Coming soon to the SAT: An ‘adversity score’ offering a snapshot of challenges students face

[Jason]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/05/16/coming-soon-sat-an-adversity-score-offering-snapshot-challenges-students-face/

[SaysWho?]

I thought this was already posted, but maybe I had the idea to post this a while ago and just forgot.  

 

I like the idea, tbh. Every damn thing is already geared to help rich people, from not having to work while going to school, to being able to afford any tutor anytime, to the outdated and systemically racist legacy admissions, to sometimes subpar upbringings, etc. etc.

[SuperSpreader]

Just being able to not worry about money and focus on school is huge. Being able to reliability get to school, being able to afford supplies. I wish in college I could have spent less time dealing with my crappy car. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

Just being able to not worry about money and focus on school is huge. Being able to reliability get to school, being able to afford supplies. I wish in college I could have spent less time dealing with my crappy car. 

Being able to go to school with food in your stomach is a surprisingly big issue as well.

[Amazatron]

It's a good step, sort of an aggregation of things that the admissions office should know already though.  I wonder how it will factor into decision-making, if at all...

[SuperSpreader]

Just now, Amazatron said:

It's a good step, sort of an aggregation of things that the admissions office should know already though.  I wonder how it will factor into decision-making, if at all...

My son Timmy suffered a lot, when he was 4 he fell from his golden blanket onto his golden pillow. 

[Jason]

18 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

My son Timmy suffered a lot, when he was 4 he fell from his golden blanket onto his golden pillow. 

 

Were the blanket and pillow dry?

[SuperSpreader]

Just now, Jason said:

 

Were the blanket and pillow dry?

It was just like Iraq, Timmy is a war hero if you think about it

[Bloodporne]

I would totally move to a shittier neighborhood temporarily for a better SAT score. 

 

Just kidding, immigrants don't go to college. 

 

 

 

[Keyser_Soze]

Now they have ammo, "My mom got caught lying on my admissions paper saying I was black and a pole vaulter, this was a very challenging time in my life."

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

7 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

I'm all for abolishing standardized testing as a prerequisite for getting into college altogether. Average performance spread over the entirety of one's educational career seems like a better indicator for future performance and potential to succeed. I'd rather see something like the ASVAB introduced with scores dictating a list of vocational and non-vocational career paths that the student might be most likely to succeed in, with individually tailored post-highschool planning and counseling to help students optimize their lives instead of hamstringing themselves over a life altering test that can be easily gamed.

Funny enough, but a students high school GPA is the single best indicator of college success, even when accounting for the differences in schools.http://michiganfuture.org/09/2017/actually-predicts-college-success/

 

I know this isn't entirely your point, but tests are basically useless because they can be gamed as a one off.

[SuperSpreader]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Funny enough, but a students high school GPA is the single best indicator of college success, even when accounting for the differences in schools.http://michiganfuture.org/09/2017/actually-predicts-college-success/

 

I know this isn't entirely your point, but tests are basically useless because they can be gamed as a one off.

What about post college success?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

4 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

What about post college success?

Quote

Finally, in Paul Tough’s latest book, Helping Children Succeed, he describes a study by Northwestern economist C. Kirabo Jackson, in which Jackson, using data from all high school students in North Carolina, tried to figure out what high school characteristics predict college and life success. Jackson created a “noncognitive index” using student grades, attendance, and discipline records, and pitted that measure against test scores. As you might have guessed, Jackson found that the noncognitive index was a better predictor of college attendance and adult wages than was test scores.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

That depends on if you choose to go the route of a useful degree or if you just want to learn about how shitty white people are. 

I've found that a useful degree plus a minor in how/why white people are shitty is a good recipe for success. 

[SuperSpreader]

7 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

That depends on if you choose to go the route of a useful degree or if you just want to learn about how shitty white people are. 

 

 

 

But we have you for free 

[Chris-]

15 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

That depends on if you choose to go the route of a useful degree or if you just want to learn about how shitty white people are. 

 

 

Edit: college degrees are becoming increasingly useless outside of legacy corporations that pull top talent from prestigious universities or if you get to benefit from a healthy dose of nepotism. Hell, even military service has gone to the way side as far as considerations go when it comes to new hires. I'm at the point where I think it's more prudent that anyone not guaranteed a spot in a prestigious school would do better to devote themselves to a useful vocation.

 

 #notall

 

That's simply not true.

 

[legend]

Eeeh. I worry that this score will be poorly devised and distract admissions from actually looking at context, or even better yet, finding different mechanisms than the SATs entirely.

[Chris-]

12 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

 

What that chart fails to convey is the soul crushing debt that most students will face right out of college. Such debt can be absolutely detrimental to your wellbeing if you leave college without a career plan or good job already lined up. And once again, the kind of degree you're going for absolutely determines how difficult your life is going to be post graduation. You're going to be making jack and shit with a degree in post colonial studies whereas engineering majors are going to run laps around you right from the get go.

 

https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/

 

 

In this context it's only a problem if the increase in earnings don't outpace the debt; per the statistics in your link, the median and average student loan payments are smaller than the difference in median income between Bachelor's and no Bachelor's. 

 

And to your second point, even degrees in 'post colonial studies' lead to a larger earning potential:

 

[Jason]

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

25 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

In this context it's only a problem if the increase in earnings don't outpace the debt; per the statistics in your link, the median and average student loan payments are smaller than the difference in median income between Bachelor's and no Bachelor's. 

 

And to your second point, even degrees in 'post colonial studies' lead to a larger earning potential:

 

This might be the worst graph in the history of graphs, possibly ever. Where's the axis labels?!? What exactly am I looking at?

[Chris-]

36 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

This might be the worst graph in the history of graphs, possibly ever. Where's the axis labels?!? What exactly am I looking at?

 

Sorry, median lifetime earnings (millions).

 

49 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

Which is predicated upon having:

 

 

A solid career plan with attainable goals.

 

or

 

Benefitting from nepotism.

 

or

 

You get hand picked because of the prestige associated with your university of choice.

 

or

 

You simply didn't accrue debt because you were able to get the grants necessary to pay your way through college/enjoying military service benefits.

 

 

That certainly fits a good number of people, but not the overwhelming majority and it certainly doesn't include women and minorities who tend to suffer most from this kind of debt, hence my #notall. Some people will be fine, post college, with their debt being akin to nothing more than a 5-7 year car loan. For the rest, that spells a sentence to mom's basement and a part time job as a starbucks barista so that they can have some semblance of health benefits while they stagger from unpaid internship to unpaid internship or...gasp! Take on a vocation, unable to continue down their initially chosen career path because one simply doesn't exist for them due to their circumstances. Family issues, health issues, financial issues, etc. This is even more relevant today than it was 9 years ago as women and minorities outpace white men in college enrollment and often come from complex situations where they aren't starting from an ideal position. 

 

But please, continue being a cherry picking pedant over something I already agree with you on.

 

None of those assumptions are supported by the data. The simple fact is that on the aggregate, college is better than no college (regardless of what or where you study). And that isn't pedantic given that it directly addresses your assertions, i.e. that the value of college is in your specific major and/or your access to prestige and nepotism.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

6 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

Sorry, median lifetime earnings (millions).

 

 

None of those assumptions are supported by the data. The simple fact is that on the aggregate, college is better than no college (regardless of what or where you study). And that isn't pedantic given that it directly addresses your assertions, i.e. that the value of college is in your specific major and/or your access to prestige and nepotism.

Thanks. 

 

And to further back up your point (essentially: virtually any degree is better in the long term than no degree) is this:

 

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of-not-going-to-college/sdt-higher-education-02-11-2014-1-02/

[Chris-]

23 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

I said "That depends on if you choose to go the route of a useful degree or if you just want to learn about how shitty white people are."  *TROLLFACE*

 

This was a patently obvious joke poking fun at people who earn degrees that I find to be particularly useless in any classical sense of the term "useful". I figured the troll face would clue people in on it, but it obviously did not.

A joke you then went on to argue for in earnest, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make (especially since you literally just said it is based on what you believe).

 

23 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

I said "College degrees are becoming increasingly useless outside of legacy corporations that pull top talent from prestigious universities or if you get to benefit from a healthy dose of nepotism ."

 

Not a lick of this statement is untrue. Right off the bat, either during your college career or right after, you are more likely to be able to pursue work in your chosen field if you're scouted for your talent or you have friend/familial connections in your chosen field. To act like this isn't a thing or doesn't happen at all is to simply gloss over the very fact that this sort of corruption exists at all levels and people are benefitting from unearned enrollment in top universities as well as unearned job positions. As of 2014, something akin to 22% of men aged 30 and above held positions in the same company as their father.

 

I never said nepotism doesn't exist, I said it is not true that college degrees are becoming increasingly useless; the numbers prove that is not the case, and none of your rhetoric or links directly link the value of college to nepotism. The evidence you are providing does not back up your actual claim.

 

23 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

I said: "Hell, even military service has gone to the way side as far as considerations go when it comes to new hires."

 

As someone who served during and after 9/11, I can tell you, from personal experience that the "impressiveness" of having served your country in any capacity has drastically waned since 2001 and is borderline useless on a resume except in cases where you plan to work in law enforcement, a government agency or for a defense contractor. This is due to a combination of reasons, usually skill mismatch, misunderstanding military lingo (e.g. technical engineer (Mil) and civil engineer (Civ) are quite literally the same job, but your service won't count for shit in the civilian world, especially if you want to translate it into credits when going to an engineering school.), the stigma attached with being part of the military under Trump, etc. It certainly doesn't help that stop-loss is still a thing and affects every employee or student intern who has joined and is actively part of the Army National Guard (in order to go to college debt-free.)

 

I literally did not say a single thing about this.

 

23 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

I said: "I'm at the point where I think it's more prudent that anyone not guaranteed a spot in a prestigious  school  would  do better to devote themselves to a useful vocation."

  

Any reasonably intelligent person who realizes that their prospects in the job market are limited due to adverse circumstances (location, impoverished background, woman, minority, disability, etc.) who might have the opportunity to go to a local university would do better to seek vocational training instead of incurring a mountain of debt, especially if your circumstances are likely to prevent you from finishing a 4 year degree or mounting debt prevents you from completing that same degree in 6 years, forcing you to drop out. A 2 year degree in a useful vocation can, depending on the industry, net a person just as much gross income as certain Associates or Bachelor degree holders. You have the benefit of being in the workforce longer -starting earlier-, incurring far less debt (if any) and you'll have a useful skill under your belt that you can leverage for that are wages well above minimum wage.

 

Yes, vocational training is a better option for some people. It's also disingenuous to make sweeping generalizations like 'college isn't worth it if you don't go to a prestigious school', then argue for the exceptions (which don't actually disprove anything I've said) when they are shown to be generally false. It is true that the risk of dropping out is far too significant for some people; it is also true that if they navigate that risk and complete their studies, they will (generally speaking) be in a better position compared to the other outcomes. Again, this all goes back to your point - the perceived diminishing value of a college education - and how the data does not bare that out, not whether or not college is the right choice for any one person.

[Chris-]

24 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

Like I said before, I don't disagree with most of what you've stated. It was the very reason I placed #notall at the bottom of my initial diatribe. I understand the situation better than you think I do and your graph only served to quite literally prove my point. All of the top earning career paths in the source that you posted earlier are exactly what I consider to fall under "useful" degrees. All of the lowest earning degrees are in fields dominated by women and minorities who are disproportionately suffering from exactly what I'm talking about. High tuition costs, burgeoning debt and not enough income to offset the cost of living. And please, what good is $56K per year for a functionally useless degree (insert gender studies or queer theory nonsense) if you live in LA, SF, Houston or NYC, get a job as a social worker and your rent ends up being more than a third of your income among all of the other insane cost of living nonsense you have to deal with? People are increasingly moving South and Westward or towards big cities and the cost of living on top of college tuition debt has led to an increase in people staying home because they simply cannot cope with the demands of the real world. This issue is way more complex than my initial statement let on and you decided to miss the forest for the trees because you felt some pedantic need to correct something that I quite literally already agreed with you on, but did not obviously state.

 

You bemoan my lack of complexity, then rely on tropes like 'look at all these gender studies baristas and Patreon whores' instead of real proof like, oh I don't know, figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Brookings Institute. But by all means, keep saying that I'm the rube.

[Anathema-]

I'm not owned I'm not owned

[Jason]

2 hours ago, Anathema- said:

I'm not owned I'm not owned

 

y u gotta make this about slavery doe 

[Guest]

In the context of lifetime earnings, there are no useless degrees though...

[Guest]

That is irrelevant in an economy where having any college degree is a minimum requirement to a significant portion of jobs.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Man of Culture said:

 You should inform the millions who are barely scraping by, to the point that a single bed event will cost them catastrophic economic loss.  The type of the degree that you get absolutely matters as far as your long term employment and career prospects are concerned.   The only people who don't have to worry about that either benefit from nepotism or are entrepreneurials (like you or I) who manage to get lucky.

 

 

Even a “useless” degree gives you access to higher paying jobs than no degree even if you don’t get a job in the field of your degree. Thus, there are no useless degrees.

[Guest]

You keep comparing people with degrees to other people with degrees. Nobody would disagree that there are degrees that give better job prospects than others.

 

The issue here is comparing the job prospects of a person with no degree to a person with a “useless” degree. Who has access to better jobs, all else being equal?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

Even a “useless” degree gives you access to higher paying jobs than no degree even if you don’t get a job in the field of your degree. Thus, there are no useless degrees.

The woman who had my job before me was a political science major in college. My degree is in chemical engineering.

 

With the advent of computerized resume readers, even for small companies HR will specify for educational requirements that the applicant have a degree as one of the first things to look for at eliminating many of the hundreds of resumes that show up per job listing.

 

And I know it's holding my mom back from promotions that she doesn't have a degree. She had interviewed for a promotion and her lack of a degree was the stated reason for her not getting it.

[SaysWho?]

12 hours ago, sblfilms said:

You keep comparing people with degrees to other people with degrees. Nobody would disagree that there are degrees that give better job prospects than others.

 

The issue here is comparing the job prospects of a person with no degree to a person with a “useless” degree. Who has access to better jobs, all else being equal?

 

That happened to my brother. I'm the only college graduate in the family because he didn't want to do college; he did four classes in two semesters. He's smart and can understand difficult concepts,, but he just HATED school, so he never even got an Associate Degree.

 

He was really hating his job as a manager at a Publix despite making decent money. He went job-hunting, and many other jobs paid less. The ones that would provide him with room to grow and good pay were city/county jobs, all jobs that required at least an Associate Degree.

 

My mom and I warned him, and for years, I thought when this happened, I could tell him, "I told you so," and feel vindicated. But I ended up just feeling bad for him. Like, he's a good dad and became a handyman so he could have a great house for his kids, and I've seen him work hard to provide for them, so seeing it actually happen felt way different than I initially thought it would. Just getting the basest degree would have opened more doors.

[Guest]

This is so obvious both with basic logic (college graduates can get all the jobs of non-college graduates, but non-college graduates can’t get all the jobs of college graduates) and every bit of data we have on lifetime earnings based on type of degree vs. no degree that I think @Man of Cultureis fully in arguing just to argue mode.

 

Which I also understand  

[Chris-]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This is so obvious both with basic logic (college graduates can get all the jobs of non-college graduates, but non-college graduates can’t get all the jobs of college graduates) and every bit of data we have on lifetime earnings based on type of degree vs. no degree that I think @Man of Cultureis fully in arguing just to argue mode.

 

Which I also understand  

 

It's tough when your 'liberal arts grads pour my coffee' perception is shattered in the face of cold, hard data.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

31 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

It's tough when your 'liberal arts grads pour my coffee' perception is shattered in the face of cold, hard data.

"Facts don't care about your feelings" send pretty apt here