SAT to Give Students ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background
05-16-2019, 09:00 PM
I saw a couple of talk show people mention it, but this is really what's going on here, besides the dual advantage of being able to claim some modern level of "woke" or virtue signalling as an "aid" to colleges, what's up their collective alleys:
It is that a 3rd party, credentialing type of organization (SAT) needs to stay relevant as a test that isn't really taken seriously anymore, let alone required by many universities. This has one part a) modern college is bullshit and too many people go, and another part b) going became such a cultural imperative and [you guessed it] business that having the right materials to pass it, score higher, or use it as a true measure became diluted except for those getting the perfect score. I have gone far enough in my field (physician) to realize that after a good amount of intrinsic intelligence, it always became far more about having the right materials. It literally spans the gamut from college entrance exams all the way to board certification exams. I joked with friends all along the way that knowing the game was always far more important than anything else. This included totally ridiculous shit like taking organic chemistry at a lesser university in the summer or something where you could get a high B or A even, or going to a random university to get the headline gpa number of 3.9 vs going to a really good school where getting a 3.2 was a challenge, if not totally watered down like Harvard ended up being.
It's a paradox. Precisely because universities became so well attended and the numbers grew so huge in admissions, the middle 80% differentiation made stuff like this a joke. The problem is that if you are in the 80 percentile up, it means the world to you to get this as a "qualifying factor" because you have a real shot in making it to that desired, stable and high paying career if you get a decent score. That's not the be all end all, but in America it was always the plan.
It is that a 3rd party, credentialing type of organization (SAT) needs to stay relevant as a test that isn't really taken seriously anymore, let alone required by many universities. This has one part a) modern college is bullshit and too many people go, and another part b) going became such a cultural imperative and [you guessed it] business that having the right materials to pass it, score higher, or use it as a true measure became diluted except for those getting the perfect score. I have gone far enough in my field (physician) to realize that after a good amount of intrinsic intelligence, it always became far more about having the right materials. It literally spans the gamut from college entrance exams all the way to board certification exams. I joked with friends all along the way that knowing the game was always far more important than anything else. This included totally ridiculous shit like taking organic chemistry at a lesser university in the summer or something where you could get a high B or A even, or going to a random university to get the headline gpa number of 3.9 vs going to a really good school where getting a 3.2 was a challenge, if not totally watered down like Harvard ended up being.
It's a paradox. Precisely because universities became so well attended and the numbers grew so huge in admissions, the middle 80% differentiation made stuff like this a joke. The problem is that if you are in the 80 percentile up, it means the world to you to get this as a "qualifying factor" because you have a real shot in making it to that desired, stable and high paying career if you get a decent score. That's not the be all end all, but in America it was always the plan.