Adversity Score

[Legion]

In school I knew some kids who were from a dirt-poor immigrant family, dealing with language, social, and economic obstacles, and yet when universities looked at them, they were just generically viewed as "Asian," and judged by harder standards than other applicants. Meanwhile, I had a friend who was the child of two doctors, whose grandparents had also gone to college, and who grew up with all the advantages money could buy. But, when colleges looked at her, she was "African American" and so assumed to have overcome major socioeconomic obstacles

So she says.

[CFM]

The SAT will soon begin reporting aspects of a student's background to colleges, in order to allow the college to factor it into admissions decisions. The idea is that someone who came from a privileged family and got great SAT scores may actually be less impressive than someone who came from a very difficult background and got merely good scores.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/us/sa...ore/index.html

I like the overall idea, including as an alternative to race-based affirmative action. In school I knew some kids who were from a dirt-poor immigrant family, dealing with language, social, and economic obstacles, and yet when universities looked at them, they were just generically viewed as "Asian," and judged by harder standards than other applicants. Meanwhile, I had a friend who was the child of two doctors, whose grandparents had also gone to college, and who grew up with all the advantages money could buy. But, when colleges looked at her, she was "African American" and so assumed to have overcome major socioeconomic obstacles. Race-based affirmative action is probably better than making no attempt to address systemic racism, since it will diminish inequities more often than it will exacerbate them, just as a statistical reality. But more individualized approaches are superior.

Having said that, I question the way this particular plan is being set up. Specifically, the factors include "the crime rate and poverty levels of a student's high school and neighborhood." That's not terribly individualized, either. Consider two hypothetical students:

Student A comes from a poor family. They live in a space above the family's little restaurant, where the kids work in the evenings to help make ends meet. The restaurant, however, is in a pretty nice neighborhood... by design, since the family was desperate to get into a good school system, even if it meant cramming six people into a 900 square foot space and working themselves to the bone. (note, this hypothetical is based on a second cousin of mine)

Student B comes from a rich family. In fact, it's the wealthiest family in a whole county -- a rural county where they own the local car dealership and the patriarch is the mayor of the town. However, the town itself is pretty run-down. (note, this hypothetical is based on someone I knew in college).

Which of the two really overcame the most? Was it the one from the family scrimping and saving to live a spartan life in an expensive neighborhood, or the one living like feudal lords of an economically depressed kingdom? I'd argue that the first student overcame a lot more. You can live in a lousy town and attend a crummy school, but if you can afford to live in a gated community within that town and get expensive tutoring and enrichment opportunities, setting doesn't matter so much. In fact, you could be better off as a rich person in a poor neighborhood than a rich person in a rich one, given weaker academic competition and the ability of your dollar to go farther.

So, I'd argue in favor of an "adversity score" that was based strictly on money. Simply consider the parents' income over the prior five years, for example, and assign a score based on that. That's going to be the best realistic proxy for how much adversity the student likely faced.

In other words, poor niggers living as bastards get something else they don't deserve at the expense of white people that earned it academically.

[Oneuli]

If it makes you happy ...

It would make me happier to have a substantive challenge for a real debate. But we take our pleasures where we can find them.

[Oneuli]

Is that so?

It is. Just check out your very next post.

[CFM]

It would make me happier to have a substantive challenge for a real debate. But we take our pleasures where we can find them.

Anyone like you that supports something like this doesn't want debate. There's no way to defend what you support.

[Oneuli]

I can reduce the OP to one three word sentence lol.

Money buys privilege.

You misunderstood the post. Try rereading.

[Oneuli]

In other words, poor niggers living as bastards get something else they don't deserve at the expense of white people that earned it academically.

From the perspective of a functionally retarded racist, yes, I suppose that's how it looks. But, if you were capable of reading at at least a fifth-grade level, you'd see that this isn't about race at all. It's about economic background -- either individualized, by family, as I favor, or geographically, as they're apparently doing.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The SAT will soon begin reporting aspects of a student's background to colleges, in order to allow the college to factor it into admissions decisions. The idea is that someone who came from a privileged family and got great SAT scores may actually be less impressive than someone who came from a very difficult background and got merely good scores.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/us/sa...ore/index.html

I like the overall idea, including as an alternative to race-based affirmative action. In school I knew some kids who were from a dirt-poor immigrant family, dealing with language, social, and economic obstacles, and yet when universities looked at them, they were just generically viewed as "Asian," and judged by harder standards than other applicants. Meanwhile, I had a friend who was the child of two doctors, whose grandparents had also gone to college, and who grew up with all the advantages money could buy. But, when colleges looked at her, she was "African American" and so assumed to have overcome major socioeconomic obstacles. Race-based affirmative action is probably better than making no attempt to address systemic racism, since it will diminish inequities more often than it will exacerbate them, just as a statistical reality. But more individualized approaches are superior.

Having said that, I question the way this particular plan is being set up. Specifically, the factors include "the crime rate and poverty levels of a student's high school and neighborhood." That's not terribly individualized, either. Consider two hypothetical students:

Student A comes from a poor family. They live in a space above the family's little restaurant, where the kids work in the evenings to help make ends meet. The restaurant, however, is in a pretty nice neighborhood... by design, since the family was desperate to get into a good school system, even if it meant cramming six people into a 900 square foot space and working themselves to the bone. (note, this hypothetical is based on a second cousin of mine)

Student B comes from a rich family. In fact, it's the wealthiest family in a whole county -- a rural county where they own the local car dealership and the patriarch is the mayor of the town. However, the town itself is pretty run-down. (note, this hypothetical is based on someone I knew in college).

Which of the two really overcame the most? Was it the one from the family scrimping and saving to live a spartan life in an expensive neighborhood, or the one living like feudal lords of an economically depressed kingdom? I'd argue that the first student overcame a lot more. You can live in a lousy town and attend a crummy school, but if you can afford to live in a gated community within that town and get expensive tutoring and enrichment opportunities, setting doesn't matter so much. In fact, you could be better off as a rich person in a poor neighborhood than a rich person in a rich one, given weaker academic competition and the ability of your dollar to go farther.

So, I'd argue in favor of an "adversity score" that was based strictly on money. Simply consider the parents' income over the prior five years, for example, and assign a score based on that. That's going to be the best realistic proxy for how much adversity the student likely faced.

why Dems are losing. you're retarded

[Oneuli]

Anyone like you that supports something like this doesn't want debate. There's no way to defend what you support.

I'd love a debate. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until one of the more intelligent posters shows up. Until then, all we'll get is brain-dead "so you say" babbling, and your racist outbursts.

[Oneuli]

why Dems are losing. you're retarded

With some posters, I'm left wondering whether they're secretly allies of mine who are only posting in the guise of the crudest, stupidest caricatures of right-wing imbeciles and bigots in order to discredit the conservative movement.

[CFM]

From the perspective of a functionally retarded racist, yes, I suppose that's how it looks. But, if you were capable of reading at at least a fifth-grade level, you'd see that this isn't about race at all. It's about economic background -- either individualized, by family, as I favor, or geographically, as they're apparently doing.

It may not address race on paper but it will in action. If you understood reality, you'd acknowledge the truth. Since 1 in every 3 1/2 blacks uses food stamps, you can bet your bottom dollar blacks will benefit from it far greater than they should.

[CFM]

I'd love a debate. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until one of the more intelligent posters shows up. Until then, all we'll get is brain-dead "so you say" babbling, and your racist outbursts.

You want confirmation of your beliefs. That is evident in every post you make.

As a white male, I'm far more intelligent than a stupid fucking Liberal like you that thought a nigger was qualified to be President because of his skin color.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

With some posters, I'm left wondering whether they're secretly allies of mine who are only posting in the guise of the crudest, stupidest caricatures of right-wing imbeciles and bigots in order to discredit the conservative movement.

why not factor in parent quality, domestic abuse, alcohol in the home. and does any of this make you more suited for higher education?

[Legion]

But we take our pleasures where we can find them.

You do, indeed.

[Legion]

With some posters, I'm left wondering whether they're secretly allies of mine who are only posting in the guise of the crudest, stupidest caricatures of right-wing imbeciles and bigots in order to discredit the conservative movement.

I've wondered the same about you. I've been accused of creating characters not unlike you for that express purpose.