为何不支持,ACT的声明中已经很清楚了.大学的AO对此能做,并已经在做,有经验的考量,而作为考试中心应只负责客观化的数据

Specific Concerns 

Scores that affect students’ futures require transparency, validity and fairness. The algorithm and research behind this adversity score have not been published. It is basically a black box. Any composite score and any measurement in general requires transparency; students, teachers and admissions officers have the right to know. 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. 

The plan to report the adversity score only to the college is another example of not being transparent. If I were a student, I would become concerned or angry if the testing company would provide an adversity score to colleges without me knowing it, without me approving it, and without any of the end users understanding how this score is calculated.  

I understand when David Coleman says, “We can’t ignore the disparities of wealth reflected in the SAT.” But the test is not biased in itself, and the score is what it is, even though it is sometimes a messenger of what’s unequal in society, not in the student. The test should be the equalizer, but by providing an adversity score you invite its users to adjust scores with it, starting an equating practice that undermines the equalizing effect of the score scale and invites bad behavior. 

If parents, teachers and counselors know test scores will be re-equated for adversity, some will attempt to manipulate and game the system. That is easy: You can use an address of someone you know who is living in a poor neighborhood or report lower family income. 
 

所有跟帖： 

• 另外理由:分数的算法不透明,数据收集靠self report并不客观.分数连参考的学生自己都不知道 -soldanella- ♀ (0 bytes) () 05/19/2019 postreply 17:52:31

• 你客观的考试成绩出来,AO自然会加入其它因素进行考虑决定录取.AO不需要考试中心动他们的蛋糕 -soldanella- ♀ (0 bytes) () 05/19/2019 postreply 17:57:09