Connect with us

U.S.

College Board Drops Plans for SAT “Adversity Score” After Criticism

Published

on

  • The College Board is dropping its “adversity score,” which gave SAT test-takers a single score that captured their social and economic backgrounds.
  • Many were concerned about how the information was calculated and upset about the fact that students were unable to view their score.
  • The plan is now being replaced with a new system called Landscape, which still records factors about a student’s background but will not give a numerical score or keep the information from students.

What is an Adversity Score?

The College Board announced Tuesday that it is dropping its plan to give SAT test-takers an “adversity score” that measures a student’s socioeconomic hardship.

Prevous coverage on college admissions scandal.

The reversal comes after much backlash from university officials and parents, and amid scrutiny over the role wealth plays in the college acceptance process after the massive college admissions scandal exposed earlier this year. 

The original tool, called the “environmental context dashboard,” was announced in May and was intended to asses the kind of background a student came from based on about 15 different factors, including neighborhood crime rates, family income, what percentage of students receive free or reduced meals in a community, and more. 

All of those metrics were then used to create one score on a scale of 1 to 100 called an “adversity score,” with a score of 50 considered average, and numbers above 50 indicating more hardship.

Previous coverage

Considering a student’s socioeconomic background in this way was introduced as an effort to allow colleges to view a student’s SAT results in the context of the conditions of where that student lives and learns. Many viewed the plan as the College Board acknowledging the long-running criticism of using grades and tests alone in admissions, without considering unequal access to advanced coursework, high priced tutors and prep classes, or other advantages. 

The idea with this new plan was that if a student had overcome major economic challenges to earn their score, that information should be known by admissions officials. David Coleman, chief executive officer of the College Board, told CNN in May the score would better capture student’s “resourcefulness to overcome challenges and achieve more with less.”

Fifty colleges used the adversity score last year as part of a beta test. The College Board had planned to expand it to 150 institutions this fall, and then use it broadly the following year. The score did not take a student’s race into account, but during the pilot testing, data results showed that the tool boosted nonwhite enrollment. 

Many of the scores critics were concerned about how the information was calculated and were also uncomfortable with the fact that the score could not be viewed by students and families.

But now Coleman says that compiling all of that information down to just one number is problematic. 

New System

“The idea of a single score was confusing because it seemed that all of a sudden the College Board was trying to score adversity. That’s not the College Board’s mission,” Coleman said. “The College Board scores achievement, not adversity.”

Instead, the College Board says it has revised the tool, which has been renamed Landscape. This new system will still provide admissions officials with information about a student’s background. However, Colemen says these data points will not be given a score and they will be made available to students and families.

“Within a year, we’ll be able for every family and student, on their College Board account, to show them their neighborhood and school information transparently,” he said.

The College Board says it will record general data about a student’s high school, including locale, senior class size, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch, average SAT scores, and AP participation and performance. They will also provide colleges with data about a student’s neighborhood and school based on six key factors. Those factors are college attendance, household structure, median family income, housing stability, education levels, and crime rates. 

College officials will each be able to view that information, along with SAT scores, and perform their own analysis. “We’ll leave the interpretation to the admission’s officer,” Coleman said. “In other words, we’re leaving a lot more room for judgment.”

On its website’s FAQ section, the College Board says this new system, “simply helps admissions officers better understand the high schools and neighborhoods applicants come from. It does not help them understand an applicant’s individual circumstances—their personal stories, hardships, or home life.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, this is now the second time the College Board has walked back on efforts to collect information on a students’ social and economic backgrounds. It dropped a similar effort called Stivers 20 years ago amid pushback from colleges, though critics say the “adversity score” system relied on better research and did not include race.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The Wall Street Journal) (Fox News)


U.S.

How Safe Injections Sites in the U.S. Are Fighting Back Against The Opioid Crisis & Do They Work?

Published

on


America has been hit with a historical opioid crisis. In 2018, more than 31,000 people died from opioid overdoses, which is more than any previous year recorded in American history. Healthcare professionals and public health experts are offering alternatives to the status quo treatments, which leads us to today’s topic: supervised injection facilities (SIF). 

Also known as overdose prevention sites and medically supervised injection centers, SIF’s have been proposed as a solution to combat America’s opioid problem. In these centers, no drugs are supplied to the users—they bring their own and are given clean syringes to prevent bloodborne diseases. Advocates or these sites are saying that they would stop countless fatal overdoses because there would be medical staff on site. Countries like Switzerland, Canada, and Australia have implemented versions of these facilities and so far there has not been any reported fatal overdoses at a SIF in the world. 

While cities like Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, and Philadelphia have all proposed plans to make sites, they have been met with heavy opposition. The federal government opposed these sites because they claim it breaks federal laws and some residents in these cities are against them due to concerns over attracting more crime. In this video, we’ll be focusing on Philadelphia, as it might become the first U.S. city to legally open a supervised injection facility, along with the court case between the non-profit who is trying to establish the SIF and the federal government.

Continue Reading

U.S.

Elon Musk Defends Calling Rescue Diver “Pedo Guy” in Lawsuit

Published

on

  • In court documents, Elon Musk defended a tweet where he called a diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team from a cave a “pedo guy” because it “was a common insult used in South Africa.” 
  • The diver sued Musk for defamation last year after Musk sent an email to BuzzFeed where he referred to the diver as “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old.” 
  • The court documents from the suit, which were made public Monday, also revealed that Musk paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to look into the diver.
  • Musk also said he gave the statement to BuzzFeed based on information provided by the investigator, and because he was concerned the diver could be the next Jeffrey Epstein. 

Court Filings Made Public

Telsa CEO Elon Musk defended calling a rescue diver “pedo guy,” court documents revealed Monday.

Musk originally made the comment in July 2018, after Vernon Unsworth, a British diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team trapped in a cave last year, gave an interview to CNN where he had some choice things to say about Musk.

Notably, Unsworth said the submarine Musk had designed to rescue the soccer team would not work and that it was just a PR stunt.

Musk responded by calling Unsworth a “pedo guy” in a now-deleted tweet.

Source: Elon Musk

He also sent an email to BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac, in which he accused Unsworth of being a “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.”

Source: BuzzFeed

Musk said he thought the email was off the record, but BuzzFeed said they never agreed to that. In September 2018, Unsworth filed a defamation lawsuit against Musk in the Central District of California.

Court filings from the defamation suit against Musk were made public on Monday.

Musk Defends “Pedo Guy” Tweet

In those documents, Musk claimed that referring to Unsworth as “pedo guy” was not a direct accusation of pedophilia.

“‘Pedo guy’ was a common insult used in South Africa when I was growing up,” Musk wrote. “It is synonymous with ‘creepy old man’ and is used to insult a person’s appearance and demeanor, not accuse a person of acts of pedophilia.”

“I did not intend to accuse Mr. Unsworth of engaging in acts of pedophilia,” he continued. “In response to his insults in the CNN interview, I meant to insult him back by expressing my opinion that he seemed like a creepy old man.”

The fact that Musk is arguing he was expressing his opinion is important in this context because under the First Amendment, opinions are usually protected speech and not considered defamatory.

The documents also included Musk’s deposition, where he talks more in-depth about the “pedo guy” tweet.

In the deposition, Musk said he sent BuzzFeed the email because he was worried it could turn into a Jeffrey Epstein situation, referring to the wealthy financier who was accused of sexually assaulting dozens of young women, including many underage girls. 

“What if we have another Jeffrey Epstein on our hands?” he said. “And what if he uses whatever celebrity he gains from this cave rescue to shield his bad deeds? This would be terrible.”

Musk’s Epstein argument might become problematic. First of all, he made the statements to BuzzFeed before the new allegations surfaced, which some have argued proves he just is using current news to frame Unsworth in a certain way, and that he did not actually consider Epstein at all.

That argument is also furthered by the fact that it has been reported that Musk had attended several events with Epstein, all of which were after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl in 2008.

Musk even said he visited Epstein’s house “several years ago.” Epstein also told The New York Times he had advised Musk while Tesla was trying to go public in 2018, though Musk denies those claims.

Private Investigator

Notably, Musk also said in the filings that he paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to investigate Unsworth after receiving an unsolicited email from the PI in August 2018.

In the documents, Musk says that the investigator: “reported that Mr. Unsworth met and began a relationship with his alleged Thai wife when she around twelve years old.”

He also added that the investigator “reported that Mr. Unsworth associated with Europeans who engage in improper sexual conduct in Thailand,” and that he “learned that Mr. Unsworth frequented Pattaya Beach which is well known for prostitution and sex tourism, and that Mr. Unsworth was unpopular at the rescue site because other rescue workers thought that he was ‘creepy.’”

Musk goes on to say this was the basis for the comments he made in his email to BuzzFeed.

“I did not authorize Mr. Mac or BuzzFeed to publish the contents of the email nor did I intend or expect that they would,” he said. “Especially without first independently verifying and confirming its information.”

He later added that he gave the information to Mac “so that BuzzFeed could conduct its own investigation into Mr. Unsworth and corroborate the information.”

Musk’s lawyers even admitted in the court filings that the private investigator’s findings “lacked solid evidence of Mr. Unsworth’s behavior.” 

Following the release of the court documents, Unsworth’s lawyer gave a statement to BuzzFeed condemning the Musk’s defense.

“The motion filed by Elon Musk today is a disgusting and transparent effort to continue falsely smearing Vernon Unsworth without any credible or verified supporting evidence,” the lawyer said.

“Mr. Unsworth’s opposition to Musk’s motion will reveal the whole truth of Musk’s actions and the falsity of his public statements and his motion with respect to Mr. Unsworth will be exposed.”

See what others are saying: (BuzzFeed News) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Controversy, Racism, and Genius Kids?! How One Sperm Bank Changed Everything…

Published

on


The Repository for Germinal Choice is the most controversial sperm bank in U.S. history. While it was operational some people believed this bank was racist and they even compared the companies goals to Nazi eugenic practices. But even though this sperm bank was highly controversial, it also completely changed the sperm bank industry.

So check out our video for the full story on how this controversial sperm bank would go on to shape an entire industry.

Continue Reading