- The College Board announced it will start giving students who take the SAT “adversity scores” to measure social and economic factors.
- The score will be calculated using 15 factors that include the crime rates and poverty levels of a student’s neighborhood and high school.
- Students will not be informed what their adversity score is, but it will be sent to colleges.
- Many believe it could be a good alternative to affirmative action, which is being challenged in multiple active lawsuits.
The College Board will start assigning an “adversity score” to all students who take the SAT, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
The College Board, which oversees the SAT, argues that the new metric will attempt to look at several different factors in students’ social and economic background with the intention of leveling the playing field for students who are not given the same advantages as wealthier applicants.
According to the Journal, the score is calculated using 15 different factors to assess the students family, neighborhood, and high school environments. These factors include crime rates and poverty levels where the students live, as well as family income and educational differences.
The score is measured on a scale of one to 100 with an average adversity score of 50. The numbers above 50 represent those who are more disadvantaged, while the numbers below 50 represent those who are more privileged.
Unlike the SAT scores that students receive after taking the test, students will not be told what their adversity scores are, but colleges will review the scores when they look at the students’ applications. The College Board has not said how it will specifically calculate or weigh the various factors they are measuring.
Already, 50 different schools used the adversity score last year as part of a test. The College Board is planning to extend the program to 150 colleges this fall, and then expand to even more schools the next year.
Alternative to Affirmative Action
The College Board has said that it has been concerned about how income inequality influences standardizing test results for years.
According to the Journal, in 2018, white students scored an average of 117 points higher than black students and 133 points higher than Hispanic students on the SAT. Meanwhile, Asian students scored 100 points higher than white students and students whose parents were wealthy and college-educated outperformed other classmates.
“There are a number of amazing students who may have scored less [on the SAT] but have accomplished more,” David Coleman, the chief executive of the College Board told the publication. “We can’t sit on our hands and ignore the disparities of wealth reflected in the SAT.”
To address this, the College Board started developing the adversity score after colleges began asking for more objective data on students’ socio-economic backgrounds back in 2015.
This effort was also supported by a number of college admissions officers who have expressed concern about the potential of a Supreme Court ruling against race-based affirmative action being used as a factor in college admissions.
Recently, there have been multiple lawsuits and legal challenges to affirmative action and how colleges assess a students’ race in general.
A high-profile lawsuit that accused Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants by holding those students to a higher standard than students’ of other races is awaiting a court ruling.
Meanwhile, similar lawsuits have been filed against the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and the University of California system claiming that they give too much weight to race in their admissions processes.
The Trump administration has also launched multiple efforts to chip away at affirmative action. Last July, the Department of Education and the Justice Department reversed several Obama-era guidelines on how schools can weight race in admissions, a move that signaled the administration will favor race-blind admissions.
Just last month, the Department of Education announced that it will require the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center medical school to stop considering race in its admissions process.
While race is often connected to other social and economic factors, the adversity score is different from affirmative action because it only looks at those factors and does not look at race. If the Supreme Court were to rule against affirmative action, the adversity score would become very valuable for evaluating social factors.
People have already started reacting to the adversity score both positively and negatively.
Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale, which is one of the 50 schools involved in testing the adversity score, praised the system. “This [adversity score] is literally affecting every application we look at,” Quinlan said. “It has been a part of the success story to help diversify our freshman class.”
Quinlan also told the Journal that the adversity score is important because it is a more consistent way to compare social and economic factors.
On the other side, people like James Conroy, the director of college counseling at New Trier High School, which is in a wealthy and predominantly white area of North Chicago, argue that colleges already focus too much on diversity.
“My emails are inundated with admissions officers who want to talk to our diversity kids,” said Conroy. “Do I feel minority students have been discriminated against? Yes, I do. But I see the reversal of it happening right now.”
Still, others took Twitter to share their opinions. One user wondered how an adversity score could be created by “using only school-level and neighborhood-level data, not personal data.”
Some users called for the SAT and other standardized tests to be abolished altogether.
Lack of “evidence of more promising solutions” isn’t the litmus we shld use to endorse a fundamentally flawed measure that will do more harm than good. My vote: Abolish the #SAT. Until then, here’s evidence (alternative admissions practices) to consider: https://t.co/5jx4bM6MpH— T’Sey-Haye M. Preaster (@RISunshine) May 16, 2019
The adversity score is not the first diversity-enhancing program the College Board has developed. Back in 1999, the College Board created a similar program called Strivers after California and Washington voted to get rid of affirmative action in public education.
The Strivers program was intended to measure the challenges students’ faced by creating an expected SAT score based on socioeconomic factors. Those factors also included race, if schools chose to add it.
If a student scored 200 points higher than their predicted SAT score, they were considered a “Striver,” and because minorities often had predicted scores that were lower, more minorities were Strivers.
Connie Betterton, the Vice President for Higher Education Access and Strategy at the College Board, said that the new adversity score is much better than the Strivers program because it includes more research and does not include race-based criteria.
However, the question that still remains is whether or not the adversity score can overcome other hurdles posed by standardized testing.
The massive college admissions scandal uncovered by Operation Varsity Blues revealed that students have been cheating on the SAT and ACT for years. The Journal also reported that SAT and ACT exams have reported security breaches in the Middle East and Asia.
See what others are saying: (The Wall Street Journal) (Fox News) (CBS)
Doctors Arrested After Attempting to Give Migrants Free Flu Shots
- At least two doctors were arrested after laying down and protesting in front of the U.S Customs and Border Protection’s San Diego headquarters.
- Those doctors, along with others demonstrating on the sidelines, wanted to be allowed to give free flu vaccinations to migrants detained in a nearby short-term detention facility.
- CBP officials denied the request, saying it was against policy and arguing that migrants are only held in that facility for 72 hours, but the agency later promised to pass on the request to CBP’s chief medical officer.
Doctors Push Vaccine Program Request
After three days of protests, doctors wishing to give flu shots to detained migrants have found some success, even after at least two were arrested during demonstrations.
On Wednesday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials eased tensions after meeting briefly with protest leaders. In that meeting, officials told protesters that they would pass on a request to start a pilot program that would allow doctors to vaccinate detained migrants at a San Diego facility.
That request has now been forwarded to CBP’s chief medical officer, with officials telling the doctors to expect a follow-up call later this week.
The concession comes after an event Monday, where around 20 medical doctors walked up to a short-term migrant detention center in San Diego. Reportedly, those doctors carried coolers full of vaccines and were hoping to inoculate at least 100 individuals in the facility; however, they said they would vaccinate all willing migrants.
At the center, they were told to come back the following day to meet with border officials. When they reportedly again asked to be allowed to vaccinate migrants on Tuesday, CBP told them no.
“This is intentional cruelty,” Marie DeLuca, an emergency medicine research fellow, said. “People are needlessly suffering and dying. You can’t lock people up in inhumane conditions, watch them get sick, and then refuse them access to medical care.”
After being denied, they began to demonstrate outside of the Border Patrol headquarters. Six people then laid in front of the headquarters’ driveway, with others on the sidelines chanting: “Shame on you!”
Federal Protective Service officers gave those people a six-minute warning to get up, but they were eventually arrested when they refused. That group reportedly included at least two doctors.
Those people were soon released after being given a notice to appear in federal court and a citation “for failure to comply with the lawful directions of a federal police officer.”
California Border Patrol Says Vaccinations Don’t Align With Standing Policy
Later that day, the Department of Health and Human Services Press Secretary tweeted, “Of course Border Patrol isn’t going to let a random group of radical political activists show up and start injecting people with drugs.”
The CBP also told multiple news outlets that it has never vaccinated migrants in its custody because most migrants will either be released or transferred to a different federal agency within 72 hours of being detained. Because of that, a spokesperson said that “operating a vaccine program is not feasible.”
However, short-term detention centers are becoming increasingly congested, and many are struggling to push migrants through that three-day window. Border Patrol has even admitted to holding hundreds of children way past that date. Currently, the average wait time is about six days, twice the legal wait time.
Additionally, that spokesperson noted that long-term detention centers run by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security do vaccinate migrants.
“We would encourage those who wish to volunteer medical services to go to shelters and NGO facilities, both in the U.S. and in Mexico, to donate their time and services,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
Although it has refused to offer flu shots, the CBP did say it followed a CDC recommendation to hire more nurses and physicians assistants, including increasing its staff from about 20 a year ago to 250 as of now.
Wednesday morning, Senator Kamala Harris tweeted about the incident, saying, “It makes no sense to deny flu vaccines to immigrant children in U.S. custody.”
The American Civil Liberties Union also responded to the tweet from the DHS Press Secretary later than evening.
“When our government refers to doctors as “radical political activists” and flu vaccines as “drugs,” it becomes clear how far we’ve slipped from the realm of reality.,” it said.
Migrant Children Are Dying of Flu at Higher Rates
Doctors for Closed Camps said it decided it wanted to distribute vaccines following a recent wave of migrant children dying from the flu either while in government custody or soon after their release. In August, it was reported that six migrant children had died, with three of those children dying from the flu.
In a letter penned by doctors with Harvard and Johns Hopkins, those doctors said, “Influenza deaths are fairly rare events for children living in the United States.”
“While comparisons are difficult for many reasons, this rate of death from influenza appears to be substantially less than the rate in detention facilities,” they added.
Last week, ProPublica obtained and published footage of the final moments of one of those children, 16-year-old Carlos Hernandez Vasquez.
In the video, Vasquez can be seen collapsing in his cell. According to Propublica, no guards ever came to check on them. Later, Vaquez gets up and goes to the bathroom, but again, he collapses.
According to the report, this is the last time he was ever seen moving. The video then goes blank for a few hours, with guards reportedly conducting three wellness checks in that time.
When the video starts again, Vasquez is in the same position. A cellmate later woke up to find Vasquez laying in the bathroom. He then called for a Border Patrol agent, who found that Vasquez did not have a pulse.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The San Diego Union-Tribune) (Fox 5 San Diego)
Trump Slammed Over Latest Tweet About Greta Thunberg
- After 16-year-old Greta Thunberg was named Time’s Person of the Year, President Donald Trump posted a tweet saying the teen must “work on her anger management problem.”
- Many criticized Trump for mocking Thunberg just a week after his wife slammed a law professor for using their teenage son’s name as a punchline.
- Others have instead pointed to his own temperament as a point of hypocrisy.
“Chill Greta, Chill“
President Donald Trump posted another controversial tweet about climate crisis activist Greta Thunberg on Thursday, prompting a new wave of backlash and accusations of hypocrisy.
On Wednesday, Thunberg was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year after earning international attention for calling on leaders to combat the climate crisis.
“So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!” Trump wrote early Thursday in response to a tweet congratulating the teen for the recent honor.
Following the President’s tweet, Thunberg updated her Twitter bio to describe herself as: “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”
This is now the second time the president has shared this type of message about Thunberg online. Following her infamous remarks at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in September, Trump tweeted a seemingly sarcastic message that read, “She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”
At the time, Thunberg also changed her Twitter bio to include the president’s comments.
Trump Faces Accusations of Hypocrisy
However, this time around, Trump’s tweet has received even more criticism considering his wife’s recent stand against the treatment of her minor son.
Just last week, First Lady Melania Trump slammed Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan for dropping a joke during her impeachment hearing testimony that included the name of 13-year-old Barron Trump.
“The constitution says there can be no titles of nobility,” Karlan said. “So while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”
The FLOTUS quickly took to Twitter to condemn Karlan for the remark, writing, “A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.”
Karlan apologized for her joke later that day, but many people came to her defense arguing that Melania Trump has remained largely silent about her husband’s treatment of minors, including Thunberg and migrant children at the border.
Many of those same critics also pointed out that Trump’s aggressive rhetoric goes against the first lady’s Be Best initiative which focuses on the well-being of youth and advocates against cyberbullying.
So after Trump’s latest tweet about the young activist, many took to Twitter to point at what they considered another example of hypocrisy. Some also hit back at Trump’s “anger management” comment by criticizing his own temperament.
Speaking of Anger Management problem…— Pry My Happy Holidays from My Cold web rant🍑🌿❄️❄ (@web_rant) December 12, 2019
Always. Be. Projecting. pic.twitter.com/uQbhB3eiNa
Fortunately Trump is a very, very stable genius, without any, any, any… anger management problem… 🤣😂🥳 pic.twitter.com/gPbl5EM6WC— Mathias Flammang (@matflamm) December 12, 2019
The tweet sparks so much discussion that #BeBest became the No. 1 trending Twitter topic worldwide.
See what others are saying: (The Guardian) (The New York Times) (Newsweek)
Youth Pastor Who Smacked Reporter’s Butt on Live TV Speaks Out
- The runner who was caught on camera smacking a reporter’s behind during live coverage of a race has been identified as Tommy Callaway, a youth pastor and Boy Scout leader.
- In an interview with Inside Edition, Callaway said he made a “misjudge in character” and says he was not aware of where exactly he had “touched” the reporter, Alex Bozarjian.
- Bozarjian has condemned his behavior and filed a police report, meanwhile, local race officials banned him from future races.
Smack Video Goes Viral
A runner who smacked a Georgia reporter’s behind during a live news segment spoke out on Tuesday in his first television appearance since the viral incident.
The smack happened Saturday when WSAV-TV reporter Alex Bozarjian was covering the annual Savannah Bridge Run. Several participants waved at the camera as they ran by during her segment, but one man decided to smack Bozarjian on her backside before sprinting away.
Bozarjian was visibly shocked by what happened as she tried to get back to her live report.
A Twitter user shared a clip of the incident that quickly went viral. Bozarjian eventually shared that post with her own statement, writing, “To the man who smacked my butt on live TV this morning: You violated, objectified, and embarrassed me. No woman should EVER have to put up with this at work or anywhere!! Do better.”
The incident sparked outrage from Twitter users who were disgusted by the behavior and received notable attention from fellow reporters.
Race officials were also quick to condemn the runner’s behaviors. The director of the Savannah Sports Council, Robert Wells, told Bozarjian the incident was “100% unacceptable” and said the organization would identify the man.
Alex, what happened today is 100% unacceptable. You have my assurance we will identify him.— Robert Wells (@RobWells1) December 7, 2019
The following day, the organization announced that it had banned the runner from registering for all of its future races.
News outlets and social media users later identified the runner as Tommy Callaway, a 43-year-old married father of two who is both a youth minister and boy scout leader, according to his Facebook and Linkedin profiles.
Callaway’s lawyer, Joseph Turner, released a statement on his behalf to WTOC Monday, saying his client is a “loving husband and father who is very active in his community.” He added that Callaway was “working with those involved to correct the situation.”
“While we regret the situation, Mr. Callaway did not act with any criminal intentions,” Turner said.
Callaway’s TV Appearance
That same day, Callaway appeared on Inside Edition to further explain what happened. “I was getting ready to bring my hands up and wave to the camera, to the audience, and there was a misjudge in character and decision-making. I touched her back. I did not know exactly where I touched her,” he said.
Callaway added that he took the reporter’s words to heart. “I totally agree 100 percent with her statement and the two most important words were her last two words, ‘Do better,’ and that’s my intention.”
“I did not see her facial reaction as I just kept on running. If I did see her facial reaction, I would have felt embarrassed and ashamed and stopped and turned around to apologize to her.”