Jordan 1

Timothy Jordan

Storer

ENG 3 H American Literature Block 5

26 November 2019

How Level is the Field?

If the individuality of each person defines our society today, then why is there a

standardized test that measures every student? The issue of personal and environmental adversity

of these students has led to a controversy over the validity of the standardized test score. To

address this, College Board introduced the “adversity score” in May of 2019 to attempt to

account for certain adversities scores. However, there are various gaps and limitations that

question this score. The College Board adversity score should not be implemented because the

score is an inadequate measure of true adversity, has redundant and unnecessary statistics, and

lacks transparency and reliability in use and scoring.

The adversity score measures neighborhood adversity, but not enough to give accurate

information about an individual. An article on the Forbes website states that, “Measuring

neighborhood adversity is not the same as assessing an individual student’s resilience or grit.

There’s not a straight line from socioeconomic background to SAT performance; assigning an

adversity number suggests an influence that may not be operating for individual students” (“Four

Reasons The College Board's New Adversity Score Is A Bad Idea”). There is not a correlation to

the neighborhood of a student to how well that affects their standardized test. Giving averages to

quantify an individual’s adversity is pointless unless an individual’s adversity is measured. The

first announced adversity score neglects to consider mental health, test anxieties, issues within

the household such as domestic abuse, or other adversities that occurs for individual students.
 Jordan 2

Similarly, Bob Schaeffer, public education director of FairTest, which is critical of the

standardized testing system, stated that, “A kid who grows up in an affluent neighborhood may

still have overcome very serious adversity. And similarly, a kid in a poor area may have had lots

of opportunities … So, you’re trying to apply data derived from averages to individuals, human

beings, which can lead to erroneous decision-making” (“College Board revises plans for single

“adversity score” as tool in admissions”). The score thus attempts to contextualize students,

based on their schools and neighborhood, rather than change the test to better accommodate the

individual adversities of each person and therefore should not be implemented. Though the data

they provide may assist some, it does not level the playing field for all students and therefore is

failing at its intended application. Even while trying to account for the neighborhood of students,

the score does not contain data that is new to college admissions.

The adversity score contains unnecessary data that colleges are already able to access. On

the College Board website, the adversity score took all its environmental information from the

same public access data sets, as the published article states that the score “Combine[s] data from

the American Community Survey and Location, Inc” (College Board). The score is derived from

statistics that any person can access easily online. The score is taking data that college already

are able to access if they wish to and implementing the score to showcase it is therefore

unnecessary. Colleges across the country already access this data when reviewing the

applications of students. This is stated that in California “the ten-campus University of California

already considers some similar data it collects on its own” (“Hardship score for college

admission gets mixed reaction in California”). The UC system in California collects data

regarding student adversity for admissions. Implementing the adversity score is therefore

irrelevant since these colleges already collect the data or can do so. The organization of an
 Jordan 3

additional score as part of a standardized test is unneeded. These redundant factors announced do

not even encompass the entirety of the adversity score, which has raised many questions

regarding its clarity.

The most prevalent fault of the adversity score is the lack of reliability and transparency.

Not only was the score planned to not be accessible to students, parents, or teachers, but College

Board also did not release how each adversity would factor into the score. Michael T. Neitzel

affirms this as he states, “The College Board has not revealed the factors or their weights in

calculating adversity scores” (“Four Reasons The College Board's… Bad Idea”). The fact that

College Board has not yet announced all the factors in the score raises various suspicions of this

score. In addition, how each individual statistic factors into the score has also not been

announced. The college admissions process is already stressful enough and does not need an

extra factor of unknown data that affects admissions to produce more stress for students or

parents. The director of the ACT also came out against the score, saying “Now we can’t review

the validity and the fairness of the score. And even if that changes, there is also an issue with the

reliability of the measure, since many of the 15 variables come from an unchecked source—for

example, when they are self-reported by the student” (“Adversity Score: College Board’s

Intentions are Good, But Its Solution is Not”). The adversity score would be hidden from

students, and the self-reported section of adversity would cause students to be inclined to lie to

increase their score. If unreleased portions of the score are not fact checked, the score will shatter

the validity of the standardized test further than it already is. Because of this, the score is

unreliable and should not be added as part of the SAT. The adversity score will not execute its

application properly enough to be accurate for the college admissions process.

 Jordan 4

The adversity score from college board is inadequate solution to better mold standardized

testing. This adversity score contains excessive data that colleges already access, is deficient in

clarity of the score itself, and does not do enough to support the adversity of every student, and

thus should not be implemented. If the accuracy of a standardized test is being questioned to the

point of needing a measure of student adversity, one could now wonder if the standardized test

itself is accurate enough to be used as a part of the college admissions process.

 Jordan 5

Works Cited

“ACT Comes Out Against Adversity Index.” Inside Higher Ed,

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/05/21/act-comes-out-against-adversity-index.

Allyn, Bobby. “College Board Drops Its 'Adversity Score' For Each Student After Backlash.” NPR,

NPR, 27 Aug. 2019, https://www.npr.org/2019/08/27/754799550/college-board-drops-its-

adversity-score-for-each-student-after-backlash.

Burke, Michael. “College Board Revises Plans for Single ‘Adversity Score’ as Tool in

Admissions.” EdSource, EdSource, 27 Aug. 2019, https://edsource.org/2019/college-board-

backtracks-on-single-adversity-score-in-admissions-tool/616785.

“College Board Announces Improved Admissions Resource.” The College Board, 27 Aug. 2019,

https://www.collegeboard.org/releases/2019/college-board-announces-improved-admissions-

resource.

“College Board Says It Is Replacing SAT 'Adversity Score'.” WTOP, 27 Aug. 2019,

https://wtop.com/education/2019/08/college-board-replacing-sat-adversity-score/.

Gordon, Larry. “Hardship Score for College Admission Gets Mixed Reaction in

California.” EdSource, 22 Aug. 2019, https://edsource.org/2019/hardship-score-for-college-

admission-gets-mixed-reaction-in-california/616536.

Hartocollis, Anemona. “SAT 'Adversity Score' Is Abandoned in Wake of Criticism.” The New York

Times, The New York Times, 27 Aug. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/us/sat-

adversity-score-college-board.html.

“Home.” ACT, http://leadershipblog.act.org/2019/05/adversity-score-college-boards.html.

 Jordan 6

Nietzel, Michael T. “Four Reasons The College Board's New Adversity Score Is A Bad

Idea.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 17 May 2019,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2019/05/16/four-reasons-why-the-college-boards-

new-adversity-score-is-a-bad-idea/#2b4e2b8d6c0e.

Rim, Christopher. “The SAT 'Adversity Score' Is Still Happening --And Colleges May Use It

Against Low-Income Students.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 11 Sept. 2019,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2019/09/11/the-sat-adversity-score-is-still-

happening-and-colleges-may-use-it-against-low-income-students/#4be58e7f2ff8.

Sanchez, Ray. “Here's What You Need to Know about the College Board's New SAT Score.” CNN,

Cable News Network, 18 May 2019, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/18/us/sat-adversity-score-

factors/index.html.

Trammell, Kendall, and Chris Boyette. “Remember That New SAT 'Adversity Score'? That's No

Longer Happening.” CNN, Cable News Network, 27 Aug. 2019,

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/27/us/college-board-sat-adversity-score-trnd/index.html.