Adversity is not the new diversity
It's a simple principle, and one that escapes too many in the world of social justice and is now embedded in social justice academia. You cannot create equality and fairness from any point of inequality in principle or practice.
Affirmative action did not create equality. At a moment in time affirmative action was a flood into a system which jump-started many who achieved their success through hard work. In fact, what was needed was opportunity and at that time it did not exist in numbers for blacks. Now David Coleman, the CEO of the College Board - and a progenitor of Common Core - will institute an "adversity score" for SAT test-takers.
Coleman was on Fox News this past Friday and stated, "There's a general context in which to look at scores. If you look at a test score alone, but don't know she is 400 points higher than all of her peers, you might not see how exceptional her achievement was.
You might miss her resourcefulness. So only when you look at a score in context do you see that despite growing up in a more impoverished neighborhood with less resources, she's done so well."
The "adversity score" is to be used to indicate and devise some more pertinent information
from a test taker's socio-economic background. It is measured on a scale of 1 to 100. Under 50 indicates privilege and over 50 indicates socioeconomic hardship. The adversity score has 15 determining factors, including crime rate in the student's neighborhood and if the student was raised in a single-parent household.
As for transparency, it is missing with the adversity score because the students who are being evaluated will not get to see and if necessary, address inaccuracies.
Much of the adversity score data can be found in the college application. For example, financial information on the student aid application. During the application process, most if not all colleges and universities give the student a chance to make their case in essay form and in personal interviews.
Once again, an elite group will use data, some not necessarily related to the student, and help college admissions offices make decisions that we are supposed to trust. I can't see how that could possibly go wrong.
College Board CEO Coleman also says that we cannot sit on our hands and ignore the disparities of wealth reflected in the SAT, but we have to ask the question, where is wealth disparity identified in the SAT process? If you wish, you can take the SAT exam.
The cost to take the SAT is $47.50 for the basic exam and $64.50 for the SAT with essay. Even with other potential fees associated with taking the SAT it's still just a little bit over $100 in cost. There are many fee waivers available. If you need the practice, there are also free full-length practice tests.
The focus should be on improving the grades of high school students through effective education rather than an attempt to excuse the failure of the K-12 educational institutions by blaming circumstances. In many community colleges around the country, too often remedial courses are being taught because high school graduates are not capable.
The number of college graduates has also increased steadily since 1940 and now women outpace men. This is not up for debate. Much of this approach by Coleman is about maintaining the money train for higher education. We used to speak of building an educational foundation in America. Let's build it with a student starting at the kindergarten level. Patchwork education doesn't work. The adversity score is the opposite of true diversity in higher education.
Webb is host of "The David Webb Show" on SiriusXM Patriot 125, host of "Reality Check with David Webb" on Fox Nation, a Fox News contributor and a frequent television commentator. His column appears twice a month in The Hill.