The College Board鈥檚 plan to expand a program that鈥檚 designed to help colleges see students鈥� SAT performance more fairly, by scoring students鈥� high schools and neighborhoods by 鈥渓evel of disadvantage,鈥� has rattled college counselors and reignited decades-old debates about how college admission decisions are made.
As soon as news broke last week that 150 colleges and universities would pilot the testing organization鈥檚 鈥�Environmental Context Dashboard鈥� next fall鈥攖hree times the number that used it in 2018-19鈥攃ounselors were juggling phone calls from parents and jumping into debates on Twitter and Facebook.
The conversations took on an added charge since they come at a time when parents and counselors are particularly on edge about fairness in admissions. Persistent underrepresentation of black, Latino, and low-income students on elite campuses, a trial that showcased preferences for the children of alumni and big donors in Harvard鈥檚 admission policies, and a spectacular college-admissions bribery prosecution have all turned up the volume on the debate.
Some counselors had supportive words for the College Board鈥檚 program, which scores students鈥� high schools鈥� and neighborhoods鈥� 鈥渓evel of disadvantage鈥� on a scale from 1-100. But criticism and skepticism far outweighed applause.
鈥淚f they are admitting that we need this adversity score, and that they are only rolling it out to 150 colleges next year, then why are we still using this test?鈥� Stacey Cunitz, the director of college counseling at the Crefeld School, a private school for grades 7-12 in Philadelphia, said on a listserv for college counselors.
She, and many others, worried that wealthier parents will try to outsmart the system.
鈥淎re we now going to have rich parents buying houses in poor zip codes so their kids can get a higher adversity score?鈥� she said in an interview.
Cristiana Quinn, who founded College Admission Advisors in Providence, R.I., which provides college counseling for students and families, wondered whether the new dashboard would encourage better-off students to choose the ACT. That company鈥檚 CEO, Marten Roorda, wrote Friday afternoon that the ACT would not follow suit with a similar system.
鈥淚f the SAT is going to start identifying students on level of adversity, or grit, or what-have-you, and ACT is not, does that mean the ACT is going to become a better test for more affluent students to take so they鈥檙e not identified as low adversity?鈥� she said.
The 鈥渓evel of panic,鈥� as one college admissions official called it, was so high on social media that the College Board scrambled to issue a 鈥渨hat you need to know鈥� document about the dashboard.
Resourcefulness and Other Student Qualities
The 鈥渄isadvantage level鈥� scores are part of a project the College Board began developing in 2015 at the request of colleges. The resulting dashboard presents admissions officers with information about students鈥� neighborhoods and high schools, such as the poverty level and the availability of challenging coursework, to help them see students鈥� SAT scores 鈥渋n context鈥� of where they live and go to school.
Admissions officials can evaluate ACT performance with the tool also, because the College Board built ACT score equivalents into its system. Those kinds of conversions, known as concordances, are widely criticized as inaccurate, however.
College Board CEO David Coleman said the project is meant to encourage colleges to recognize student qualities that the SAT can鈥檛 capture, such as resourcefulness. Essays, letters of recommendation, and the 鈥減rofiles鈥� most high schools post sometimes capture the challenges and circumstances students face, he said, but in many cases, colleges must dig to find those things out, or simply do without that information. Without a tool like the dashboard, he said, 鈥渢he SAT could be misleading.鈥�
鈥淭o warrant that the playing field is now level isn鈥檛 right or just,鈥� Coleman said. 鈥淚n the America we live in 鈥� the vast majority of students are working with a lot less than the top third. To then say that the SAT is enough to reflect what you can do, no, it isn鈥檛.鈥�
College-admissions representatives who鈥檝e been piloting the dashboard said they鈥檝e found it useful. Scott Verzyl, the dean of admissions at the University of South Carolina, said that in each of the two years the institution has been using it, his team has admitted about 125 students 鈥渨e probably would not have considered otherwise鈥� into its entering freshman classes of about 6,000.
鈥淚t helps us find students from underrepresented high schools, first-generation and low-income students, and students who鈥檝e done well achieving academically despite being in an environment that鈥檚 stacked against them in some ways,鈥� Verzyl said.
Joy St. John, the director of admissions at Wellesley College, said the dashboard has helped her team get a more detailed picture of applicants coming from regions of the country that don鈥檛 typically send many students to the Massachusetts school. Knowing, for instance, that an Oklahoma student lives in a remote rural community helps an admissions officer see how she could bring a potentially enriching perspective to campus, St. John said.
鈥淪ometimes students don鈥檛 know what鈥檚 most unique about them,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t might be something really special and would inform their academic work, and their interactions in the classroom and on our campus. It鈥檚 another form of diversity we want to be able to consider.鈥�
The dashboard is based in part on research by Michael N. Bastedo, a University of Michigan scholar who focuses on college access. He has found that low-income students are more likely to be admitted to college when admissions officers review 鈥渃ontextual鈥� information about their circumstances.
But the College Board鈥檚 program caused enough uproar last week that Bastedo himself took to Twitter, posting a long stream of tweets to clarify what the program does and doesn鈥檛 do.
鈥淚t鈥檚 not just one adversity score,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淭he [dashboard] is not a panacea. Applicants will have other stressors and adversities in their lives (disabilities, death of parent, many things) that have to come through the rest of the application. That鈥檚 holistic review. This [new tool] is only trying to improve one part.鈥�
鈥楽triver鈥檚鈥� Tool Scrapped
This isn鈥檛 the first time the College Board has considered using socioeconomic and other data to round out the perceptions of students鈥� SAT scores. In 1999, the Educational Testing Service, which designs the SAT questions, created a 鈥渟triver鈥檚鈥� tool that would have identified students who scored higher than expected based on racial, socioeconomic, and other data. Race, class, and parental education have long influenced students鈥� SAT scores, causing widespread mistrust of what those scores reflect.
The striver鈥檚 program emerged from worry that the U.S. Supreme Court might ban affirmative action. Several states had already done so. But colleges 鈥渇reaked out鈥� about the news, and the College Board shut down the program, said Anthony Carnevale, who led the striver鈥檚 project for ETS 20 years ago.
The reaction to the College Board鈥檚 new dashboard drew comments online that showed its power to reignite old affirmation-action debates. A woman who identified herself as Carol Ambrose9 posted on Twitter: 鈥渄o U want a person who got into school because of a high #adversity score performing surgery or making life & death decisions 4 U or do U want someone who actually has the ability and intelligence 2 get into school. Really just #affirmativeaction renamed.鈥� She ended her post with 鈥渧ote @realDonaldTrump.鈥�
Others who jumped into arguments on social media sounded resigned and grudgingly supportive of the new 鈥渓evel of disadvantage鈥� scores. 鈥淚f they鈥檙e going to continue to push testing as a factor in the admissions process, then they might as well give us more data to put those numbers into context,鈥� said one participant in a private Facebook group for college counselors.
Others were suspicious of the College Board鈥檚 motives for building the new tool, at a time when the list of colleges that now make the SAT or ACT optional has grown to more than 1,200. Could the new tool be a bid to stop more from jumping ship?
David Quinn, an International Baccalaureate coordinator in Lynnwood, Wash., got this text from a colleague: 鈥淸College Board President] Coleman is gonna hand out shirts at [the next counselors鈥� conference] that say: The College Board! We鈥檙e Still Relevant!鈥�
Many counselors felt caught in a bind. They knew they鈥檇 have to explain to parents how the additional score might affect their children, and they didn鈥檛 have enough information yet. Some posted notes to colleagues on social media, asking if anyone knew which 150 colleges would pilot the system next year because parents were already asking.
Legal Battles Looming?
Jill Madenberg, the founder of Madenberg College Consulting, in Lake Success, N.Y., said that she got a call from one parent of a 9th grader and a 7th grader.
鈥淪he was questioning the SAT versus the ACT in light of this,鈥� Madenberg said. 鈥淚 told her it鈥檚 way too early to make that call.鈥�
Joseph Miller, the associate director of college counseling at St. Agnes Academy, a Roman Catholic high school for girls in Houston, was troubled that colleges would substitute an electronic tool for a 鈥渘uanced, personal鈥� inquiry into applicants鈥� lives and circumstances.
鈥淚f I鈥檓 a university, I should take the opportunity to find out, 鈥極h, this is a school in rural Alabama, where we don鈥檛 get many applicants. Let鈥檚 find out more.鈥� That onus is on the institution, and on us, as college counselors. That鈥檚 what we do. We make colleges aware of our students and where they come from,鈥� Miller said.
Veteran counselors predicted a period of confusion and anxiety in the shortage of information about the College Board鈥檚 new system.
鈥淐ounselors will be asking, how will this child be measured? And at least initially, they won鈥檛 have much clarity,鈥� said Scott Griggs, who worked as a college counselor and principal in private schools before assuming leadership of the Independent Schools Association of the Southwest, which accredits private schools. 鈥淚t will add a layer of confusion to an already complicated process.鈥�
Many who reacted to the College Board鈥檚 new plan were uneasy that students and counselors wouldn鈥檛 get to see the 鈥渄isadvantage scores,鈥� learn how the factors in it are weighted, or check their accuracy.
鈥淚f school counselors and students are not told the score, what happens when it is inaccurate in some way? Who is checking?鈥� Cunitz said.
Some saw legal battles looming. Jon Boeckenstedt, the associate vice president for enrollment management at DePaul University in Chicago, and an outspoken critic of admissions testing, posted on Twitter that students won鈥檛 see their disadvantage scores 鈥淸u]ntil the parents of some rich, white boy at a New England prep school sues, claiming the Adversity Index unfairly penalizes the boy for being rich and white and from a New England prep school.鈥�
