfair" to kids from poor neighborhood and poor family. On the other hand, schools were under attack from the right for using race and income as factors on admission.
By artificially adding scores to the disadvantage, the test scores are now "equalized".
What remains to be seen is will the new SAT still be a good predictor of college successes?
Last edited:
I don't have the statistics to prove it but I think there is one group that consistently made the transition from lower social economic class to higher in just one or two generations: Immigrants, irregardless of their origin. All you have to do is visit Miami, LA, SF, Orange Cty... and see for yourself the vibrant economies of the immigrant communities. Many of them came broke and uneducated.
I think this is an excellent point and should be investigated. My 2c is that they had a good upbringing, even if it was poor.
Fact is that the SAT over-predicts school performance among minorities and the poor. It's right there in the College Board's own research notes, but I can guarantee that if you ask 100 people on the street, zero of them will know this - many will no doubt say the tests under-predict performance by such groups. This is an excellent example of how the prestige press lies to us without doing so outright.
In other words, if you want to select a student body whose members are equally likely to achieve a given GPA, the SAT score cutoff for poor and minority students needs to be higher than for wealthy white students. Not politically correct, but that's the statistical reality.
As to the "adversity score", regardless of the technicalities of the calculation, it's transparently an attempt to give universities political cover to admit more racial minorities in a way that will pass judicial review. Aside from being based on the lie that the test under-predicts poor+minority student performance, the effort is a) corrosive, as it further undermines the concept of a neutral meritocracy, and b) pointless, as it can't correct the underlying problem: demand for high-performing black and Hispanic students greatly exceeds supply.
In other words, if you want to select a student body whose members are equally likely to achieve a given GPA, the SAT score cutoff for poor and minority students needs to be higher than for wealthy white students. Not politically correct, but that's the statistical reality.
As to the "adversity score", regardless of the technicalities of the calculation, it's transparently an attempt to give universities political cover to admit more racial minorities in a way that will pass judicial review. Aside from being based on the lie that the test under-predicts poor+minority student performance, the effort is a) corrosive, as it further undermines the concept of a neutral meritocracy, and b) pointless, as it can't correct the underlying problem: demand for high-performing black and Hispanic students greatly exceeds supply.
My personal opinion is that just like Americans have to take a hit for MAGA, accounting for adversity is a hit that the meritocracy has to take to try to right the adverse situations. In a generation or two, it shouldn't be that way. Anyone have studies correcting for parental background and income?