The SAT will be adding an “adversity score” algorithm in an attempt to level the playing field for disadvantaged students. In these contentious times, this has, shockingly, generated a bit of controversy.
I don’t pretend to know if an “adversity score” is a good idea or bad idea. I give credit to the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for having (what passes for) its heart in the right place, for recognizing the inherent advantages of children from the affluent classes. ETS, of course, is also not divulging any of the details of its proprietary algorithm. While I don’t find fault with that decision, I also don’t trust them to make it work like it’s supposed to.
The program has been criticized from both poles, so maybe it’s not all bad. The bribery scandal that allegedly shocked the nation (Were you shocked? Was it really news that children of the wealthy had advantages not available to mere mortals?) was just an evolution. Large “donations” have been buying acceptance letters to prestigious schools for decades; we need look no further than our government. The main difference here was the attempt to make the process less obvious. You want more evidence? How about the fact that you can now buy an entry for your child if (s)he doesn’t actually win a ticket to the national spelling bee? ($1500 plus your travel and lodging expenses)
I’m not so naïve as to believe that adding one variable to the formula will change much, certainly not in the big picture. If you can pick your parents, all other things being equal, money will open more doors. I doubt that the number of kids, nationwide, who get a small bump to a (maybe more prestigious, not necessarily more appropriate*) particular school will be significant. If those few that do benefit bump an advantaged kid to a less prestigious, but undoubtedly still high quality, school, well, I doubt that will severely handicap the affluent kid.
In theory, though, this provides information to the admissions counselors (process) that may (slightly) change the perspective of the decision makers. Just knowing that an “adversity score” has been added may open eyes if not doors. Of course, because the Law of Unintended Consequences will not be denied, it might also unfairly discount the efforts of an applicant who would have received consideration outside of some arcane formula.
I’m skeptical that we can achieve fairness in the admissions process (or much of anything else, for that matter). That doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t try to find ways to, if not actually level the playing field, at least remove some of the landmines. The effort and intent alone are worthwhile reminders that some of us start life’s marathon with unshared advantages that give us a head start.
* I was accepted at, and matriculated to, an allegedly prestigious college, with more graduates (per capita) than Harvard or Yale listed in Who’s Who in America, thanks in part to the fact that standardized tests were rigged in favor of white middle class (and above) kids (should there have been a “lack of adversity” factor?). Ivies, or Little Ivies, are not necessarily the best fit for kids from, shall we way, more common backgrounds. That was certainly the case for Hamilton (named for Alex while he was still alive) College and me. Mind you, my failure there was on me (does it make me exceptional, by comparison, to accept actual responsibility for that?), my immaturity, the cultural and socio-economic disparity between me and many of my classmates, my inflated opinion of my level of sophistication, plus multiple other factors obvious in hindsight. Some of those would probably have played out no matter where I attended, but the point is, I used the wrong criteria (prestige high among them) to make my decision. But it all worked out, for me, at least, and I recognize my outcome was based, at least in part, on the advantages I had starting out.
