They will NOT be at a disadvantage for college; they will still be at an advantage, because of all the opportunities you have given them. They may be at a slightly smaller advantage than now; is that terrible?

Again, i think this is more like the inner city kid who gets a 700 on the SAT math section vs a privileged kid who gets an 800. They aren't letting in talent less hacks just cause they are poor.

> Take a break from your "I gotta get mine before anyone else gets any!" attitude

Can you please edit personal slights like that out of your comments to HN? They break the site guidelines and undermine your case.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I can’t agree with this sentiment of yours.

While I agree that people that had less than ideal childhoods should be given more opportunities to succeed, it shouldn’t be at the expense of those who worked their ass off for their kids, only to see their hard work taken away by government laws.

My own parents and grandparents came from shitty roots. Russia, concentration camp, Brazil, then to the US. My parents worked hard and I had better opportunities because of that.

What if government took that reward away from them? Well, surprise surprise, it did (just in another country in another era).

_you_ have a choice too: either to take the hand that’s dealt you and move forward, or complain about how others had it better because of their parents, or their own actions.

I’ve had a lot of ups and downs in my life due to circumstances as well as choices I made. I don’t blame other people for what happened to me (but I will blame government services being complete shit, especially towards veterans).

This isn’t a perfect world, so don’t complain what others get that you don’t have. Work towards making the world better instead, without destroying what others have worked hard for in the meantime.

You working for your kids doesn't mean your kids worked.

So I guess I didn't work either?

Did you even read the comment? Child of immigrant barely in middle class is not privilege.

Immigrant children are very privileged to have parents who managed to lift their asses and move to another country in search of a better life.

Parents who care is the single greatest privilege a child may get.

There are different dimensions to privilege. For example even the worst-off class born in the US still has some advantages from being a US citizen.

People who work hard deserve the fruits of their labor, regardless of their economic status. I have no problems with economically disadvantaged hard working people getting into great colleges, I have problems with equally hardworking people being disadvantaged because their parents are successful.

But the richer children are inherently privileged, yet you think providing privilege to poorer children is immoral. Why is one acceptable but the other is not?

Wouldn’t you agree that two people who achieve the same score on the test may not have worked equally hard? If someone scored the same as your child, except they didn’t have good security, good quality schools, parents that could help them, etc, I would say that they in fact worked much harder than your children.

And by the logic of “those who worked harder deserve it more”, well I think you see where this is going.

If anything this adversity score IS making things more fair because it’s providing light to the extra challenges someone might have had and thus who indeed worked harder at it.

We don’t know if they worked harder or not. It’s almost impossible to determine if the reason for any particular success is good teachers, hard work, or genetics.

If this score was unrealistically perfect and able to accurately account for every possible detail, maybe. If instead it just does a cheap job of assuming anyone with a certain set of data points is at a major disadvantage, nope.

The test claims to be measuring a students ability to learn in the first place, not just their current knowledge, so why not aim to make that more accurate instead of bypassing it?

So let me get this correct...

The subject area is the SAT, a test, which is imperfect like all tests, with research which indicates that it's actually problematic for such a diverse country like the USA. So a test like the SAT, which boils down to a single number. Yes that's the subject.

And now they're making the results 2 numbers. The test and some, well known summary of information about the student.

And THIS, THIS is the bridge too far?

Honestly, do you even hear yourself? What should a third party think about your words? Perhaps you could help me and provide a back story of how you've been in opposition to the SAT for a long time, and how this just reinforces a flawed test.

But nope, it sure does seem like you're focusing in on how this test might provide opportunities to black and brown people.

But I'm sure that's not that, because it's hackernews, and we are so polite to each other and reasonable.

So, tell me again why the SAT is good, but SAT + adversity score is bad?

Growing up in a zip code is not a challenge. This "adversity score" doesn't measure adversity.