06/04/2019
----The Sales Drama of the College Board and their real purpose----
The term introduced by the College Board is called “The Adversity Score”. Now, along with a student’s SAT score, the College Board has suggested supplying an additional number. This number is called the “adversity score” for the student. This number will not be visible to students, but it will be available to college admissions committees. The “score” --- sometimes also called an “index” --- is a number between 1 and 100. This number is calculated by associating measures of college attendance, family stability, median family income, housing stability, education level, and crime, to each applicant’s high school and neighborhood. A score of 100 is an indication of “extreme” adversity, while scores over 50 are generally considered to be causes for concern.
There are perhaps many reasons motivating the College Board to supply such a number along with a student’s test score. The College Board’s publicized version of their motivation is best summarized by their CEO, David Coleman who states that “One thing we’re trying to do with this new tool, is to say to families who grew up with a lot less … they still have a shot.”
Really? Isn’t that charming? The College Board wants to be your social worker. They want to help the underprivileged. They want to do what is best for society. How encouraging! Doesn’t that just warm your heart?
Please. Let’s get real. This is not at all what they are trying to do. This at least the third time in the last two decades the College Board has tried to use some form of “real-life” data to assuage the public’s growing contempt for standardized tests. Let’s review.
Early 90’s: ETS researcher Winton Manning is found to be working on potential modifications to SAT scores which will take into account “background factors”. These modifications where to be called the Measure of Academic Talent (MAT). This change was to be far more extreme than the adversity index. Funding for the research was stopped for supposed reasons as “lack of resources.”
1999: ETS tries again. The “Strivers” program is initiated. A student was to be assigned a “predicted” SAT score based on “background factors”. That score would then be compared with the student’s actual score. Students exceeding their predicted score by at least 200 points were to be deemed as “strivers” for overcoming the suggested “adversity”. After public outcry, ETS scrapped the program.
And the story does not end there. What really seems to be the case, is perhaps a little story that unfolds a bit like a bad soap-opera. In our next article we will explore that more and look at how data is used in the media.
