College Board’s recent attempt to address adversity in its SAT is causing outrage and confusion as students’ neighborhoods and school will be introduced into the college admissions process.
This newest addition began with a rocky start.
“Habituating Americans to the privilege score as something that you are punished or rewarded for is a major turn in the history of the country and it will have many volatile, unforeseen, and unintended consequences,” wrote Wesley Yang on Twitter.
False information circulated around schools and communities. The phrase “adversity score” was tossed around incorrectly. Many believed that the score was providing curves or additional points based on race and socioeconomic background to the SAT score. However, these reports were false.
The Environmental Context Dashboard provides greater context about a student’s home and learning environments. It is a more expansive, consistent admissions tool that submits to colleges information about a student’s high school and neighborhood.
The Dashboard provides general information about a student’s school, such as senior class size and the number of students receiving a free/reduced price meal. Also presented is AP information, including the average AP exam score and how many seniors are registered for an AP exam.
In addition, a student will be ranked in a percentile category based on their SAT score as compared to others in their grade.
“I am not a big believer that a standardized test is a measure of student success,” said Kristi Plahn-Gjersvold, 49. Plahn-Gjersvold, assistant dean of Administration and Strategic Initiatives of the School of Communication, strongly believes that bias exists within the SAT test that places certain socioeconomic groups at a disadvantage.
“A lot of students can’t afford the prep classes,” Plahn-Gjersvold said.
The most controversial portion of the Environmental Context Dashboard is the “adversity score,” which rates a student’s adversity from 0-100 based on school and neighborhood environments. Specifically, 31 pieces of information regarding these environments are obtained and calculated to formulate a score.
But some believe that environment is not a sufficient measure of adversity. Should personal factors, like race, be included in the Dashboard?
Makayla Peterson, 20, believes that “race is just physical.” Others who agree concluded that race does not always imply an amount of adversity.
“It’s not deep enough. If you really wanna fairly judge people’s adversity, you can’t do it with a standardized score,” said Robert Cullingford, 33. He stated that many would falsely assume he has faced little adversity because he is white.
Many are concerned that the goal of the Environmental Context Dashboard will not be achieved. Those who were interviewed all expressed hope that this would occur; however, none were certain.
“Admissions is such a business,” said Allison Boch, 21.
College Board’s aim is to increase the amount of low socioeconomic students going to college by providing schools with more in-depth information about the adversity a student faces. Information provided is more systematic and data-driven, rather than based on assumptions. Now, admissions officers should take a more holistic approach when considering applicants. Public opinion on the matter continues to waver.
Cullingford concluded that college admissions officers simply want to “standardize and speed the system up.”
