aeh, I always learn so much from your replies. Thanks!
I don't want to downplay the value of clinical interpretation, though.
Just a quick clarification on the above. When I mentioned 1/4 - 1/2 an hour of adjudication time, I was assuming that was back-end case review by College Board after a full evaluation, of the sort you've described, was complete. As with all my little back-of-the-envelope calculations, it's an assumption that can change with more accurate info. Any errors therein are a result of my ignorance. In no way did I intend that comment to suggest the work of evaluators is reductive or mechanistic. Quite the contrary. The value lies in the nuance and judgment of the professionals.
It would be pretty straight-forward for College Board to include a box to check indicating that clinical interpretation of the file is critical, prompting a deeper-dive adjudication. Now, that feature might get over-used, but it would be a quick-and-dirty way to reduce sorting costs on their end. (They could even filter by embedding a metric of what % of files were flagged by a given institution, to account for over-advocacy.)
The only problem is that the scores are currently disability-blind (as they should be), so it would have to be something that students consent to after the admissions process is complete.
Agreed. With blockchain gating, you could have serial information releases, pending permission from the applicants built in at the time of the application.
