I always believed that going to a poorly rated school was bad for a student's admissions chances as they likely weren't as well prepared and a high class rank was less impressive because the competition wasn't as stiff. Now that's being flipped?
I live in Texas and we already have automatic college admissions for the top 10% of students in their high school class to any public university in Texas (except for UT where it's top 6%). With this additional policy, going to a "good" high school isn't looking all that appealing. That in addition to lack of transparency with students in regard to their score as well as concerns for accuracy make this seem like a really bad idea.
My own particular circumstance is one in which my child's adversity level will be overestimated. We make double the median income of our census tract and are more educated. Our son will attend a lower rated (more poverty, worse scores) high school than the one he is zoned to because he's in a gifted magnet program that goes to that school along with regular students. The only thing it's going to score really well on is that they offer a lot of AP classes.
Why can't college admissions officers get a general idea of environment on their own? Why are the writers of the SAT getting involved in something that goes beyond their test? And have people forgotten that income is associated with intelligence? Not all of the score differences between wealthy and poor students are a result of privilege.
Last edited by Appleton; 05/20/19 12:15 AM.
